[Senate Hearing 110-195]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 110-195
ENERGY EFFICIENCY LIGHTING
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
TO
RECEIVE TESTIMONY ON THE STATUS OF ENERGY EFFICIENT LIGHTING
TECHNOLOGIES AND ON S. 2017, THE ENERGY EFFICIENT LIGHTING FOR A
BRIGHTER TOMORROW ACT
__________
SEPTEMBER 12, 2007
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
39-385 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 2007
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866)512-1800
DC area (202)512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail Stop SSOP,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico, Chairman
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho
RON WYDEN, Oregon LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana JIM DeMINT, South Carolina
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington BOB CORKER, Tennessee
KEN SALAZAR, Colorado JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont JIM BUNNING, Kentucky
JON TESTER, Montana MEL MARTINEZ, Florida
Robert M. Simon, Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Chief Counsel
Frank Macchiarola, Republican Staff Director
Judith K. Pensabene, Republican Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
Page
Bingaman, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator From New Mexico................ 1
California Energy Commission..................................... 58
Domenici, Hon. Pete V., U.S. Senator From New Mexico............. 6
Harman, Hon. Jane, U.S. Representative From California........... 3
Karsner, Alexander, Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Department of Energy......................... 9
Nadel, Steven, Executive Director, American Council for an Energy
Efficient Economy.............................................. 40
Pitsor, Kyle, Vice President, National Electrical Manufacturers
Association, Rosslyn, VA....................................... 36
Salazar, Hon. Ken, U.S. Senator From Colorado.................... 2
Sanders, Hon. Bernard, U.S. Senator From Vermont................. 2
Upton, Hon. Fred, U.S. Representative From Michigan.............. 7
Waide, Paul, Senior Policy Analyst, Energy Efficiency and
Environmental Division International Energy Agency, Paris,
France......................................................... 23
APPENDIX
Responses to additional questions................................ 59
ENERGY EFFICIENCY LIGHTING
----------
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 2007
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:32 a.m. in
room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Jeff
Bingaman, chairman, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF BINGAMAN, U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW
MEXICO
The Chairman. Let's go ahead and start the hearing. I
apologize to everybody for the lateness of our beginning time.
The Senate was having votes. I understand Senator Domenici and
Senator Murkowski are on their way, but in order to expedite
things, let me very briefly give a statement, and then call on
our two Members of Congress to make their statements. They
represent our first panel today.
This is a hearing to take testimony of S. 2017, the Energy
Efficient Lighting for a Brighter Tomorrow Act, and to review
the status of emerging energy efficiency lighting technologies.
S. 2017 establishes a process to begin the transformation
of the U.S. lighting market by phasing out inefficient
incandescent lamps and replacing them with more efficient
technologies. In June, the Senate passed an energy bill. We
included in there a sense of the Senate, Section 214, that
said, ``a provision that the Senate should pass a set of
mandatory technology-neutral standards to establish energy
efficient performance targets for lighting products, ensuring
that the standards become effective within the next 10 years,
ensure that replacement lamps will provide consumers with the
same quantity of light, while using significantly less energy,
ensuring that consumers will continue to have multiple product
choice, and work on measures than can assist consumers and
businesses in making the transition to more efficient
lighting.''
S. 2017 was introduced last week with Senator Stevens,
Carper, Snowe, Landrieu, and myself. It's intended to meet the
requirements of that sense of the Senate provision. It was
developed with the active participation of energy efficiency
advocates and lighting manufactures. The House energy bill, S.
3221, includes a lighting provision with similar goals. These
are complex provisions and I believe the witnesses are well-
equipped to talk to us about some of the details of them.
This morning, we will first hear from Representative Jane
Harman and from Representative Fred Upton, who are the authors
of the House provision. Following the House members, Assistant
Secretary Karsner will provide the Administration's view on the
legislation and the status of the new energy efficient lighting
technologies.
Finally we'll hear from a panel of experts on lighting
efficiency. I'm very pleased that Dr. Paul Waide is able to
join us from the IEA in Paris. He is the resident expert on
lighting for the OECD and he can place our efforts within the
global context. Kyle Pitsor of NEMA, will represent the views
of the U.S. lighting manufacturers. Steve Nadel of ACEEE will
testify on behalf of several energy efficiency advocacy groups.
[The prepared statement of Senator Salazar follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Ken Salazar, U.S. Senator From Colorado
Thank you Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Domenici for holding
today's hearing on S. 2107, the Energy Efficient Lighting for a
Brighter Tomorrow Act. I want to thank Chairman Bingaman for the work
he and his staff did to introduce S. 2107. I also want to thank our
witnesses for their time today, and our international expert who
traveled so far to be with us.
The lighting we use in our homes today has changed little since the
early 1900s. Most residential lighting is from inefficient incandescent
light bulbs. It is estimated there are over 3 billion incandescent
light bulbs in use in homes across our country today, and almost a
billion incandescent light bulbs used in businesses. Incandescent light
bulbs are energy inefficient because only about 10% of the power used
by an incandescent light bulb goes to producing light, and the
remaining 90% of the power is given off as heat.
Improved lighting technology exists today that allows us to get the
same amount of light using far less energy. By simply switching to a
more energy-efficient compact fluorescent light bulb, we can use almost
75 percent less energy, and the light bulb will last ten times longer
than the traditional incandescent light bulb.
Energy efficiency is the quickest, cheapest, and cleanest way to
extend our country's energy supplies. To date, most of our country's
efforts to encourage people to switch to more energy efficient lighting
have been through voluntary programs like the Change a Light, Change
the World campaign lead by the Environmental Protection Agency.
However, we can and must do more to speed the transition to more
energy-efficient lighting technology. Based on Department of Energy
data, 765 billion kWh of energy is used annually in the U.S. by
lighting systems. Approximately 30% of the energy consumed in an office
building is from lighting use, and 5-10% of residential energy use is
for lighting. It is estimated that consumers and businesses spend
approximately $58 billion annually for lighting. Far too much energy is
consumed today for lighting, especially in light of the fact that much
more energy-efficient lighting exists today.
While we do have the know-how to transition to more efficient
lighting, there will be challenges for industry. I look forward to
hearing from our witnesses today to learn how we can best make this
transition to more efficient lighting.
Changing the world does start with simple actions. I want to thank
again Chairman Bingaman and Ranking Member Domenici for holding today's
hearing on this important bill to change the way our nation lights its
homes and businesses.
[The prepared statement of Senator Sanders follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Bernard Sanders, U.S. Senator From Vermont
Chairman Bingaman, Ranking Member Domenici, efficiency is the
lowest of the low-hanging fruit. Vermont is a leader in energy
efficiency and is the only state with its own Efficiency Utility, but
my state and our country still need to do more.
I believe that we must be bold and aggressive in making every
aspect of our country more efficient in its energy use and not just
take baby steps. That's why I am glad that we are having a hearing on
S. 2017 today--this bill is historic and is huge. It will reduce energy
use, energy costs and pollution more than all the Federal appliance
standards issued in the 20th century. Why do we, the technology leaders
of the world, have to be led into the future by other countries, like
Australia, Canada, Europe, and even Cuba? We should have done this long
ago, but it is not too late to join these nations in leading the rest
of the world.
Chairman Bingaman, I salute you for your role in brokering the
agreement between the interested parties and I also salute those
parties for working together to help fashion this legislation. However,
as I understand it, there are some aspects of the House bill that we
should consider including over here. On the issue of preemption of
prior states standards, as Representatives Harman pointed out, the
House was able to achieve a compromise on eliminating grandfathering of
California and Nevada's standards because the standards are aggressive,
at levels that California and Nevada could embrace. Our House
colleagues exhorted us to stand firm on aggressive standards so that we
can realize the energy and environmental improvements that this effort
is designed to achieve.
I am also concerned about the issue raised by one of the witnesses,
Mr. Nadel from the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy,
that issue being loopholes. If my understanding is correct that
lighting manufacturers have avoided efficiency standards through design
tricks, we must make sure that this does not happen again. If we allow
such tricks in the future, we will undermine the good work of the
responsible companies who are leading the way on efficiency. Therefore,
I believe that all bulbs should be covered, with limited exceptions.
The hearing was an excellent opportunity to learn more about this
very important topic and I hope that the lessons learned will be
incorporated into energy legislation pending in Congress.
Let me just, with that, call on Congresswoman Harman and
Congressman Upton to describe what their efforts have been in
the House bill and any views they have on what the Senate bill
provides.
Representative Harman, go right ahead.
STATEMENT OF HON. JANE HARMAN, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM
CALIFORNIA
Ms. Harman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's a rare
opportunity to be invited to come over to the Senate and
testify on behalf of legislation that is very similar to House
legislation and I appreciate the invitation. I know my partner
in all things light bulbs, Representative Upton appreciates it
as well. Hopefully we can shed some light, not just some heat,
on this subject.
As you said, lighting efficiency is a complicated and
esoteric field. I'm not sure I've mastered all of its
intricacies, but I am now fairly up to speed on the deals we
struck in our bill, which we did get out of the House Commerce
Committee on a bipartisan basis and which was part of the
bipartisan legislation that the House passed before we recessed
for August.
There is a point of view that the House hasn't done much in
the last year. I might agree with that point of view, but the
energy legislation that we passed, I would say, is very strong.
I do appreciate the fact that you are introducing legislation
that substantially mirrors the light bulb provisions in our
bill. I think that that will be very helpful to the effort to
get them enacted into law.
Congressman Upton and I have lived and breathed lighting
issues for a while now. Our spouses complain that we've started
to glow in the dark. But we are the co-authors, along with
Representatives Hastert and Wynn, a bipartisan duo, of the
amendment to the House Energy Bill, that sets out new
efficiency standards for light bulbs. We also worked with
Representatives Lipinski and English, again, on a bipartisan
basis, to add a provision to every Appropriations bill that
passed the House, requiring the Federal Government to purchase
more energy efficient light bulbs.
There is a reason that this issue has become so important.
Most Americans, as you pointed out, still use essentially the
same incandescent light bulbs invented by Thomas Edison more
than 120 years ago. These bulbs are famously inefficient, only
10 percent of the energy that they generate becomes light. The
remaining 90 percent is wasted as heat. I would observe that
that sounds like Congress.
But lighting technology has changed. There are alternatives
on the market now that are far more energy efficient. I see
some of them right next to me at this table. There are
alternatives right around the corner, such as advanced halogen
bulbs and light emitting diodes, so called LEDs, that will
fundamentally change the way we light our homes and businesses.
The energy that could be gained by switching to these more
efficient alternatives is staggering. The energy that could be
saved is staggering. The Lighting Efficiency Advocacy Group,
18seconds.org, estimates that if every American swapped just
one incandescent bulb, which takes approximately 18 seconds,
for a compact fluorescent, we would save more than $8 billion
in energy costs, prevent burning 30 billion pounds of coal, and
prevent 2 million cars-worth of greenhouse gas emissions from
entering our atmosphere. These potential savings served as the
inspiration for our legislative efforts. As I mentioned, these
efforts were bipartisan, something again, rare in Congress
these years.
Our amendment also was the result of months of negotiations
with the lighting industry and environmental groups. I know
that the lighting industry is here and they will testify, but
they were part of a dramatic, 11th-hour, negotiating session on
the morning of our full committee mark-up. The resulting
amendment was supported, both by the industry and the
environmental community, including the Natural Resources
Defense Council, the NRDC. I think it was that combined support
that generated the member support we got.
Our amendment bans the outdated 100-watt incandescent light
bulb by 2012, phases out all inefficient lighting by 2014, and
requires that light bulbs sold in the United States be at 300
percent as efficient as today's 100-watt incandescence by 2020.
I know all of those things are in a slightly different format
in your bill. The amendment also requires the study of ways to
prevent the release of mercury in the production or sale of
light bulbs, and to encourage the lighting industry to
manufacture these new, efficient light bulbs in the United
States.
We are aware that there is a work force now in the United
States, in a variety of companies, that produces lighting
appliances, and we want that work force to stay productively
employed. Our goal, however, is to make sure that it is making
products that are also energy efficient.
My time has expired, so let me just summarize about one
provision and that is the Preemption Provision in our
legislation. Preemption is something that Californians don't
like. We think we do everything better and usually we're right.
But we did agreement, from the environmental community in
California, to included a preemption provision, which I
support. The reason we included it is two-fold. No. 1, it
seemed to us really burdensome to have different requirements
for light bulbs in different States. But No. 2, the standards
in our bill are high enough to justify a national preemption
clause.
So, let me just close by saying that I think this is sound
legislation, the House on a bipartisan basis supports it. I
think you, on a bipartisan basis in your committee, you're
doing the right thing. I urge the inclusion of your
legislation, in whatever package emerges on energy, hopefully
this fall.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Harman follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Jane Harman, U.S. Representative
From California
Thank you for inviting us to testify before the Committee.
Lighting efficiency is a complicated and esoteric field, and I
congratulate you, Chairman, for crafting a solid piece of legislation--
the Energy Efficient Light for a Brighter Tomorrow Act (S. 2017).
I'd also like to recognize my colleague on the Energy & Commerce
Committee and partner in all things light bulbs, Congressman Fred
Upton.
Congressman Upton and I have lived and breathed lighting issues for
several months now--our spouses complain that we glow in the dark at
this point. We are the co-authors--along with Representatives Hastert
and Wynn--of an amendment to the House's Energy Bill that sets out new
efficiency standards for light bulbs. That bill passed the House just
before the August recess.
We also worked with Reps. Lipinski and Inglis to add a provision to
every appropriations bill requiring the federal government to purchase
more energy efficient light bulbs.
There is a reason this issue has become so important to us. Most
Americans still use essentially the same incandescent light bulbs
invented by Thomas Edison more than 120 years ago.
These bulbs are famously inefficient. Only 10% of the energy these
bulbs consume becomes light. The remaining 90% is wasted as heat.
Sounds like Congress . . . .
But lighting technology has changed. There are alternatives on the
market now that are far more energy efficient. And there are
alternatives right around the corner--such as advanced halogen bulbs
and light emitting diodes--that will fundamentally change the way we
light our homes and businesses.
The energy that could be gained by switching to these more
efficient alternatives is staggering.
The lighting efficiency advocacy group 18seconds.org estimates that
if every American swapped one incandescent bulb for a compact
fluorescent, we would save more than $8 billion in energy costs,
prevent burning 30 billion pounds of coal, and prevent 2 million cars
worth of greenhouse gas emissions from entering our atmosphere.
These potential savings served as the inspiration for our
legislative efforts.
And I am proud to say that these efforts were bipartisan. Rep.
Upton and I worked side by side in crafting our amendment, which was
widely supported by Members of both parties.
Our amendment was also the result of months of negotiations with
the lighting industry and environmental groups. We actually finalized
the language in a dramatic 11th hour negotiating session on the morning
of the full committee markup. The resulting amendment was supported by
both the lighting industry and the environmental community, including
the NRDC.
Our amendment bans the outdated 100-watt incandescent light bulb,
phases out all inefficient lighting by 2014, and requires that light
bulbs sold in the United States be at least 300% as efficient as
today's 100-watt incandescents by 2020.
The amendment also requires the study of ways to prevent the
release of mercury in the production or sale of light bulbs, and to
encourage the lighting industry to manufacture these new, efficient
bulbs here in the United States.
S. 2017 generally reflects this consensus forged on the House side.
I would like to emphasize one important issue--preemption.
I am from California and--as this Committee is no doubt aware--
California, ahead of the national curve on emissions standards,
zealously guards its prerogative to set its own regulations on a range
of issues.
The preemption provisions in our bill were not a concession that
I--or members of the environmental community--were willing to agree to
easily.
But we did so for two reasons. Appliance efficiency standards have
traditionally been treated differently than other regulatory areas.
Inclusion of preemption for light bulb standards should not be
considered a sign that the State or its representatives in Congress
will relent on preemption in other areas.
Second, in exchange for preemption, our language requires that the
lighting industry meet very tough efficiency standards--approximately
45-50 lumens per watt by 2020, which is roughly the efficiency of
today's compact fluorescent bulbs.
S. 2017 includes a comparable provision, and I commend Chairman
Bingaman for including an aggressive standard. I urge the Senate to
keep the bar high. It is worth preemption; a lesser standard is not.
The preemption language in the House version also grandfathers-in
states that adopt tougher standards before the effective date of the
bill.
Several western states such as California and Nevada have adopted
or are considering lighting standards that go slightly further than the
new federal standards proposed in both bills. The House language would
allow these standards to remain in place, even after the new federal
standards are effective. I understand that S. 2017 would not.
The House grandfather clause was well understood by the parties to
our consensus, and was crucial to building support for our bill. I urge
the Senate to adopt a similar provision as this bill moves forward.
With that, let me thank you again for inviting me here today. I
look forward to working with all of you on these issues in the coming
months.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Senator Domenici has come in since we started and these
are, of course, Representative Harman and Representative Upton
are the two main sponsors of the provision that the House
passed on lighting. Did you wish to make your opening statement
now, and then we'll hear from Representative Upton?
STATEMENT OF HON. PETE V. DOMENICI, U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW
MEXICO
Senator Domenici. Mr. Chairman, I think we've all been sort
of the cause of some delay. I've been part of that so I don't
want to make a very long statement. I first would ask that the
statement I have be made a part of the record.
The Chairman. It will be included.
[The prepared statement of Senator Domenici follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Pete V. Domenici, U.S. Senator From New
Mexico
Good Morning. I'd like to thank Senator Bingaman for holding this
hearing. I'd also like to add my thanks to our witnesses for being with
us today.
The purpose of today's hearing is to receive testimony on S. 2017,
a bill recently introduced by Senator Bingaman to phase-out the use of
incandescent lighting in this country. I commend the lighting industry
for working with efficiency advocates to craft this proposal. If
adopted, it would transform the nation's lighting market by calling for
the replacement of 4 billion general service light bulbs currently
installed in the United States.
The potential energy savings from this proposal are indeed
impressive. The Alliance to Save Energy estimates that new light bulb
standards would save 88 billion kilowatt hours per year.
That being said, however, during my initial evaluation of this
legislation a number of concerns have come to mind that I hope will be
addressed during today's hearing.
I believe that consumers must continue to have multiple
product choices, including energy-saving halogen, efficient
incandescent, compact fluorescent, and LED light bulbs.
A phase-out period of only two years, as suggested in the
bill, appears unnecessarily onerous. In my opinion, if such a
phase-out is to occur, it must be done in a responsible manner
that provides lighting manufacturers with enough time to
complete the market transformation, while ensuring multiple
product choices for the consumer.
Dictating a ``back-stop'' lighting standard for the year
2020--before the phase-out is even underway--is unreasonable.
As most of you know, I believe wholeheartedly that we are a
nation of innovation. Setting a lighting standard 13 years in
advance based on today's technology may not be a wise course of
action.
With regard to CFLs, consumers are concerned not only with
the cost, but with the potential mercury release. With the
increased use of CFLs called for in this bill, we will need to
address the mercury disposal issue.
Unfortunately, I must attend a very important mark-up of the
Defense Appropriations bill this morning, so I have to leave shortly.
However, I look forward to reviewing today's testimony and I will
continue to work on lighting issues as Congress considers energy
legislation. Thank you.
Senator Domenici. Then I just would like to say that, it is
rather amazing that we have this bird in the hand, that it's
rather genuine and certainly, we are able to get this
conversion to take place. It's kind of an interesting thing--in
the midst of a great and fantastic manufacturing movement,
we've got this new light bulb that has to be manufactured by
hand. I started reading about it and I said, you know, is
somebody pulling my leg? No, it's true. Of course, that
presents some interesting problems that we haven't thought of.
I mean, what it's done is it's presented the manufacturing
world with new lighting source that's legit. It causes us to
take what we've been using and throw it away. It does also
clearly provide for a new one to take it's place, but in order
to properly use it, we've to use thousands of hand workers to
put it together. You know, almost like we're getting taken. But
no, we're not. It's pretty serious business. So I'm, for
working with you Mr. Leader, Mr. Chairman, there's no joke to
any of this. This is a big, big event, right there in front of
this, saying we can do this. If we want to fight about it, we
can take 10 years. We want to just sit down with the smartest
people we've got on our committees and say, ``How do we get it
done?'' We might even, because its facts are all known, put
them out on the table and maybe work together, both sides, and
do something--since this is so different, just do it different.
Maybe we can have a group from House and Senate meet together
and figure out how to do it. As I say, we're here to show that
we can do it a different way than we've ever done it and save a
lot of time and have one shot at it and not two, and get the
thing done.
In any event, with my statement added to the statements
that are here, there will be plenty of reading for those who
wonder what we're doing. I just added a little bit of some very
good reading that I saw, that was already present.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I have nothing further, except to
proceed. Thank you for proceeding with this hearing and I'm
hoping that the very best will happen to this bill, it is this
little bill that's going to do something very big. Let's hope
we can do it together.
Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Representative Upton, why don't you go right ahead.
STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM MICHIGAN
Mr. Upton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I intend just summarize
my full statement.
First of all, I have to tell you it has been a real delight
to work with my friend and colleague, Jane Harman. I think we
came to the idea about at the same time. We were encouraged to
move forward together as a team, by both Mr. Dingle, as well as
Mr. Haster, former Speaker of the House. We worked very closely
with all parties, particularly with the industry, and
environmental crowd, as well.
Our idea shifted a little bit as we moved forward, in terms
of the legislation that we ultimately presented before the
House. Along the way, we made significant strides with the
Government, as well, as Mrs. Harman indicated. We offered an
amendment on every single one of the Appropriation bills, to
mandate that beginning October 1st, a couple of weeks from now,
that the Federal Government--the largest purchaser of light
bulbs in the world--will only purchase Energy Star light bulbs.
That standard, of course, dictated by the Department of Energy.
We know that it will save hundreds of millions of dollars
to the taxpayers, beginning in just a couple of weeks, in lots
of different ways. All of those amendments, but one, passed on
a voice vote. We thought on one amendment we ought to actually
see where the sense of the Congress is, as it related to that.
We got nearly 400 votes in support of the amendment mandating
that. And so as we look at the CR and Omnibus, in terms of
what's going on, we hope that that provision will stick in each
of the Appropriation bills.
We worked with industry, in terms of the standard. And I
have to say, that one of the ideas, of course, that came from
your sense of the Congress resolution over here, was to, in
essence, make the 100-watt incandescent bulb go away, obsolete,
by the year 2012. That actually didn't come from the two of us,
it came from the industry, and because they're worried, I
think, that some different, maybe fly by-night group, that will
come in, ultimately, and have a cheaper light bulb at the, on
the shelf at the store. But in fact, the cost to the consumer
will be, who knows, 15 or 20 times more by buying that obsolete
incandescent bulb versus the new standard that we're going to
see.
So they were the ones that came up with that idea and we
wrote that right into the amendment, as it passed in the Energy
Committee.
I think this legislation that we've done is balanced, the
preemption work was a great credit, kudos to my colleague from
California, again, making sure that it was properly structured,
all sides, in essence, coming to the agreement. We pushed both
sides, they know that. Now, we may need to see some tweaking
here at the end of the day, but I'd to think that what we were
able to get through the House, working with you now in the
Senate, we're going to see some significant savings.
The bottom line is this, by improving the standard, which
is what we're doing, we will save American consumers 65 billion
kilowatts of energy, just because of the light bulb changes,
when this comes into affect beginning in 2012, 2013.
Sixty-five billion kilowatts is the equivalent of 80 coal-
fired electricity plants. That's pretty significant. This is
more than just one light bulb at a time, it is in fact, a
shining amendment in terms of what we can do together, House
and Senate, Republicans and Democrats, environmentalists and
industry, to make sure that we're getting the biggest bang for
our buck.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you both for coming over and testifying
and thanks for your leadership on this important issue. I do
think this is one of the great opportunities we've got in this
Congress, to go ahead and get this enacted. So, that was our
purpose in introducing the bill we've introduced here in the
Senate. I know it was your purpose in moving ahead with your
bill as part of the energy package.
So, I have no questions at this point. Let me just see if
Senator Corker has any questions he wanted to ask.
Senator Corker. Mr. Chairman, I do not. I know they have a
tight schedule, leaving early today. But sounds like you all
have done an excellent job in trying to balance various
interests, but to move our country ahead in a pretty dramatic
way over a very simple concept. I wish we could do more of that
here in Congress. Thank you for your great testimony. It's been
a pleasure listening to you and to watch you all play off of
each other and also play off of words, if you will, that have a
lot to do with light, I've noticed. But you all have a good----
Mr. Upton. Just wait, just wait. We've got a lot of ideas
more that you don't know.
Senator Corker. Thank you. Thank you very much.
The Chairman. All right. Thank you very much. We will go on
to our next panel, then. Assistant Secretary Karsner, who is
the Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy in the Department of Energy, is a frequent witness
before this committee and we always welcome him and
congratulate him on his efforts at the Department. We're
anxious to hear your views on this legislation and what can be
done in this Congress on the subject.
STATEMENT OF ALEXANDER KARSNER, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, ENERGY
EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Mr. Karsner. Thank you, sir. Mr. Chairman and members of
the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before
you today to discuss the Department's work on energy efficient
lighting technologies and provide comments on S. 2017, the
Energy Efficient Lighting for a Brighter Tomorrow Act. Before I
begin, sir, I'd like to introduce to my left, Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Energy Efficiency, David Rodgers, and appreciate
him being able to join me at the witness table, in the event
that we have any technical questions that we need to be
responsive to, given the highly technical nature of the
testimony.
While the Administration has not had the opportunity to
coordinate all interagency views on the legislation, I'm happy
to provide you with some preliminary comments this morning. The
Department strongly agrees with the essence and overall goal of
S. 2017, which would increase efficiency levels for lighting
and provide significant energy savings for our nation. But we
also have some concerns related to the schedule and timelines,
which I have elaborated on in my written testimony.
The Department looks forward to working closely with the
committee to resolve any outstanding concerns. DOE's Building
Technologies Program is presently working on efficacy appliance
standards for general service incandescent lamps, general
service incandescent reflector lamps and fluorescent lamps, as
was required by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and consistent
with our published time table. The Department, as always, is
willing to share technical analysis to inform the ongoing
discussions amongst industry members and other stakeholders on
voluntary consensus standards.
Our Building Technologies Program is focused on rapid
deployment and market penetration of compact fluorescent
lighting, as well as significant technological breakthroughs
for solid-state lightings and LEDs. Compact fluorescent lamps,
CFLs, can easily replace most general service incandescent
bulbs, saving up to 75 percent of the initial lighting energy.
Although CFLs are priced marginally higher today than
comparable incandescent bulbs, they last 8,000 to 15,000 hours,
up to 10 times longer than incandescent bulbs. If every home in
America replaced just one incandescent light bulb with an
Energy Star-qualified CFL, the Nation would save enough energy
to light more than 3 million homes annually.
In order to encourage adoption of technologies like CFLs,
DOE announced on June 14, that it has teamed up, for the first
time ever, with the Walt Disney Corporation in a nationwide
campaign to promote energy efficiency through a TV spot and
other media, based on the Disney Pixar film, Ratatouille. The
30-second animated spot was showcased nationwide during
primetime viewing hours, and has reached more than 117 million
households thus far, through several different--several
familiar targeted, segmented networks, including CNN, HGTV, The
Food Network, The DIY Channel, even appearing during NBC's
``Meet the Press.''
Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I'd like to show the
committee this public service announcement, as an example of
DOE's unprecedented efforts at outreach for multigenerational
education and communication. I'm sure the Disney Corporation
will be happy to have that on the record.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Karsner. Additionally, DOE created and produced
education posters in conjunction with the campaign, that are
included in the upcoming DVD release, with a projected
distribution of 10 million units. The animated video spot and
campaign poster are available online and at the Department of
Energy's Web site, and will be refreshed regularly with
contemporary media as new campaigns are available.
Another prominent example of DOE's education efforts was
mentioned in Congresswoman Harman's testimony, the 18second.org
campaign, which engages the artistic, creative, and
entertainment community to join together with the Federal
Government in a multigenerational effort to go beyond preaching
to the converted segment of our population and create an
enduring campaign to promote energy efficiency through
lighting. Based on this premise, that it takes the consumer
only 18 seconds to change a bulb, the campaign partners with
Yahoo and the A.C. Nielsen Company, using new media to put
consumer efficiency decisions on par with our national
campaigns earlier, that have been such a success to fight
pollution in the 1970s, drug use in the 1980s, and antismoking
campaign efforts today.
The Web site, www.18seconds.org, allows consumers to enter
their zip code and immediately learn how many CFLs have been
purchased, accurately, in their statistical area and the
economic, energy, and environmental benefits that are available
to them, where they live, on a contemporaneous basis.
Turning now to the future of lighting, DOE is working to
advance efficient white-light sources for general illumination
using solid-state lighting, which differs very fundamentally
from today's lighting technologies. DOE partners with research
from industry, academia, and our National Laboratories to
accelerate advances in solid-state lighting. These researchers
have made dramatic progress in just the last few years,
achieving world records as well as national and international
recognition.
Since 2000, DOE funded SSL research projects have thus far
applied for more than 64 patents. DOE's goal for general
illumination SSL is 200 lumens per watt, more than double the
efficacy of today's best fluorescent lamps, by 2025. This year,
DOE and its partners announced a breakthrough laboratory
performance of 79 lumens per watt, surpassing CFL's white-light
performance for the first time.
To ensure the investments in core technology research lead
to SSL market penetration, DOE has developed a national
strategy to guide market introduction, working with
approximately 150 partner organizations. As part of that
national strategy, the Department is leading Energy Star
management, specification development, and partner relations
for SSL devices using general illumination.
In December 2006, DOE released draft SSL Energy Star
criteria. Following public review and comment periods, DOE
issued a second draft criteria in April 2007. Mr. Chairman, I
am pleased to report today, that the final criteria for Energy
Star SSL have been approved just this morning and will be
released later today.
As I have indicated, we at the Department are focused on
advancing technical, commercial, and consumer outreach efforts
on lighting. But I want to stress that lighting alone is not
sufficient to address our urgent energy security needs. In
fact, I encourage the committee to continue and strengthen its
focus on comprehensive energy efficiency management efforts to
radically transform the built environment.
DOE has begun a historic and important transformation of
its own in this respect. On August 8, Secretary Bodman launched
the Transformational Energy Action Management Initiative,
better known as TEAM, a Department-wide effort aimed at,
amongst other things, reducing the energy intensity across the
DOE's national complex and assets by at least 30 percent. This
initiative will meet or exceed and lead with all energy
efficiency goals mandated by the Energy Policy Act of 2005, as
well as President Bush's Executive Order 13423 announced in
January of this year.
The TEAM initiative adopts an even more ambitious timeline
than has been required by the Executive Order. It establishes,
for the first time, a model of aggregated demand pull by the
Federal Government. Upgraded efficient lighting, including
advanced fluorescents, solid-state lighting controls, day-
lighting, and integrated systems are requisite and one of the
most cost-effective options for achieving the TEAM initiative,
both in DOE and across the Federal Government.
Secretary Bodman expects the Department to lead by example
throughout the Federal Government, deploying immediately a wide
variety of lighting and other advanced technologies to achieve
maximum energy savings. The Secretary's TEAM initiative is
bold, and similarly, as Congress looks to green its Capitol
complex, we have been pleased to provide the technical support
and will continue to extend the information and periodic
updates to this committee on all these efforts and actions.
I would like to conclude by thanking this committee for its
commitment to improving energy--and prioritizing--energy
efficiency. The Administration is committed to diversifying our
Nation's energy portfolio, and efficiency gains, particularly
within lighting, are the most easily accessible, abundant, and
affordable new energy.
The Department looks forward to working with this committee
to resolve the technical aspects of S. 2017 and to continue
advancing the state-of-the-art in lighting technologies.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement and I'd
be happy to ask--answer any questions the committee may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Karsner follows:]
Prepared Statement of Alexander Karsner, Assistant Secretary, Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the Department's work
on energy efficient lighting technologies, and to provide comments on
S. 2017, the Energy Efficient Lighting for a Brighter Tomorrow Act.
While the Administration has not had the opportunity to coordinate all
interagency views on the legislation, I am happy to provide you with
some preliminary comments.
The Department generally agrees with the overall goal of S. 2017,
which would increase efficiency levels for lighting and provide
significant energy savings for our nation. DOE is presently working on
standards for General Service Incandescent Lamps, General Service
Incandescent Reflector Lamps and Fluorescent Lamps. These activities
are included in the January 31, 2006 report to Congress and are covered
by the Consent Decree requirements for appliance standards.\1\ The
analyses that DOE is performing will reveal both technical improvement
opportunities and potential economic impacts for manufacturers and
consumers. The Department, as always, is willing to share our technical
analysis to help inform on-going discussions among industry members and
other stakeholders on voluntary consensus standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Consent Decree was filed in the Southern District of New
York to settle the consolidated cases, State of New York, et al. v.
Bodman and Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Bodman, which
claimed that DOE missed statutory deadlines for rulemakings on
appliance efficiency standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Section 101, the efficacy standards in the legislation are
aggressive, and may require that manufacturers convert their
incandescent production lines to halogen capsule/infrared coated lamps
requiring substantial capital investment and cost increases to the
consumer. The Department also has concerns with the schedule in section
101 for issuing standards. First the time allotted is not sufficient to
accomplish the required activities. Secondly, the timing of a follow-up
standard would not provide DOE, or the markets, time to gain sufficient
experience and understanding of the previous standard. Since there
would be very limited knowledge derived through implementation of the
first standard, the second standard could be locked into the same
technologies or efficiency levels as the standard just put into place.
In Section 107, DOE is concerned that Congress is directing $60
million of R&D investment into ``general service lamps'', a term that
is not defined in the draft legislation. DOE recommends that this R&D
program be authorized for a range of lighting technologies, not
exclusively incandescent technologies.
Our Building Technologies Program is focused on rapid deployment
and market penetration of compact fluorescent lighting, technological
breakthroughs for solid-state lighting, and long-term research into
next generation lighting. In addition, the Department is conducting
national publicity campaigns to encourage consumer adoption of energy
efficient technologies.
compact fluorescent lighting
Compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) combine the energy efficiency of
fluorescent lighting with the convenience and popularity of
incandescent fixtures. CFLs can easily replace most incandescent bulbs,
saving up to 75% of the initial lighting energy. Although CFLs cost
more initially than comparable incandescent bulbs, they last 6,000-
15,000 hours, up to 10 times longer than incandescent bulbs. Lighting
accounts for approximately 12 percent of the average home's electricity
bill. If every home in America replaced just one incandescent light
bulb withan ENERGY STAR-qualified CFL, the Nation would save enough
energy to light more than 3 million homes annually. That's $600 million
in annual energy cost savings, and a reduction in greenhouse gas
emissions equivalent to taking 800,000 cars off the road. Industry and
civic leaders have recognized this cost-effective appeal, and annually
join the Department's continuous efforts to educate and energize the
general public through efforts such as October's Change a Light, Change
the World program. In addition, we have worked closely this year with
Wal-Mart and other major national and local retailers to launch
significant outreach campaigns that have improved store layouts to
promote CFL sales and recycling.
One prominent example of DOE's education efforts is the
18seconds.org campaign, which engages the artistic, creative, and
entertainment industry in a national, multi-generational effort to go
beyond preaching to the converted and create an enduring educational
campaign to promote energy efficiency through lighting. Based on the
premise that it takes a consumer only 18 seconds to change a light
bulb, the campaign partners with Yahoo and A.C. Nielson to elevate the
prominence of energy efficiency, using new media to put consumer
efficiency decisions on par with national efforts to reduce pollution
in the 1970s, drug use in the 1980s, and smoking today. The website,
www.18seconds.org, allows consumers to enter a zip code and immediately
learn how many CFLs have been purchased in the area, and the economic,
energy, and environmental benefits of that activity.
In order to further encourage consumer adoption of energy efficient
technologies like CFLs, the Department has recently embarked upon an
innovative partnership with the Walt Disney Corporation. DOE announced
on June 14th that it has teamed up with Disney in a nationwide campaign
to promote energy efficiency through a TV spot based on the
DisneyPixar film ``Ratatouille.'' The 30-second animated spot
features the characters from the movie, and urges viewers to make the
switch from incandescent bulbs to ENERGY STAR compact fluorescent
lights. The spot, showcased nationwide during primetime viewing hours,
reached more than 117 million households between June 15 and August 15,
2007, through networks including HGTV, Food Network and DIY.
Additionally, DOE created and produced posters using the main
animation character, Remy, holding a CFL with the message, ``Saving
energy is easy. Make the switch today.'' The posters were distributed
to state energy offices and will also be distributed to embassies. They
are also available upon request through the EERE Resource Center. The
poster is currently being translated into Chinese, Russian, French,
Spanish and Arabic.
DOE is sponsoring a second round of public service announcements
for national television network distribution for the fall DVD rollout.
This additional advertising will air in October/November. In addition,
the DOE--Disney CFL poster will be included in the DVD booklet with a
projected distribution of 10 million units. The video spot and campaign
poster are available online at the Department's website
(www.energy.gov).
solid state lighting
DOE is working to advance the development and market introduction
of energy-efficient white-light sources for general illumination using
solid-state lighting (SSL), which differs fundamentally from today's
lighting technologies. DOE has developed a coordinated approach that
guides technology advances from laboratory to marketplace by breaking
out efforts into the following activities: Basic Energy Science, Core
Technology Research, Product Development, Commercialization Support,
Standards Development, and an SSL Partnership (competitively selected
in 2005, the Next Generation Lighting Industry Alliance).
DOE partners with leading researchers from industry, academia, and
national laboratories to accelerate advances in solid-state lighting.
These researchers have made dramatic progress in just a few years,
achieving several world records as well as national recognition. Since
2000, DOE-funded SSL research projects have applied for a total of 64
patents. DOE's goal is for general illumination SSL at 200 lumen/Watt,
double the efficacy of today's best fluorescent lamps, by 2025. This
year, DOE and its partners announced a breakthrough laboratory
performance of 79 lumens/watt.
Collaborative, cost-shared, competitively-selected DOE R&D projects
combine the technical resources of premier research institutions and
national laboratories with the product development, manufacturing, and
commercialization expertise of industry leaders. DOE invests in
research projects that target the needed improvements in price,
performance, and manufacturability to speed SSL technologies to market.
The investments in research and development have led to major
technological breakthroughs, including record brightness and efficacy
levels for white light emitting diodes, as well as significant
fabrication and packing advances. About 55 R&D projects are now in
progress.
To ensure that DOE investments in core technology research and
product development lead to SSL market penetration, DOE has developed a
national strategy to guide market introduction of SSL for general
illumination, including ENERGY STAR labeling for SSL technologies and
products, Lighting for Tomorrow design competition, LED product
testing, standards and test procedures development, product
demonstrations in buildings, and Fact Sheets for those who desire to
learn the trade. The Department has about 150 partner organizations
involved in our commercialization support activities.
The ENERGY STAR label is a highly valued and widely recognized
mark of energy efficiency that helps guide the American public to
select cost-effective, energy-efficient products. The ENERGY STAR
program is jointly managed by the Department of Energy and the
Environmental Protection Agency, with each agency taking the lead on a
specific set of technologies.
As part of DOE's national strategy to accelerate market
introduction of high efficiency SSL products, the Department is leading
ENERGY STAR management, specification development, and partner
relations for SSL devices used for general illumination. The
Department's ENERGY STAR strategy for SSL general illumination
products establishes a transitional two-category approach. Category A
addresses near-term applications, where SSL technology can be
appropriately applied. Category B establishes efficacy targets for a
wider range of future applications, which will take effect once solid-
state lighting technology is more mature. Eventually, Category A will
be dropped, and category B will become the sole basis for the ENERGY
STAR criteria.
In December 2006, DOE released draft ENERGY STAR criteria for SSL
luminaires intended for general illumination. Following public review
and comment, DOE issued second draft criteria in April 2007. The
Department anticipates releasing final criteria shortly.
In addition, the Department is partnering with the Consortium for
Energy Efficiency and American Lighting Association to challenge
designers to develop high quality lighting fixtures that take advantage
of the unique advantages of SSL through the Lighting for Tomorrow
Competition. In 2006, eight SSL products were selected for recognition
and we have the 2007 competition in progress.
team initiative
As I have indicated, we at the Department are focused on advancing
the technical, commercial, and consumer outreach efforts on lighting.
But I want stress that lighting alone is not sufficient to address our
urgent energy security needs and the market penetration of new energy
efficiency technologies. In fact, I encourage the Committee to think
about comprehensive energy management efforts to radically transform
the built environment.
DOE has begun an historic and very important transformation of its
own. On August 8, 2007, Secretary Bodman launched the Transformational
Energy Action Management (TEAM) Initiative, a Department-wide effort
aimed at, among other things, reducing energy intensity across the
national DOE complex by 30 percent. The TEAM Initiative aims to have
the Department of Energy lead, meet or exceed the aggressive goals
established by the President for increasing energy efficiency
throughout the federal government. Reducing energy intensity by 30
percent across the DOE complex will save millions in taxpayer dollars
per year, after projects are paid for.
This Initiative will meet or exceed energy efficiency goals
mandated by the EPACT 2005, as well as President Bush's Executive Order
13423, announced in January 2007. The Executive Order directs federal
agencies to: reduce energy intensity and associated greenhouse gas
emissions; substantially increase use and efficiency of renewable
energy technologies; adopt sustainable design practices; and reduce
petroleum use in Federal fleets. The TEAM Initiative adopts an even
more ambitious timeline than required in the Executive Order.
The Secretary has instructed all DOE sites to host private sector
energy service companies to assess efficiency opportunities across the
complex, addressing all lifecycle, cost-competitive options. Lighting,
including advanced fluorescents, solid state lighting, controls,
daylighting, and integrated systems are easily one of the most cost-
effective options for achieving the TEAM initiative targets. Secretary
Bodman expects the Department to lead by example throughout the Federal
Government, deploying a wide variety of lighting and other advanced
technologies to achieve maximum energy savings.
The important information that I want to leave with you about the
TEAM Initiative is that we are NOT stopping with the issue of lighting.
We're looking at every DOE site, every building, and expecting every
DOE site, primarily through the use of alternative financing through
the private sector, to deploy ALL cost-effective energy efficient and
renewable technologies in the service of obtaining state-of-the-art and
sustainable results for DOE and to demonstrate these best practices for
the rest of the Federal government.
Even with the best lighting improvements, if we did not take
advantage of those opportunities by pairing them with other energy
conservation measures, we would not be maximizing the energy savings
potential of these technologies. For example, heating and cooling
systems in a building must account for the reduced heating and cooling
load of new lighting technologies. The savings we are looking for at
the scale needed to make a dent in our energy use cannot be
accomplished with only one technology. Buildings are systems and we
must view them holistically to get the desired results. Energy Saving
Performance Contracting--established by Congress and endorsed
repeatedly by this Committee--is the key to our success.
The Secretary's TEAM Initiative is bold and, as Congress looks to
``green'' the Capitol Complex, I would be pleased to provide additional
information and periodic updates to this Committee on our efforts and
actions. As a first step, the Department is working with an energy
savings performance contractor to transform its headquarters buildings
into showcases of energy efficiency and advanced technology. In that
ESPC, we will showcase the lighting technologies I have discussed in my
testimony. We will deploy advanced technologies in different locations
throughout the headquarters complex so that we can learn, while also
demonstrating how these major improvements can benefit our economy and
environment.
conclusion
I would like to conclude by thanking the Committee for its
commitment to improving energy efficiency in so many ways. The
Administration is committed to diversifying our nation's energy
portfolio, and efficiency gains are the most easily accessible source
of ``new energy.'' Increasing the market penetration of efficient
consumer products provides a very effective step toward reducing energy
intensity and helping ensure a sustainable energy future. We must focus
on these technologies and how they fit into the transformation of the
entire built environment to get the best results. The Department looks
forward to working with this Committee to resolve technical aspects of
S. 2017 and to continue advancing the state of the art in lighting
technologies.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be
happy to answer any questions the Committee Members may have.
The Chairman. Thank you very much for your testimony. I
guess one question that occurs to me, is I notice on the first
page of your testimony here, you say that the Department has
concerns with the schedule, in Section 101--this is referring
to the bill that we introduced--schedule in Section 101 for
issuing standards. Then you go on to say, ``First, the time
allotted is not sufficient to accomplish the required activity.
Second, the timing of a follow-up standard would not provide
DOE or the markets time to gain sufficient experience and
understanding of the previous standard.'' Maybe you could
elaborate on that somewhat. What we've tried to do is to come
up with a standard that we thought industry could meet. I guess
your conclusion is that we've come up with something they can't
meet. Is that right?
Mr. Karsner. Not precisely, sir. It's really not a question
of what the industry can meet and by when, so much as the, our
capacity to adhere to the statutory requirements in issuing the
rules. The statutory requirements demand X amount of data and
experience when a new rule is published, that then feeds into
the process for another rule. So, since the legislation, I
think, contemplates multiple rules over a period of time, it is
really the spacing in between the process of the rulemaking
that is the primary concern.
The Chairman. My sort of layman's approach on this is that,
what we've done in the legislation is we really imposed backup
standards. We basically say, ``You shall go ahead and issue
standards at various points, but to the extent that they are
not issued, then we legislate what those standards are.'' Is it
your view that what we are legislating is objectionable--the
substance of it is objectionable or that the process ought to
be, to let you folks issue the standards and to give you more
time to do so?
Mr. Karsner. I think it's definitely substantially more a
procedural concern than it is a substantive concern, relative
to the technology.
The Chairman. Obviously, I would favor having you folks
issue the standards, but at the same time, I would favor
getting the standards in place at the earliest possible date in
order to get the energy savings that are the result of that. I
know you've been working hard to address this backlog of
overdue efficiency standards and you referred to one of those
in your direct testimony. Could you give a little more
information on the status of these, this backlog that exists in
the regulation or the promulgation of these regulations or
standards?
Mr. Karsner. Now you're inquiring beyond lighting I
presume?
The Chairman. Yes, lighting specifically, but beyond
lighting also.
Mr. Karsner. Beyond lighting, I'm pleased to report, sir,
since you first admonished me during my Senate hearing for
confirmation on this, we have been able to live up to our
commitment and have met all of our scheduled timelines, that
were earlier published. We anticipate that we have the
management systems in place now and priority, that we should be
able to maintain the published time table that was agreed and
confirmed by court order. So, that is the current status. I'd
be delighted to follow-up, also for the record, on any
particular of those appliance standards, as they are moving.
[The information follows:]
The chart below provides an overview of the status of current
rulemaking activity for energy efficiency standards under way in the
Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Report on Status of Rulemaking Activity
Type of Rule Deadline to November 20, 2007
Product Category to be Publish Final -----------------------------------------------
Completed Rule Rulemaking Status
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Room air conditioners Second 6/30/11 DOE has initiated the rulemaking for room air
amended conditioners during the first quarter of
energy fiscal year 2008. DOE published an
efficiency announcement of the availability of the
standard framework document in the Federal Register at
72FR57254 (October 9, 2007). The public
meeting to receive initial comment on the
framework document was held on October 24,
2007. The final rule with regard to energy
conservation standards for room air
conditioners remains on schedule for June 30,
2011
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Central air conditioners and Second 6/30/11 DOE plans to initiate the standards rulemaking
heat pumps amended for residential central air conditioners and
energy heat pumps during the second quarter of fiscal
efficiency year 2008. The final rule remains on schedule
standard for June 30, 2011
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Water heaters Second 3/31/10 With reference to these heating products
amended (water heaters, direct heating equipment, and
energy pool heaters), DOE published an announcement
efficiency of the availability of the framework document
standard in the Federal Register at 71FR67825 (November
24, 2006). The public meeting to receive
initial comment on the framework document was
held on January 16, 2007. DOE is performing
the market assessment and engineering analysis
work necessary to prepare for the ANOPR and
remains on schedule for issuance of a final
rule not later than March 31, 2010
Pool heaters First 3/31/10
amended
energy
efficiency
standard
Direct heating equipment First 3/31/10
amended
energy
efficiency
standard
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furnaces and boilers First 9/30/07 DOE issued the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(including mobile home amended (NOPR) standard for furnaces and boilers on
furnaces and small furnaces) energy September 25, 2006 which was published in the
efficiency Federal Register at 71FR59204 (October 6,
standard 2006). On February 2, 2007, DOE issued a
for all notice of data availability (NODA) to
products requestcomment on a more detailed discussion
of data, and that appeared in the Federal
Register at 72FR6184 (February 9, 2007). On
August 3, 2007, DOE moved the Court pursuant
to Section V of the Consent Decree to modify
the schedule applicable to the final rule for
furnaces and boilers. The motion requested
that the existing deadline be extended nine
months (until June 30, 2008) in order to
enable DOE to develop a more comprehensive
rule. Due to unforeseen circumstances, the
Court issued an order on September 25, 2007,
for a temporary administrative stay of the
September 30 deadline. The deadline was stayed
until seven calendar days after the date on
which the Court enters an order resolving the
motion to modify the deadline. If the Court
were not to enter an order resolving that
motion on or before November 1, 2007, DOE
would be required either to issue the final
rule pertaining to furnaces and boilers or to
seek further modification of the Consent
Decree or other appropriate relief from the
Court. On November 1, 2007, the Court entered
an order denying DOE's motion for modification
of the consent decree and requiring DOE to
issue the furnaces and boilers final rule
within seven calendar days. DOE issued the
final rule for furnaces and boilers on
November 8, 2007, which was published in the
Federal Register at 72FR65136 (November 19,
2007)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dishwashers Second 3/31/09 The final rule regarding energy conservation
amended standards for dishwashers, ranges and ovens is
energy scheduled for March 31, 2009. The Advance
efficiency Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANOPR) was
standard published in the Federal Register at 72FR64432
(November 15, 2007). The final rule remains on
schedule for issuance not later than March 31,
2009
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clothes dryers Second 6/30/11 The Department has initiated the rulemaking
amended for clothes dryers during the first quarter of
energy fiscal year 2008. DOE published an
efficiency announcement of the availability of the
standard framework document in the Federal Register at
72FR57254 (October 9, 2007). The public
meeting to receive initial comment on the
framework document was held on October 24,
2007. The final rule for clothes dryers
remains on schedule for June 30, 2011
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fluorescent lamp ballasts Second 6/30/11 DOE plans to initiate the standards rulemaking
amended for fluorescent lamp ballasts during the first
energy quarter of fiscal year 2008. The final rule
efficiency for these products remains on schedule for
standard June 30, 2011
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ranges and ovens First 3/31/09 The final rule regarding energy conservation
amended standards for dishwashers, ranges and ovens is
energy scheduled for March 31, 2009. The Advance
efficiency Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANOPR) was
standard published in the Federal Register at 72FR64432
for gas (November 15, 2007). The final rule remains on
products/ schedule for issuance not later than March 31,
Second 2009
amended
efficiency
standard
for
electric
products
Fluorescent lamps First 6/30/09
amended
energy
efficiency
standard
Incandescent reflector lamps First 6/30/09
amended
energy
efficiency
standard
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional fluorescent and Initial 6/30/09 The final rule regarding energy conservation
incandescent lamps energy standards for three broad categories of lamps
efficiency is scheduled for June 30, 2009. DOE is
standard reviewing the ANOPR and remains on schedule
for issuance of a final rule not later than
June 30, 2009
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Packaged terminal air Final action 9/30/08 The final rule regarding energy conservation
conditioners and heat pumps with standards for packaged terminal air
respect to conditioners and heat pumps is on schedule to
the be issued by September 30, 2008. On March 13,
rulemaking 2006, DOE published in the Federal Register a
duty that Notice of Availability (NOA) announcing the
the availability of a technical support document
Plaintiffs (TSD) that DOE was using in re-assessing
claim was whether to adopt, as uniform national
triggered standards, amendments to the ASHRAE/IESNA
by the 1999 Standard 90.1-1999 for certain types of
amendment commercial equipment. 71FR12634. In the NOA,
to ASHRAE DOE stated that it was inclined to seek more
Standard stringent standard levels than the efficiency
90.1 levels in ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-1999 for
PTACs and PTHPs through a separate rulemaking.
71FR12634, 12639 (March 13, 2006). DOE is
completing review of the notice of proposed
rulemaking and remains on schedule for
issuance of a final rule not later than
September 30, 2008
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Packaged boilers Final action 2/28/07 DOE took the required final action with
with respect to packaged boilers on February 28,
respect to 2007, and that appeared in the Federal
the actions Register at 72FR10038 (March 7, 2007)
described
for these
products in
71 Fed Reg.
12634,
12637-68 &
Table 1.4
(March 13,
2006)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Instantaneous water heaters Final action 2/28/07 DOE took the required final action with
with respect to gas fired instantaneous water
respect to heaters on February 28, 2007, and that
the actions appeared in the Federal Register at 72FR10038
described (March 7, 2007)
for these
products in
71 Fed Reg.
12634,
12637-68 &
Table 1.4
(March 13,
2006)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motors (1 to 200 hp) First 6/30/11 The final rule for a motors (1 to 200 HP)
amended energy conservation standard remains on
energy schedule to be published no later than June
efficiency 30, 2011
standard
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
High intensity discharge lamps Determinatio 6/30/10 DOE is currently undertaking analyses for the
ns(s) HID determination. DOE is on track to publish
this notice of determination by June 30, 2010
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electric distribution Energy 9/30/07 DOE took the required final action with
transformers efficiency respect to distribution transformers on
standard September 28, 2007, and that appeared in the
Federal Register at 72FR58190 (Oct. 12, 2007)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small motors Test 6/30/09 DOE issued a positive determination on June
Procedure 2006 that appeared in the Federal Register at
71FR38799 (July 10, 2006) and then initiated
an energy conservation standards rulemaking,
along with a test procedure rulemaking. DOE
published an announcement of the availability
of the energy conservation standard framework
document in the Federal Register at 72FR44990
(August 10, 2007). A public meeting to discuss
the framework document was held on September
13, 2007. The final rule for the test
procedure rulemaking is on schedule for
issuance no later than June 30, 2009. The
final rule for the rulemaking establishing
energy conservation standards for small motors
is on schedule for issuance no later than
February 28, 2010
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dehumidifiers (residential) Efficiency 3/31/09 The Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
Standard (ANOPR) was published in the Federal Register
at 72FR64432 (November 15, 2007). The final
rule regarding energy conservation standards
for dehumidifiers remains on schedule for
March 31, 2009
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clothes Washers (commercial) Efficiency 3/31/09 The Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
Standard (ANOPR) was published in the Federal Register
at 72FR64432 (November 15, 2007). The final
rule regarding energy conservation standards
for commercial clothes washers remains on
schedule for March 31, 2009
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small Motors Determinatio 6/30/06 DOE issued a positive determination in June
n 2006 that appeared in the Federal Register at
71FR38799 (July 10, 2006). This initiated
DOE's rulemaking for the Small Motors
efficiency standard
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distribution Transformers Test 4/30/06 DOE completed the rulemaking and published the
Procedure final rule in the Federal Register at
71FR24972 (April 27, 2006)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ceiling Fan Light Kits Efficiency 1/31/07 DOE adopted the efficiency standards proposed
Standard in EPACT 2005 and published the final
rulemaking in the Federal Register at 72FR1270
(January 11, 2007)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Central Air Conditioners and Test 9/30/07 DOE issued the final rule September 28, 2007,
Heat Pumps Procedure which was published in the Federal Register at
72FR59906 (October 22, 2007)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Refrigerated Beverage Vending Efficiency 8/31/09 DOE is on schedule to publish the final rule
Machines Standard for refrigerated beverage vending machines in
August 2009
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commercial Refrigeration Efficiency 1/31/09 DOE published the ANOPR in the Federal
Equipment Standard Register at 72FR41162 (July 26, 2007). DOE is
on schedule to issue the final rule by January
31, 2009
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commercial Refrigeration Test 1/31/08 DOE completed the rulemaking and published the
Equipment Procedure final rule in the Federal Register at
71FR71340 (December 8, 2006)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Automatic Ice Makers Efficiency 1/31/15 DOE plans to initiate this rulemaking in 2011
(commercial) Standard
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Battery Chargers and External Determinatio 8/31/08 DOE is on schedule to issue the final rule by
Power Supplies n August 31, 2008
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Battery Chargers and External Efficiency To be scheduled This Standard is contingent upon DOE making a
Power Supplies Standard following a positive determination on these products
positive
determination
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Battery Chargers and External Test 2/28/07 DOE completed the rulemaking and published the
Power Supplies Procedure final rule in the Federal Register at
71FR71340 (December 8, 2006)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Test procedures for eleven Test 11/30/06 DOE completed the rulemaking and published the
other products Procedure final rule in the Federal Register at
71FR71340 (December 8, 2006)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With regard to the lighting, we are presently internally in
a concurrence process to publish an advanced notice of proposed
rulemaking for the scheduled lighting, which is due in 2009,
the scheduled date for the lighting.
The Chairman. How does that relate to what we have proposed
in this legislation?
Mr. Karsner. What I would say, is that the legislation
would create a new baseline of performance going into that
rulemaking, but it would not preclude that rule from--if the
inputs that were, in fact, technological feasible and
economically justifiable--it would not preclude those standards
necessarily for being higher in a published Federal rulemaking
process. But it would certainly add a new baseline of minimum
performance.
The Chairman. So it would add a new baseline and it would
also provide a backup if the deadlines set out in the
legislation were not met. Is that accurate or not?
Mr. Karsner. I'm not sure if that is accurate, with regard
to the first round of proposed rulemaking due out in 2009. I
know that is what occurs, according to the legislation, with
regard to the latter years of----
The Chairman. Right.
Mr. Karsner [continuing]. 2020, 2025.
The Chairman. OK.
Let me defer to Senator Salazar for any questions he has.
Senator Salazar. Thank you very much, Senator Bingaman and
thank you very much Andy Karsner for your great work on energy
issues, especially in this arena of conservation.
You know, for me, I was thinking about this hearing last
night as I was preparing for it and reading the materials. I
grew up in a household that didn't have electricity, and so our
electricity was, or our lights in our house at night were the
kerosene lamps. I still remember when, in 1981, the public
service company of Colorado then extended their power lines out
to the ranch and we turned on the lights and made a huge
change. So, I was thinking about the fact that as we've lighted
up our homes and our buildings to be able to work through the
night time and in the day time to do the kinds of things that
we do in these buildings, that we've seen this huge revolution,
in terms of our culture and really our civilization, with
respect to lighting.
Yet, the technology we have, with respect to the lights we
currently use, is still the technology of 100 years ago. So I
guess I have two questions for you. I'm very supportive of this
legislation and I hope that as we get it, get our Energy bill
through Conference, that this legislation will be included as
part of that package. But my first question is, why--why is it
that it has taken us so long to get around to the realization
that we have to do something with respect to much more energy
efficient lighting and lighting in our homes and buildings? Why
is it, for us as Americans, has it taken that long to get
there?
Then the second question--Andy, I'd like you also to
respond to--is, with respect to the manufacturing capabilities
here at home in the United States, what is it that we--from my
point of view, we're going to move forward with this agenda, I
think DOE and this Congress will move forward with this
agenda--how do we make sure that the manufacturing
opportunities that we want to create for Americans to have jobs
here at home, what kinds of incentives can we provide for that
to happen?
Mr. Karsner. Thank you, Senator. For the first question,
why has it taken so long. I can only speculate as much as the
next guy, really. There's not an official answer that the
Administration could pose.
What I typically answer--I was just in London and Berlin
and people chronically ask this question about why an advanced
leading technology nation like the United States chronically
underperforms its efficiency capacity. The only answer I can
give, as a person who grew up in Texas where we sent postcards
bragging about oil wells as part of the scenery, is the
sociological factors. That we grew up in a nation thinking that
our resources were inexhaustible and without impact.
Fundamentally, when we put our mind to the notion that they are
exhaustible and they do have an impact, we can develop the
technology very rapidly, in a world-beating way.
So, we saw that in response to the first, earlier energy
crisis in the 1970s, when compact fluorescents were first
proliferated, but we also saw that doing so just on the
technology basis or the encouragement basis wasn't enough, that
we needed comprehensive certification testing, validation, and
thus the Energy Star CFL Program was born and has brought great
success to the reliability and quality of compact fluorescent
and other fluorescent products that did not earlier exist when
they were originally proliferated.
So, we are now taking that same approach, both to the pre-
commercial R&D for solid-state lighting and the need to
proliferate them with intelligent technology advancement
outreach education and Energy Star certification and testing,
et cetera.
So when we put our mind to it, we get better as we go. I
think this legislation and this current dialog will contribute
to a much more rapid evolution of the technology and its
dissemination.
As to the second question on manufacturing, I'm less suited
to address that than the experts that you have in the following
panel, but I think it is a very important point and it is a
point that is often neglected, not just with lighting, but with
renewable energy and efficiency technologies in general. How do
we account for the manufacturing and economic development
impacts here at home, because as we are eminently destined to
incorporate these technologies that the taxpayer invests so
heavily in, we are seeing a growing trend that the
manufacturing is occurring someplace else and that tax policy
is geared for the re-importation cost of this. So, I think you
will hear from experts far more qualified than myself in the
next panel and I will defer to them, but I commend you and this
committee for holding out the importance of the manufacturing
impacts.
Senator Salazar. I appreciate your response to that. I
think on that second question, it's a very important question
for us to explore, you know, for me in Colorado as a--I've seen
the work of this committee under the leadership of Senator
Bingaman and Senator Domenici. I see real impacts that are
happening in Colorado where today we have almost 1,500
megawatts of wind power being created and have been able to
bring a company in that's helping now produce some of the wind
turbines and blades in the State of Colorado.
So, as I think about this clean energy revolution that
we're embarking upon here, I think it's always important for us
to keep thinking about how that clean energy revolution can
help create jobs here in the United States and how we
incentivize those jobs in being created. So that would include
what we do with efficiency, in terms of our lighting.
Thank you.
Thank you, Senator Bingaman.
The Chairman. Thank you very much. Let me just go ahead and
stop with that.
Thank you very much for being here and thanks for your
continued work with the committee on trying to get this
legislation into a form that makes sense.
Mr. Karsner. Thank you, sir.
The Chairman. All right. Why don't we go ahead with the
next panel? We have three witnesses on the next panel, Paul
Waide with International Energy Agency in Paris, Kyle Pitsor,
with the National Electrical Manufacturers Association, and
Steve Nadel, who's with the American Council for an Energy
Efficient Economy.
Thank you all for being here. Why don't we have you go in
the order that I just described, with Mr. Waide from the
International Energy Agency first, and then Kyle Pitsor, and
then Steve Nadel.
Mr. Waide, thank you for coming all this distance.
STATEMENT OF PAUL WAIDE, SENIOR POLICY ANALYST, ENERGY
EFFICIENCY AND ENVIRONMENTAL DIVISION, INTERNATIONAL ENERGY
AGENCY, PARIS, FRANCE
Mr. Waide. Thank you very much for inviting and I have to
comment the Senate and the Congress for developing the
legislation you are in this regard, which I think is going to
be landmark legislation in energy efficiency terms, is going to
have very important impacts internationally, and domestically,
of course. I think is really marking a sea change in the
importance given to energy efficiency as a topic,
internationally.
My agency, the International Energy Agency, is an
intergovernmental body. We have 26 member countries, the United
States is one of them, and we are based in the city of Lights,
as was featured in the Ratatouille promotion just seen
recently. I'm pleased to be able to inform you, that least the
Eiffel Tower in Paris is now lit up by LEDs and rather than by
incandescent lamps. So progress is being made in many different
fronts.
Since 2005, we've been invited by the G-8 group of
countries to support them in developing their plan of action
for a clean and competitive energy future. One of the first
products we put out was a book called ``Lights, Labors, Lost:
Policies for Energy Efficient Lighting,'' and as you can see
from the title, we're not immune to using bad word play on watt
lighting as well, shamelessly borrowing from a Shakespearian
play. This publication documents, as best as we understand it,
the international use of lighting in the current time, globally
and by regions, looks at all of the opportunities to save
energy in lighting, what technologies can be deployed, what
practices can be deployed and the economics and environmental
impacts of doing that--and energy impact, of course--and also
looked at the policy sets which were being, had been deployed,
what they'd achieved, and what more could be done to try and
move things forward.
Now from this we determined that lighting accounts for
roughly 19 percent of global electricity consumption. To put
that into context, that's roughly the entire production of gas-
fired generation internationally. Within that, incandescent
lighting is about 7 percent of global electricity consumption,
and that's approximately half of the output of the world's
nuclear power plants at the current time. So, this is the sort
of rough magnitude of the arena that we're working in here.
There are globally about 12.5 billion incandescent lamps
sold every year and, has already been mentioned, they are very
low efficiency. They only have 5 percent of their--of their
input energy is converted to visible light, and the rest is to
heat. The technology is little changed since it was first
introduced. We, of course, have many more efficient
technologies coming into the market now. The compact
fluorescent lamps have been mentioned.
It was also asked why are things not moved forward faster
in that domain. I think there are several reasons, but as the
speaker said, it was speculation about really what they are.
But partly, we have to acknowledge that the technology itself
has actually improved in recent years. I just brought some
examples to illustrate that. When they first came out they were
very bulky. You can now get them down to this size or smaller,
even. So they fit into all screw-based sockets and into all
fixtures much better than was previously the case.
Also the quality of these lamps has improved dramatically
as well. Although there are still some issues that are
important to bear in mind about quality between different types
of lamp technologies. I think the next speaker's going to be
talking--giving some illustrations of these, so I won't dwell
on that.
What we found, as well, is that obviously were everybody
internationally to move to using compact fluorescent lamps
instead of incandescents--now maybe there will be some blend of
technologies moved instead or adopted instead--this would save
roughly 75 percent of that 7 percent of electricity consumption
and to put that in context of CO2 on a global level.
It's roughly equivalent to replacing a hundred times the
current installed wind capacity in the United States in lieu of
unsequestered coal, in terms of abating CO2. Or,
according to our estimates, it's approximately equivalent to
almost three-quarters of the--of CO2 abatement
commitments of the Annex-1 CO2 signatures. So this
is very large amounts of CO2 that are being
potentially--be abated from these, from adopting this kind of
technology.
What I'd like to do and my testimony does, is summarize
what's been happening internationally. Our industry deserves a
tremendous amount of credit for what they've done in the last
12 months on this topic. They've endorsed the objective of
moving away from incandescent lighting over a reasonable
timeframe, and that actually happened, both at individual
companies announcement, initially in Brussels in December last
year, and then at a workshop we organized in Paris in February
where other major players came together and agreed on that
objective.
Since then, we've seen an explosion of activity in terms of
policy measures internationally. The week prior to our
workshop, the government of Australia made their famous
announcement that they wanted to see incandescent lighting or
inefficient incandescent lighting phased out by 2011. They are
currently developing their precise plans, but as it stands,
they're planning to phaseout the majority of lamps next year,
in 2008, and then various of the monish products by--in the
intervening period up to 2014, in fact. They are setting a
second-tier standard as well, although they haven't quite
decided though exactly what the level that should be at the
moment.
We've also seen that, in March, the European Council of
Ministers, this is the heads of state meeting, which takes
place periodically in Europe. For the first time ever,
actually, made a pronouncement about energy efficiency. What
they did, is they asked the European Commission to develop a
regulation by 2009 at the latest, within the terms of an
existing regulatory framework called the Ecodesign Directive,
to facilitate the phase-out of inefficient incandescent
lighting.
We've also seen, although that will apply EU-wide minimum
efficiency standards presumably, although the regulations are
still being developed at this current time, so we don't have
anything on the table as yet from the Commission. They've hired
a consultant. The consultant's due to report in November. There
will be consultation process taking place next year with all of
the member States, and that's when the--the steps that you are
already looking at here, will start to be crystallized in the
European process.
But in the meantime, the European industry's actually come
forward with their own proposal. They're proposing staged
phase-out of incandescent lighting beginning in 2009, they have
a tier-one and a tier-two level. So 2009 to 2015, depending on
the wattage of the lamps, and then going from 2011 to 2017,
depending on, again, the wattage of the lamp for the tier two
levels. That's presumably in the base proposal and then the
member States will discuss that with them, about what their
final position will be.
But we actually have, now five EU member States, first the
UK, then Ireland, Portugal, Belgium, the Netherlands, who've
also made it clear that they intend to phase-out incandescent
lamps by 2011, at the latest. Because they are not by EU law,
able to introduce minimum efficiency standards, which are not
applicable EU-wide, it has to be an EU process for that, in the
terms of the single market. They're doing this in ways by which
they are working with the supply chains, get agreement that
they will stop stocking incandescent lamps, and some retailers
have already announced that they will do that in the UK.
They are also subsidizing compact fluorescent lamps, only
the high-quality ones, not the low-quality ones. In the UK
right now, you can buy those lamps for the same price as an
incandescent lamp, effectively. They are proposing, although
this isn't finalized, to potentially introduce taxes, import
duties on incandescent lamps, as another way of pricing them
out of the market. So, there are many ways by which you can
influence the market to reach this kind of outcome.
Canada has also come forward. They've made a pronouncement
that they want incandescent lights phased-out by 2012. Natural
Resources Canada has come forward with a specific proposal on
how that should happen. Some of the details are put forward in
my testimony, but they will obviously give you more details. As
proposing a lumen per watts approach for a standard and there
will be a tier-one and tier-two approach within that.
We've also seen Switzerland, most recently, coming forward,
that linking it to the energy label, which is used on European
lamps sold in the European Union and also in Switzerland. Just
to show you an example, this is what it looks like. You have an
A to G rating. It works in any language in Europe, which is why
it's phase simplified. You could have more information were
there not the linguistic problems. Their proposal is to ban
certain classes, of inefficient classes over a certain period
of time and to ramp that up so that by 2012, all lamps would be
reaching class B efficiency on this. That's again linked to a
lumens per watt type approach.
Now, if we add all of this up and what's happening here,
we're looking at roughly half of the lamps in the world, the
incandescent lamps in the world being subject to some sort of
regulatory measures coming into effect over the next decade, at
various time levels. That means a huge transformation in the
lamp industry.
Lamps are traded globally. The--as has already been
mentioned--the majority of the world's compact fluorescent, for
example, are sourced from China at the moment. What happens in
one part of the world has a significant impact potentially on
the markets in other parts of the world.
So one of the issues that we have been bringing to people's
attention and we're starting to discuss this with our member
governments, is potentially the need to coordinate some of
these measures, to ensure that there are no shocks in the
supply chain. Because this is a massive transformation that is
to be required, replacing billions of lamps by billions of
other kinds of lamps, having lamps with very different
replacement cycles, some which might be 1,000 hours for a
standard incandescent lamp now, as opposed to 6,000 upwards for
incandescent lamps, implies a totally different volume of lamp
production. It implies transforming the capacity for
production, which may have implications for stranded assets in
the new capacity. There is a risk in certain situations that
that could arise. That's something that OECD is engaged in this
process, is keen to avoid.
But it actually, just to conclude my testimony, just to say
that this isn't limited to the OECD. Many of the measures are
actually being adopted elsewhere. Funny enough, the first
country to have actually phased-out incandescent lighting is
Cuba. They did this periodically, starting last year, and I
believe it's already happened now. They introduced a ban and
they also, actually, went around households and delamped the
old incandescent lamps and replaced them with--with compact
fluorescent. They are reporting significant drops in
electricity demand, as a result of that step. Now I don't
imagine that kind of measure's going to be happening in the
OECD, but it just shows that, what countries can do.
China is seriously considering this issue. They are--with
the EU--are the joint second-largest market in the world,
they're about a sixth of the world market for incandescent
lamps. They are starting work now, looking at whether or not
they will follow suit and introduce policy measures to bring
them in line.
We've seen in many other large non-OECD economies--
Indonesia, Egypt, South Africa, Brazil--they've all introduced
major compact fluorescent lamp programs over the years and they
have been ramping those up. Some of those economies, such as
Brazil for example, half of their screw-based lamps are now
CFLs and they've saved a significant amount of power by making
that transformation.
I understand that the Global Environmental Facility in the
process of developing a--what they hope will be a global
project to support, not only OECD countries to phase-out
incandescent lighting. So it's not inconceivable that over the
10 to 15 years, that maybe all of the incandescent lamps or in
the conventional form or the conventional efficiencies of
today, will be removed from the global market. This is
obviously a tremendous undertaking and I think you need to be
commended for your efforts in contributing to that process.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Waide follows:]
Prepared Statement of Paul Waide, Senior Policy Analyst, Energy
Efficiency and Environment Division, International Energy Agency,
Paris, France
disclaimer
The information and views expressed in this testimony reflect the
personal understanding and opinion of Dr Paul Waide. He accepts no
liability for the accuracy of the information presented or any
subsequent use that is made of it, but offers this testimony in good
faith according to his best understanding of the topic at the time of
writing.
synopsis
This testimony summarises the international status of policy
efforts to phase-out inefficient incandescent lighting, provides
estimates of potential energy and CO2 savings, gives a
timeline of the developments to date, explains broader international
policy dynamics and how they may influence the US lamp market and
provides comments on some issues pertinent to the proposed US
legislation.
summary
Since early 2007 almost all OECD governments have begun to develop
policies aimed at phasing-out inefficient incandescent lighting. The
intention of the regulations already adopted or under consideration is
to encourage energy savings through the usage of higher efficiency
lamps and most notably the use of compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) in
place of standard incandescent lamps (known as GLS, which is an
abbreviation of general service lamps).\1\ The countries which are
currently actively developing policy measures to phase-out incandescent
lamps account for roughly half the global GLS market and consume about
6.5 billion GLS per year out of a global market volume of approximately
12.5 billion lamps. Other countries may also be poised to introduce
similar initiatives in the near future, such that it is conceivable
that standard GLS lamps could be phased-out globally within a decade.
The USA is the largest single GLS market and accounts for almost a
third of the global market by volume. The next largest markets are the
European Union and China, which each account for about a sixth of the
global GLS market. The global market for screw-based CFLs is estimated
to have been roughly 1.6 billion lamps in 2006 of which approximately
four-fifths were manufactured in China. CFL sales are growing strongly
internationally, with growth in demand in almost all markets, but GLS
sales are likely to remain high and even increase without policy
intervention.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ On average a CFL uses a quarter of the energy of a GLS lamp for
the equivalent light output and hence leads to very significant and
cost effective energy savings. GLS and most CFLs have screw-base or
bayonet-base caps but are collectively called ``screw-based lamps.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incandescent lamps consume about 7% of global electricity
consumption and give rise to approximately 2% of global energy-related
CO2 emissions.\2\ First commercialised in 1879 the
technology is little changed since the 1920s and has a physical energy
efficiency of about 5%, which means that only 5% of the input power is
converted to visible light and the rest is converted into heat. Compact
fluorescent lamps are typically between four and five times more
energy-efficient i.e. they convert between 20 and 25% of the input
power into visible light. Were people around the world to universally
stop using incandescent lamps from 2012 onwards and instead use lamps
with an efficiency of CFLs it would save 5.5% of global power demand
and avoid roughly 500 million metric tonnes of CO2
emissions.\3\ This magnitude of CO2 abatement is equivalent
to what would be achieved by installing one hundred times current US
wind generation capacity in lieu of unsequestered coal-fired power
plants, or alternatively from building 77 one-gigawatt nuclear power
plants in lieu of unsequestered coal-fired power plants. To give an
alternative context were these savings to be realised it would amount
to abatement of CO2 emissions equivalent to almost three-
quarters of the 2012 reduction commitment of the Kyoto Protocol
signatories.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ This is just their direct electricity use and does not take
account of any additional energy that may be used or saved for space
conditioning purposes as a result of the heat emitted by these lamps.
\3\ These figures are IEA estimates derived from projections made
in a global lighting model developed for the 2006 publication, Light's
Labour's Lost: Policies for Energy Efficient Lighting, IEA, Paris.
\4\ The IEA has estimated that Annex 1 Kyoto protocol signatory
countries need to abate about 700Mt of CO2 in 2012 to
satisfy their reduction commitments under the treaty. Reference: Act
Locally, Trade Globally, IEA, Paris 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, CFLs are not the only alternative to conventional general
service incandescent lamps and there are other lamp technologies which
could be used in place of GLS lamps that have higher (or slightly
higher) energy efficiency but are not as efficient as CFLs. They
include: halogen lamps, which can have efficiencies that are between a
few percent better than GLS to up to twice as high as GLS depending on
the technology used; and light emitting diodes (LEDs), which are just
beginning to appear on the market. LED technology is making great
advances; however, it is still unclear how viable it will eventually be
as a replacement for general service incandescent lamps. There is
uncertainty about the future rate of product development and the
eventual market acceptance of LED costs, light level and distribution
characteristics, heat dissipation and chromatic properties.
Regulations could thus be promulgated, which would phase-out
conventional general service incandescent lamps but could still be met
by significantly less efficient lamps than CFLs. Under such
circumstances the magnitude of energy savings resulting from the
regulations would depend on the relative preference expressed in the
market place for the less-efficient compliant lamp options and for
CFLs. In the lower extreme energy savings could be as little as 10 to
20% of GLS lamp energy consumption as compared to roughly 75% with the
full adoption of CFLs. Some of the factors to be considered when
developing such regulations are discussed in Section 4 of this
testimony, including a summary of the issues pertaining to current
screw-based lamp technology discussed in Section 5. The following
section gives a chronology of international regulatory developments in
relation to the phase-out of standard incandescent lamps and provides
information on their current status.
chronology of international regulatory developments
Regulations in place in 2006.--In 2006 the only economies that had
adopted any kind of regulation to influence the efficiency of general
purpose standard incandescent lamps with screw-caps were the Republic
of Korea and California. In both cases the regulations are set at a
level of stringency that continues to allow conventional GLS lamps to
be sold but excludes the least efficient varieties. These measures are
expected to result in energy savings for screw-based lamps of a few
percent which reflects the narrow spread in energy efficiency of
currently available GLS lamps.
With current commercially available lamps designed to use existing
screw-base sockets it is only possible to get much larger energy
savings by the use of fundamentally different lamp technologies.\5\
Energy savings of 75-80% can be achieved through the use of compact
fluorescent lamps (CFLs) in place of GLS and lesser savings of from 0-
50% can be realised through the use of halogen lamp technology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Note this does not preclude the possibility of more efficient
incandescent lamps being commercialized in the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Policy Developments From 2006 to the Present
Light's Labour's Lost.--In June 2006, as part of its work for the
G8 Plan of Action on a Clean, Clever and Competitive Energy Future the
IEA released a 558 page publication on lighting energy use and energy
efficiency issues around the world, entitled Light's Labour's Lost:
Policies for Energy Efficient Lighting.\6\ The book's findings received
widespread media attention and were widely circulated among lamp
manufacturers and policy makers. The key findings are:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Light's Labour's Lost: Policies for Energy Efficient Lighting,
IEA, Paris, 2006. http://www.iea.org/Textbase/publications/free--new--
Desc.asp?PUBS--ID=1695
Some 19% of global power consumption and some 3% of global
oil demand is attributable to lighting.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ About 1.1 million barrels of oil a day are used in road
vehicles to power their lights and some 1.3 mb/d is used in liquid
petroleum products, such as kerosene, to provide lighting in households
without access to the electricity grid. Approximately 1/5th of the
world's population rely on fuel-based lighting in their homes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overall lighting gives rise to 1900 million metric tonnes of
CO2 emissions, which is roughly 70% of the
CO2 emitted by light duty vehicles (cars, SUVs,
motorcycles etc.)
Without new policy measures global energy consumption for
lighting is projected to grow by 60% from 2005 to 2030.
Over 38% of future global lighting energy demand could be
avoided by the use of more efficient lamps and ballasts\8\
which are routinely available on today's market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Ballasts are devices used by some types of lamps to regulate
the input current and voltage so that the lamp operates properly.
Ballasts consume power to operate and some types are more efficient
than others.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Were the global phase-in of such high-efficiency lamps and
ballasts to start in 2008 following natural equipment
replacement cycles it would give rise to 16.6 billion metric
tonnes of CO2 savings globally by 2030 and reduce
the total cost of lighting over the same period by some 2.6
trillion US$ due to reduced energy costs.
Each metric tonne of CO2 abated would provide a
net economic benefit of US$156.
The key findings regarding phasing-out inefficient incandescent
lamps in favour of more efficient technologies, such as CFLs, are:
Globally incandescent lamps are estimated to have accounted
for 970 TWh of final electricity consumption in 2005 and given
rise to about 560 million metric tonnes of CO2
emissions.
About 61% of this consumption is in the residential sector
with most of the rest in commercial and public buildings.
The IEA estimates that incandescent lamps used in the USA
and Canada jointly consumed about 350 TWh of delivered
electricity in 2005 and gave rise to about 217 million metric
tonnes of CO2 emissions.
If current trends continue incandescent lamps could use 1610
TWh of final electricity globally by 2030.
In the hypothetical case that all standard incandescent
lamps were to be replaced by CFLs it would save roughly 800 TWh
and 470 million metric tonnes of CO2 emissions in
2010 rising to 1200 TWh and 700 million metric tonnes of
CO2 in 2030.
Cumulatively this would reduce global net lighting costs by
US$1.3 trillion from 2008 to 2030, and avoid 6.4 billion metric
tonnes of CO2 emissions at a negative abatement cost
of -US$205 per tonne.
The typical rate of return on investment\9\ in a CFL
compared with a standard GLS lamp is in excess of 180%.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ The Internal Rate of Return.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Time Line of International Policy Developments Since 2006
In May 2006, under the terms of the 1992 Energy Policy Act the US
DOE initiated a rulemaking process to determine the case for Federal
standards applicable to general service incandescent lamps,
incandescent reflector lamps and general service fluorescent lamps.
Under the original timetable it was expected that an advance notice of
proposed rulemaking would be issued by November 2007 and a final rule
by June 2009, to take effect by June 2012.
Also in May 2006 and within the rubric of the G8 Plan of Action,
which was launched following the 2005 Summit of the G8 in Gleneagles,
the IEA made four concrete policy recommendations on energy efficiency
for consideration by the G8 at the St Petersburg summit in July. The
recommendation regarding lighting encouraged G8 and plus-5\10\ leaders
to enact policies to raise the energy efficiency of lighting in line
with international best practice. The G8 welcomed the recommendations
and asked the IEA to elaborate on them with more explicit proposals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ The ``Plus 5'' are Brazil, China, India, Mexico and South
Africa.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the USA, Wal-Mart and Home Depot launched programmes to
dramatically increase the sale of CFLs in their retail outlets.
Cuba banned the sale of incandescent lamps and implemented a
programme of direct substitution of GLS with CFLs in households. It is
understood that this was completed sometime in 2007 making Cuba the
first country in the world to have phased-out incandescent lighting.
Another 10 Caribbean countries and Venezuela are reported to be
implementing similar measures.
In December 2006 Philips Lighting, the worlds largest lamp
manufacturer, held a press conference in Brussels at which they
announced they would welcome the global phase-out of general service
incandescent lamps over a 10 year period under proviso that the same
regulatory conditions apply to all market actors.
On January 30, 2007, California Assemblyman Lloyd Levine proposed a
bill to ban the sale of general service incandescent lamps in the state
by 2012.
On February 26th 2007 the IEA and European Commission held a joint
workshop in Paris on CFL Quality and Strategies to Phase-out
Incandescent Lighting which was attended by energy efficiency policy
makers and industry. At this workshop the other major international
lamp producers,\11\ who supply the majority of lamps sold within the
economies of the OECD, announced their support for the objective of
phasing-out of inefficient incandescent lamps within a reasonable
timeframe.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ The major international lamp companies who jointly supply the
majority of lamps currently sold in the economies of the OECD are:
Philips, Osram-Sylvania and General Electric--note in Europe Osram and
Sylvania are separate companies whereas in North America they are a
joint company.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the week preceding the IEA workshop (on February 20th) the
government of Australia held a press conference announcing their
intention to phase-out inefficient incandescent lighting by 2011. The
Government of New Zealand has since confirmed that they support the
policy and will harmonise their requirements with Australia. The final
details of the regulation are still being settled but as of the end of
August 2007 the structure of the regulations appeared to be as follows.
From 1 October 2008 the majority of screw-based lamps imported into
Australia would need to have an efficacy\12\ of 20 lumens per Watt
(denoted (lm/W)).\13\ The intended result of these regulations is that
conventional GLS lamps will effectively be eliminated from the
Australian marketplace and that CFLs will dominate screw-based lamp
sales afterwards, although some mains voltage halogen lamps would
remain. From 2010 the scope will be expanded so that decorative screw-
based lamps such as candle-shaped, ``fancy rounds'', etc. have to meet
the 20 lm/W requirement. From 2012 mains voltage halogen lamps and
incandescent reflector lamps (PAR, R, ER, etc.) will also be required
to attain 20 lm/W. From 2014 pilot lamps, refrigerator and oven lamps
will need to satisfy 20 lm/W.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ The efficacy of a lamp is the standard metric denoting its
functional efficiency and is the amount of visible light it emits
(expressed in lumens (lm)) divided by the power it consumes (expressed
in watts (W)).
\13\ Note that 20 lm/w is for 1200 lm (60w) lamp. The precise
efficacy requirement is expected to be a curve based on lamp light
output. Lamps required to meet this requirement would include IEC bulb
designations A55-A60-PS60, M50 and M60 (& possibly others) designed to
operate at >220V and with screw-caps of E26, E27 or B22d. When
comparing these proposals with those under consideration in the USA
account needs to be taken of the difference in operating voltage. Due
to physical laws incandescent lamps operating at higher voltages are
less efficient than when operating at lower voltages. Incandescent
lamps designed to operate at 220-240V electricity networks, such as in
Europe and Australia, are roughly 15 to 20% less efficient than
comparable products designed for 120V systems such as those used in
North America.
\14\ Source: Australian Phase-out of Incandescent Lamps,
presentation by Shane Holt, Australian Greenhouse Gas Office,
Government of Australia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the same week (on February 22) the ``How Many Legislators Does
it Take to Change a Light Bulb Act (AB 722)'', was introduced in the
California State Legislature. This proposed that GLS lamps would not be
sold after 2012.
On March 9th, 2007, the EU Council of Ministers\15\ called on the
European Commission to establish a regulation addressing incandescent
lighting by 2009 within the framework of the already existing Eco-
design for Energy Using Products Directive 2005/32/EC. This Directive
is a regulatory framework which grants the European Commission
authority to set mandatory (or voluntary) energy performance standards
for tradable goods sold across the EU.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ The regular meeting of EU heads of state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 12th, 2007, the UK government announced a plan to complete
the phase-out of inefficient incandescent lamps within the UK by 2011,
even if this is in advance of the provisions that are ultimately set in
the EU Eco-Design Directive. Under the terms of the European Single
Market individual EU member states do not have the authority to set
non-EU harmonised performance requirements for tradable goods.
Accordingly it is understood that the UK government are considering a
mixture of: voluntary agreements with lamp suppliers and retailers;
subsidies to encourage the sale of high quality compact fluorescent
lamps; and fiscal measures to discourage the sale of low efficiency
incandescent lamps. Some major UK retailers have already announced that
they will stop stocking GLS lamps.
During the period of March to May 2007 the governments of the
Republic of Ireland, Portugal, Belgium and the Netherlands announced
similar policies and initiatives to the UK.
On March 15, 2007, US Representative Jane Harman proposed a bill
(HR1547) in the House of Congress that would impose efficacy standards
for general service lamps sold within the USA. This has since been
modified and entered within the House energy bill (S. 3221--Sec 109).
On March 28th, 2007, a cross-party group of members of the European
Parliament urged EU governments and the European Commission to quickly
introduce new energy efficiency standards for lighting and to introduce
market surveillance measures to prevent existing product quality
standards from being flouted by importers.
Also in March 2007 California assemblyman Jared Huffman submitted a
competing bill (AB 1109) to the Levine bill (AB 722) based-on
technology-neutral performance standards for various categories of
lighting.
Shortly afterwards several other bills were introduced in other US
states. These include: bills in Rhode Island (SB 806), Nevada (AB 178),
New York (#A07944 and AB 6190) and North Carolina (DRH30218-RT-5) of a
similar nature to the CA Levine bill; a bill introduced in Minnesota
(SB 1442) which proposed to tax the sale or transfer of incandescent
lamps by a wholesaler at $0.25 per lamp; a bill entitled, ``Act
Concerning Inefficient Incandescent Lamps'' in Connecticut (HB 6550);
bills that would require all state buildings to switch to CFLs over the
next three years were introduced in New Jersey (A 3983), South Carolina
(SB 97), Illinois (HB 1460), Hawaii (SCR 53 and SR 28) and Arkansas (HB
2551). The Nevada bill AB178 was approved by the Governor in June and
requires lamps sold in the state from 2012 to attain an efficacy of 25
lm/W or higher.
April 18th, 2007, the government of Ontario announced a policy to
phase-out the sale of incandescent lamps within the province by 2012.
April 25th, 2007, the government of Canada announced a policy to
set performance standards for all lighting to phase-out the use of
inefficient light bulbs in common applications by 2012. The intention
is to have defined details of the requirements by the end of 2007. At a
workshop held in Toronto on June 26th staff from the Office of Energy
Efficiency in Natural Resources Canada set out a provisional rulemaking
proposal containing the following elements. The standard is expressed
by an equation that represents the shape of a curve of lamp efficacy
(lumens per watt) to lumen output (lumens) where E (expressed in lumens
per watt) = 4.2375 * ln(Lumens)--13.7912. This equation is intended to
be approximately 50% higher than the best fit curve through existing
general service lighting products. The proposal also includes a lower
standard (at 30% higher than best fit) for ``enhanced spectrum lamps''.
A second Tier was proposed that would be approximately 100% higher than
current efficacy levels to come into effect in 2015. The following
table summarises the required efficacy thresholds that would apply were
this proposal to be adopted.
PROVISIONAL CANADIAN GOVERNMENT REGULATORY PROPOSALS FOR MINIMUM EFFICACY LEVELS APPLICABLE TO SCREW-BASED LAMPS
SOLD IN CANADA\16\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current Proposed Current
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Energy Star
Typical Efficacy Qualified CFL
Typical Wattages Lumen Level (best fit) Tier 1 Tier 2 (equivalent
lumens)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effective 2012 2015
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
25 210 8.4 12.7 21.1 45
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
40 490 12.3 17.8 29.7 45
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
60 840 14 21.1 35.1 45
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
75 1170 15.6 23.1 38.4 60
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
100 1690 16.9 25.3 42.2 60
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>100 2850 19 28.5 47.4 60
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Source: minutes of the National Lighting Summit: Summary of the first consultation on the Government of
Canada's proposed national performance standard for general service incandescent light bulbs--Toronto, June
27, 2007. Natural Resources Canada.
On 5th June 2007 the European Lamp Companies Federation, an
industry association which includes Philips, Osram, GE and Havells
Sylvania, issued a press release setting out a voluntary proposal to
phase-out the sale of GLS lamps in Europe. Under the proposal, by 2015,
85% of the total EU traditional incandescent lamp market of 2.1 billion
lamps would need to meet new efficiency requirements. The proposal
envisages a staggered phase-out of GLS lamps such that lamps above 100W
would have to meet an initial efficacy limit of 18 lm/W by 2009 and a
more stringent one of 20 lm/W by 2011, lamps of 100W to 75W power would
have to meet a first efficacy requirement of 14 lm/W by 2011 and of 17
lm/W by 2013, lamps of 60W to 75W would have to meet a first efficacy
requirement of 13 lm/W by 2013 and one of 15 lm/W by 2015, lamps of 40W
to 25W would need to satisfy a first efficacy requirement of 11 lm/W by
2015 and 14 lm/W by 2017 and lamps of less than 25W would need to
satisfy a first efficacy requirement of 10 lm/W by 2015 and 12 lm/W by
2017.\17\ There has yet to be any consideration of this proposal within
the European Commission's rulemaking process under the rubric of the
Eco-design of Energy Using Products Directive, 2005/32/EC. To date the
Commission has hired consultants to examine all the technical issues
pertinent to the preparation of a rule-making and they are planning to
report their first results in November 2007. The Commission has been
instructed by the EU Council of Ministers to issue a final rulemaking
on the topic before 2009 and is expected to begin a consultation
process with representatives of EU Member States in early 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ When comparing these proposals with those under consideration
in the USA account needs to be taken of the difference in operating
voltage. Due to physical laws incandescent lamps operating at higher
voltages are less efficient than when operating at lower voltages.
Incandescent lamps designed to operate at 220-240V electricity
networks, such as in Europe and Australia, are roughly 15 to 20% less
efficient than comparable products designed for 120V systems such as
those used in North America.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 6-8 June 2007 the G8 Summit met at Heiligendamm in Germany and
endorsed twelve concrete energy efficiency policy recommendations from
the IEA. In the case of lighting the IEA recommended that:
Governments should move to phase-out the most inefficient
incandescent bulbs as soon as commercially and economically
viable.
These recommendations were also circulated to the 26 IEA energy
ministers for consideration at the 2007 IEA Ministerial held in Paris
on May 15th 2007 and were strongly supported.
On June 12th US Senator Bingaman introduced a Senate Bill 1115 the
Energy Efficiency Promotion Act that is subsequently renumbered as
S1419 and then S.2017 (the subject of the current hearing). The bill
includes measures aimed at phasing-out inefficient general purpose
lighting.
In August 2007 the Government of Switzerland published an Energy
Efficiency Action Plan which included a proposal for regulations to
phase-out inefficient incandescent lamps. Under the proposal all
incandescent lamps sold from 2008 onwards will need to be of an
efficiency of class E or higher according to the EU household lamps
energy label\18\ (e.g. requires a minimum efficacy of 11.2 lm/W for a
750 lm lamp), from 2010 onwards to be class D or higher (e.g. requires
a minimum efficacy of 13.0 lm/W for a 750 lm lamp) and from 2012 to be
class B or higher (e.g. requires a minimum efficacy of 20.5 lm/W for a
750 lm lamp). Fluorescent lamps must perform to level A from 2010
onwards (e.g. requires a minimum efficacy of 65.9 lm/W for a 750 lm
lamp). This proposal is currently entering into a consultation process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Commission Directive 98/11/EC, OJ L 71 10.3.1998, p. 1-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beyond the economies of the OECD the governments of Thailand and of
Ghana have recently announced policies to phase-out incandescent lamps.
Government and utilities in Egypt, India, Indonesia, South Africa and
Vietnam are all strengthening existing major CFL promotional
programmes. Several other countries including Brazil and Mexico have
previously launched successful large scale programmes to promote the
use of CFLs in place of incandescent lamps.
The Government of China is understood to be in the process of
initiating a project to investigate the issues associated with phasing-
out incandescent lamps to help them to determine whether to introduce
new policy measures to that effect.
The Global Environment Facility of the UNFCCC is currently in the
process of developing a global project to support non-OECD economies to
phase-out incandescent lighting. It is anticipated this project will be
formally launched before the end of 2007.
issues being considered by legislators
Legislators around the world considering the adoption of
regulations to phase-out inefficient incandescent lighting are facing
similar issues. They need to weigh in the balance the potential for
energy performance requirements to deliver significant energy savings,
and their associated environmental and economic benefits, with the
desire to ensure there is an on-going supply of lamps that satisfy
consumer needs. Setting general energy performance requirements in a
manner that facilitates the required industrial and commercial
transition but doesn't result in unintended consequences is a
challenge. In particular, determining appropriate treatment for niche
applications without creating substantive loopholes is one of the
biggest technical issues to be addressed and reaching and a
satisfactory resolution will require careful attention to detail during
the policy making process.
A recurrent issue is whether to set requirements that allow more
than one type of currently-available screw-based lamp technology to be
deployed, or whether to set them at a level which guarantees maximum
energy savings but may exclude some genres of lamp technologies. The
response will depend on how regulators and the market view the
suitability of the various higher-efficiency alternatives to standard
incandescent lamps and on the relative importance given to the trade-
offs implied. To provide some sense of what these are the main
characteristics of the principal alternative technologies to general
service incandescent lamps are briefly described in section 5. Some
thoughts are also offered about complementary measures which can help
to minimise some of the trade-offs.
When developing regulations care needs to be taken to ensure that
regulatory lead times and market rewards are sufficient for industry to
adjust their manufacturing base to produce compliant lamps in the
required volumes. At present, most regulatory discussions have been
taking place independently of those in other jurisdictions and there
has been relatively limited discussion between regulatory authorities
about the combined impact of their measures on global lamp supply. As
lamps are internationally traded products and a large proportion of
lamps sold in any one jurisdiction are often sourced from elsewhere
there may be a need to ensure that international regulatory
developments are coordinated to minimise the risk of lamp shortages
once the regulations come into effect. Specifically the risk of a
shortage in regulatory-compliant lamps arises from the following
concerns:
a) The substantially different average lifetimes of CFLs
compared to incandescent lamps means that, dependent on the
rate of transition to CFLs, there is a possibility of the
development of a short-lived peak in global demand for CFLs
followed by a depression as lamp markets move to significantly
longer replacement cycles.\19\ Were this to occur it would
create a risk of those manufacturers investing in new CFL
production capacity being left with stranded assets. From a
regulators perspective the concern is that industry might not
invest sufficiently in meeting the peak in global CFL demand
and thus bring about a shortfall in lamps at the moment of
inflection in global compliant-lamp demand.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ The average GLS lasts for 1000 hours and the average CFL for
6000 hours, therefore the lamp sockets currently supplied by global
sales of 12.5 billion GLS per annum could be supplied by sales of 2.1
billion CFLs per annum once all GLS had been replaced by CFLs and a CFL
replacement market were operational; however, during the transition
period much higher volumes of CFLs could be required depending on how
short the transition period were to be.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b) There are technical limits to the rate at which the global
lamp industry is capable of increasing CFL production capacity
mostly due to the time it takes to increase production and
supply of key materials and components (notably glass of an
appropriate grade, phosphors and electronics). This is a
particular concern for the supply of higher quality CFLs, such
are currently sold in the economies of the OECD.
Performing simulations of the potential impacts of current global
regulatory developments on demand for CFLs and other regulatory-
compliant lamp types would be one means of assessing the seriousness of
these risks and determining if greater coordination in policy setting
may be required. The IEA is developing a project to examine this issue.
Lastly, not only do near-term regulatory performance thresholds
need to be achievable with current technology but regulators must also
be mindful about the signals they send regarding investment in future
technology. It is appropriate to consider the degree to which the
regulatory framework put in place in the short-term may influence near
and medium-term investment decisions in lamp production capacity and
the extent to which this is consistent with longer-term public policy
objectives. To this end regulators will need to decide whether to
specify longer-term performance objectives at the same time as
announcing near-term regulatory requirements or not.
suitability of replacement lamps
CFLs.--The suitability of CFLs as replacements for incandescent
lamps has increased significantly in the last decade due to on-going
improvements in the lamp technology and their production. CFLs are now
available at much lower prices than hitherto, they come in a much
larger range of dimensions and thus models can be found which will fit
into almost all light fixtures using a screw-based socket, and their
light quality has improved substantially. Because they require only a
quarter to a fifth of the energy of conventional GLS lamps CFLs are far
more economical to operate and hence are more cost-effective for the
end-user. They also last between five and fifteen times as long as a
standard GLS lamp (5000 to 15000 hours for CFLs compared with 750-1500
hours for GLS). The limitations of CFLs compared with GLS lamps are as
follows:
Good CFLs give out light with a colour-rendering index (CRI)
of about 85 as compared with that from an incandescent or
halogen lamp of 100. This means that they are not quite as good
at producing a faithful rendering of colour as are incandescent
lamps. For most applications a CRI of 85 is perfectly adequate
for end-users but there may be some cases where end-users would
prefer a higher CRI.
While an incandescent lamp produces light as soon as they
are switched on there is a very short delay for CFLs and the
lamps take slightly longer to produce their full light output.
While CFLs are available in much smaller sizes than was
previously the case there is a limit to how small they can be
made. Incandescent lamps and halogen capsules can be produced
that are even smaller still and these may be better suited to
certain kinds of lamp fixtures.
CFLs contain trace levels of mercury. The levels included in
modern lamps are much less than was previously the case but
some economies, most notably the EU, are introducing
requirements for their safe disposal at end of life. The
corollary to this issue is that in economies that use a
significant amount of coal-fired generation in the electricity
mix there is likely to be a significant overall reduction in
mercury release to the environment from the use of CFLs. This
is because the avoided power demand reduces coal-derived
airborne mercury emissions by levels that significantly exceed
the amount of mercury used in the lamp.
CFLs can be produced to have a light colour (referred to as
the colour temperature) which matches that of GLS lamps but
they can also be produced to emit light of a different colour
temperature. To avoid confusion among consumers, many of whom
will be seeking to have lamps with identical colour temperature
characteristics to the GLS lamps they have always used, some
additional effort may be required to communicate the colour
temperature characteristics in a user-friendly way at the point
of sale.
CFLs are not as well-suited to provide well directed beams
of light as are certain types of incandescent lamps (most
notably halogen reflector lamps) and hence are not adapted to
provide some types of reflector lamp applications.
Halogen Lamps.--Halogen lamps are a type of improved incandescent
lamp which can have higher energy efficiency than conventional GLS
lamps but cannot attain the levels of CFLs with today's technology. The
most efficient halogen lamps, which are just in the process of being
commercialised on OECD markets, have an efficiency that is roughly
twice as high as for a comparable GLS lamp. They have the same high
colour rendering (i.e. a CRI of 100) and last two to three times as
long as a GLS (2000 to 3000 hours compared with 750-1500 hours for GLS
lamps). With today's lamp technology it is possible to produce halogen
lamps that could substitute for almost all conventional GLS
applications and that would give energy-savings of from 0 to 50%
depending on the explicit halogen technology used. It is expected that
the most efficient varieties will be significantly more expensive than
GLS and even CFLs when first entered on the market and that their price
will decline as and when their market volumes increase. It is not easy
to estimate whether halogen or CFL lamps would be the cheapest in a
market where no conventional GLS lamps were permitted to be sold, but
it seems likely that CFLs would be cheaper than the most efficient
halogen lamps at least in the short term.
Light Emitting Diodes (LEDs).--Light emitting diodes are rapidly
evolving but are not yet widely available as substitutes for screw-
based GLS lamps. Current lamps can be produced with a higher efficacy
than GLS lamps and with very long lifespans (tens of thousands of
hours) but the lamp costs are very high and there appear to be ongoing
problems with:
providing adequate amounts of light
providing light distribution in a manner which satisfies
consumer needs
ensuring chromatic properties are sufficiently stable from
batch to batch and that the light colour matches consumer
requirements
adequately addressing heat dissipation
The pace of development of the technology is such that many, if not
all, of these issues may be overcome in the next few years but the
outlook is still somewhat uncertain.
Ensuring and Communicating the Quality of Compliant Lamps.--Some of
the lamp characteristic issues raised above can be addressed by taking
steps to ensure the quality of high efficiency lamps sold in a market
is sufficiently high for most consumer needs to be met. This can be
done by setting and enforcing minimum lamp quality requirements and by
encouraging higher quality requirements be met through endorsement
schemes such as Energy Star. Where lamp quality characteristics may
vary but are not universally important to consumers the relevant
information could be made available through improved lamp labelling
designed to communicate pertinent factors in an accessible manner.
The Chairman. Thank you very much for your testimony.
Mr. Pitsor, why don't you go right ahead?
STATEMENT OF KYLE PITSOR, VICE PRESIDENT, GOVERNMENT RELATIONS,
NATIONAL ELECTRICAL MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION, ROSSLYN, VA
Mr. Pitsor. Chairman Bingaman and members of the committee,
on behalf of the National Electrical Manufacturers Association,
I'm Kyle Pitsor, NEMA Vice-President of Government Relations.
NEMA is the National Association representing the electrical
manufacturing industry. That's significant for today's hearing,
representing light bulb or lamp manufacturers that sell over 95
percent of the light bulbs sold in the United States.
Mr. Chairman, earlier this year, the NEMA lamp section
announced a joint industry commitment to advance public
policies that would transform the U.S. market to more energy
efficient lighting within a decade.
NEMA views any lighting market transformation as a matter
of national importance that must come about through a Federal
solution by setting technology neutral, performance-based
standards that would eliminate today's inefficient general
service light bulbs from the market.
A Federal regime is crucial in order to maximize national
energy savings, provide manufacturer certainty in order to
schedule investments for transforming the market, and to avoid
a patchwork of conflicting and unworkable State mandates that
would complicate manufacturing, distribution, retailing, and
create consumer confusion. We look to the Senate for action.
We support S. 2017's focus on general service light bulbs.
There are about 4 billion--4 billion--of these medium screw-
based general service light bulbs installed in the U.S. today,
with about 79 percent of those in residences. This is where the
greatest energy savings can be attained on a national scale.
In the United States, NEMA members sold about 1.7 billion
medium screw-based light bulbs in 2006. Of that 1.7 billion,
about 1.5 billion were the general service incandescent bulbs
very familiar to you today and about 200 million were compact
fluorescent lamps, or CFLs. CFLs represent about 10 percent of
the installed base today and have been growing at about 50
percent--50 percent per year since year 2000.
NEMA member manufacturers proposed, Mr. Chairman, to
replace today's inefficient light bulbs with a combination of
products that will provide consumers product choices. The
replacement light bulbs will be a combination of the compact
fluorescent light we see today, along with new technologies,
including high-efficiency halogen, high-efficiency
incandescent, and LEDs. This is an example of the new high-
efficiency halogen bulb that our members are looking to
produce. This is about 40 percent more efficient than today's
companion incandescent bulb.
Choice is important for several reasons. These compact
fluorescent lamps, while relatively efficiency, are relatively
deficient in color rendering, tend to be larger than
incandescent lamps, creating fit issues of existing light
fixtures, have low light output in exceptionally hot or cold
temperatures and conditions, and in general, are not dimmable.
Meeting demand for these new replacement bulbs is a difficult,
challenging, and sustained task. Accordingly, the legislation
needs to provide for an orderly and phased national approach
for the transformation to be successful.
S. 2017 currently proposes to start the phase-in on January
1, 2012 and for it to be completed in 2 years. NEMA proposes
that the phase-in start on January 1, 2012 and be completed in
3 years.
Neither industry nor regulators will be able to be reliable
in predicting the dynamics of the market acceptance of these
new types of replacement light bulbs. Manufacturers must be
able to learn as we go, in order to be prepared to build the
right manufacturing and commercial capacity to meet the market
demand prudently.
A 3-year transition period, we believe, is eminently
reasonable to interpret these new market forces heretofore
unforeseen in this industry. For each of the different
categories of light bulbs that we're talking about,
manufacturers have to reposition new equipment, build new
capacity, invest in new designs, safety test the products, and
also undertake a significant work force adjustment in the U.S.
market. Manufacturers also have to undertake a massive
education campaign to inform consumers and retailers on why
they should be converting from a 100-watt light bulb to a 72-
watt light bulb, as in the legislation.
Further, industry projects the new halogen technology that
we've talked about for the 100-, 75-, and 60-watt bulbs, is not
going to be suitable for the replacement of the 40-watt light
bulb, and a new technology will need to be invented for that.
Accordingly, that's why we propose in the legislation that the
effective date for the 40-watt light bulb be moved from January
1, 2014 to January 1, 2015.
Let me now turn to the bill's efficiency standards. With
light bulbs, the best way to save energy is to reduce connected
load, and that is watts. This bill does that by setting a
maximum wattage that any bulb can consume for a given lumen
range, or amount of light you get from the bulb, being lumens.
We estimate that U.S. consumers will save over 50 percent--50
percent--of the energy they now use annually, if this--if the
bill's standards become law. This strategy is superior to the
lumen per watt approach that was passed in the House bill. An
LPW approach may have the perverse affect of driving consumers
to buy higher wattage bulbs, which would be--result in more,
and not less, electrical consumption and this is the wrong
direction.
The legislation also provides for lumen ranges, which we
believe are consistent with consumers experiences buying their
current bulbs, so they will have the same quantity of light,
but achieve that at a significantly lower energy consumption.
As in most other standards applied in this legislation, Mr.
Chairman, S. 2017 sets the initial standards, and then directs
the Department of Energy to conduct follow-on rulemakings to
determine if the standards should be amended. There are two
follow-on rulemakings proposed in the legislation.
The bill also includes a backstop standard that would
automatically become the 2020 standard if DOE missed its
statutory rulemaking deadline. The bill language would
essentially establish the 2020 standard at 45 lumens per watt.
NEMA strongly apposes the setting of a minimum 45 lumens
per watt performance standard now, to be effective in 2020. An
LPW standard would essentially permit only these compact
fluorescent lamps being available based on manufacturers
projections of technical feasibility and acceptance. Further,
these CFLs have previous concerns as I noted in my testimony
and are overwhelmingly sourced from China.
In addition, the proposed 45 LPW standard would also have
the affect of outlawing the new high-efficiency halogen product
and new high-efficiency incandescent products the industry will
be introducing only five to 8 years earlier. This brings into
question whether industry would be willing to undertake new
product investment at all if it becomes law and if so, at what
price to the consumer.
Therefore NEMA does not support mandating today, in 2007,
what the new efficiency standards should be in 2020, given that
this is 13 years into the future. We are committed to work with
Congress and stakeholders to ensure that DOE stays on schedule.
Mr. Chairman, the bill sets up a number of additional
provisions to track exempted and specialty bulbs, and to impose
additional standards if there's abnormal growth in those
products. This is an important step. We also not the bill
provides an opportunity to petition DOE to undertake a
rulemaking on products not initially covered by the standards,
if such products become used in general service applications.
The bill supports a provision for new consumer labeling for
light bulbs, and we think this is very important. For the first
time, the bill allows States, in addition to the Federal
Government, to enforce these national light bulb standards.
Mr. Chairman, in closing, let me thank you for introducing
this significant bill. One estimate that I have seen, suggests
this bill by itself, is the single largest source of energy
savings from any appliance standards--standard set to date.
Moreover, the energy savings are nearly as large as the
combined standards of all of the Federal standards adopted from
1987 through 2000, over 88 billion kilowatt-hours.
NEMA looks forward to working with you and the committee
and to support legislation for national energy efficiency
standards for medium screw-based general service light bulbs.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pitsor follows:]
Prepared Statement of Kyle Pitsor, Vice President, Government
Relations, National Electrical Manufacturers Association, Rosslyn, VA
On behalf of the National Electrical Manufacturers Association, I
am Kyle Pitsor, NEMA vice president of government relations. NEMA is
the national trade association representing the electrical
manufacturing industry. Founded in 1926 and headquartered in Rosslyn,
Virginia, our 450 member companies manufacture products used in the
generation, transmission, distribution, control, and end-use of
electricity. These products are used in the utility, medical imaging,
industrial, commercial, institutional, and residential markets.
NEMA members are at the very heart of our national effort to reduce
energy use through the research, development, manufacturing, and
deployment of energy-efficient products and technologies. Significant
for today's hearing, NEMA is the association for the U.S. lighting
industry representing light bulb (lamp) manufacturers. The NEMA Lamp
Section consists of 15 companies that sell over 95 percent of light
bulbs used in the U.S. NEMA members are engaged in all the various
types of light bulb technologies--incandescent (including halogen),
fluorescent, high intensity discharge, and solid state (e.g., LEDs or
light emitting diodes)--and serve all lighting application markets.
Mr. Chairman, earlier this year the NEMA Lamp Section announced a
joint industry commitment to advance public policies that would
transform the U.S. market to more energy-efficient lighting within a
decade. Lighting use in the U.S. consumes 20-22 percent of all
electricity generated. Based on Department of Energy data, 765 billion
kWh of energy is used annually in the U.S. by lighting systems, and
about twice that much is lost as heat in the production and
transmission of that electricity. Put another way, every time you save
1 watt with lighting, the utility will also save the equivalent amount
of fuel it takes to produce 3 watts of power, Thirty percent of the
energy consumed in an office building is from lighting use, and 5-10
percent of residential energy use is for lighting. There are about 4
billion medium screw-base general service light bulbs installed in the
U.S. with 79% of these found in residences.
Given the significance of lighting in our economy, NEMA views any
lighting market transformation as a matter of national importance that
must come about through a federal solution by setting technology-
neutral, performance-based standards that would eliminate today's
inefficient general service light bulbs from the market. A Federal
regime is crucial in this area, since a host of state legislatures
stretching from Connecticut and Rhode Island to California and Nevada
have been considering widely varied state regulations that are
sometimes unworkable, raising the specter of a patchwork of unwieldy
and conflicting mandates that would complicate manufacturing,
distribution and retailing, and create customer confusion. We look to
the Senate for action due the ambiguity in the preemption provision for
light bulbs in the recently passed House energy bill.
We support S. 2017's focus on general service light bulbs. This is
where the greatest energy savings can be attained on a national scale.
The entire discussion of ``phase out of least efficient general service
light bulbs'' has been at the industry's initiative. This is not a case
of manufacturers dragging their heels, but of leading the way. New
standards-setting legislation is needed in order to further educate
consumers on the benefits of energy-efficient products. Importantly,
the legislation will provide manufacturers certainty in order to
schedule investments for transforming the market.
In the U.S., NEMA members sold about 1.7 billion medium screw-based
light bulbs in 2006. Of that 1.7 billion, about 1.5 billion were
incandescent bulbs and 200 million were compact fluorescent lights
(CFLs). CFL screw-based types represented about 10% of the market in
2006, having grown about 50% per year since 2000. U.S. production is
over 4 million light bulbs daily, with CFLs and additional bulbs
imported. NEMA member manufacturers propose replacing today's least
efficient light bulbs with a combination of products that will provide
consumers multiple product choices. The replacement light sources will
be a combination of compact fluorescent and new technologies, including
high-efficiency halogen, high-efficiency incandescent, and high-
brightness light emitting diodes (LEDs). This choice is important for
several reasons. Compact fluorescent lamps, while relatively efficient,
are relatively deficient in color rendering (especially red), tend to
be larger than incandescent lamps (giving rise to ``fit'' issues in
existing lighting fixtures), have low light output in exceptionally hot
or cold conditions, and, in general, cannot be dimmed since they are
not compatible with dimmers.
Meeting demand for replacement products and providing consumer
education on the new lighting products will be a difficult,
challenging, and sustained task. Accordingly, the legislation needs to
provide for an orderly and phased national approach in order for the
transformation to be successful. S. 2107 currently proposes to start
the phase-in on January 1, 2012, and for it to be complete in 2 years
(by January 1, 2014). NEMA proposes that the phase-in begin on January
1, 2012, and be completed in 3 years (by January 1, 2015).
Neither industry nor regulators will be able to reliably predict
the dynamics of market acceptance of the different kinds of replacement
lamps. Manufacturers must be able to ``learn as we go'' in order to be
prepared to build the right manufacturing and commercial capacity to
meet market demand prudently. A sound phase-in period would allow
industry to evaluate market responses and act accordingly. A 3-year
transition period would be eminently reasonable for the interpretation
of such new (and likely strong) market forces which necessitate
manufacturing responses of a magnitude not previously seen in this
industry. Timing and learning are crucial factors for an orderly and
cost effective transition to a new array of products that are taken for
granted in today's vast consumer market.
While we support the beginning of the phase-in on January 1, 2012,
the bill also targets the 40 watt category to be effective January 1,
2014. The 2014 target date presents a serious problem for the
manufacturers. For the reasons below, NEMA recommends that a one-year
interval between the 60 and 40 watt effective dates be adopted, with
the 40 watt category effective date set at January 1, 2015.
This timetable is absolutely crucial for U.S. manufacturing
conversion. Industry projects that the halogen technology suitable for
replacing the 100 watt, 75 watt, and 60 watt general service lamps will
not likely be applicable for the 40 watt replacement. For good color
rendering and dimmable replacement light bulbs, an entirely new
technology will have to be introduced. Moreover, pegging the phase-out
to 2015 only impacts 12 percent of general service light bulbs sold
today.
For each of the product categories, before the new halogen and high
efficiency incandescent bulbs can be sold, the manufacturers must
design, build, and install new production equipment for each product
line, retire or re-purpose existing equipment, determine the cost
impact of stranded investments, ensure suppliers of new raw materials
and components are evaluated, invest in new packaging designs, safety
test and qualify the new products for market, and address production
capacity needs. In addition, extensive work force adjustments must be
undertaken for the new facilities.
Phasing is also needed for retailers and consumers. Manufacturers
will need to undertake massive education programs to ensure that
retailers and consumers understand how the new lower wattage products
should be promoted and used. Furthermore, phasing helps consumers
transition from today's world where a 25 cent light bulb is taken for
granted to a new world where a light bulb is an investment.
Let me now turn to the bill's efficiency standards. With light
bulbs, the best way to save energy is to reduce connected load; that is
``watts.'' This bill does that by setting a maximum wattage that any
bulb can consume for a given lumen range (amount of light from the
bulb). We estimate that U.S. consumers will save over 50% of the energy
now used annually if the bill's standards become law. This strategy is
superior to a minimum lumens-per-watt (LPW) approach which was made
part of the House-passed bill (H.R. 3221). An LPW approach may have the
perverse effect of driving consumers to buying higher wattage light
bulbs which would result in more--not less--electrical consumption.
This is the wrong direction.
The Senate's proposed wattage cap with a lumen range approach is
also technology neutral and allows manufacturers the ability to offer a
range of products to consumers using different technologies. The lumen
ranges proposed in the bill are consistent with consumer experience
with today's general service categories of 100, 75, 60 and 40 watt
light bulbs thereby providing consumers with the same quantity of light
while using significantly less energy.
As in most other appliance standards legislation, S. 2017 sets the
initial standards levels, and then directs the Department of Energy
(DOE) to conduct follow-on rulemakings to determine if the standards
should be amended in the future. In this bill, two follow-on
rulemakings are included. One is scheduled to be effective on January
2, 2020, and a second to be effective on January 1, 2025. The bill
includes a ``back-stop standard'' that would automatically become the
2020 standard if DOE missed its statutory rulemaking deadline. The
bill's language would establish the 2020 standard at 45 LPW.
NEMA strongly opposes setting a minimum 45 LPW performance standard
now, to be effective in 2020. A 45 LPW standard would essentially
permit only compact fluorescent lights (CFLs), based on today's
manufacturers' projection of technical feasibility and market
acceptance, including cost. Manufacturers have the expertise necessary
to best make those assessments. Further, these CFLs have the previously
mentioned performance limitations and are overwhelmingly sourced from
China. The proposed 45 LPW standard would also have the effect of
outlawing the new high-efficiency halogen and new high-efficiency
incandescent products that the industry will be introducing only 5-8
years earlier. This brings into question whether industry would be
willing to undertake new product investment at all if this becomes law,
and if so, at what price to the consumer. NEMA does not support
mandating in 2007 what the new product efficiency standard should be in
2020, given that this is 13 years into the future. We are committed to
work with the Congress and stakeholders to ensure that DOE stays on
schedule.
We note that while the bill is properly focused on transforming the
general service light bulb market, it also does set up a process to
track exempted or specialty light bulbs, and for additional standards
to be imposed if abnormal market growth develops. This is important to
ensure that non-general service application bulbs do not become a means
to circumvent the transformation to energy-efficient products for
general lighting applications. We also note that the bill provides the
opportunity to petition DOE to undertake a rulemaking on products not
initially covered by the standards if such products become used in
general service applications.
NEMA supports the bill's provision for new consumer labeling of
these new light bulbs to better assist consumers in making the right
choices for their lighting needs, and the bill's provision to allow
States, as well as the Federal Government, to enforce these national
light bulb standards.
Title II of the bill incorporates a consensus standard developed by
NEMA and the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE).
This consensus standard would set for the first time new federal
standards on certain metal halide lighting fixtures. A similar
provision was incorporated in H.R. 3221 which passed the House of
Representatives on August 4, 2007. NEMA supports this provision.
Mr. Chairman, in closing, let me thank you for introducing this
significant bill. One estimate that I have seen suggests this bill, by
itself, is the single largest source of energy savings from any
appliance efficiency standard to date. Moreover, the energy savings are
nearly as large as the combined energy savings from ALL federal
appliance standards adopted from 1987 through 2000 (88 billion kWh/
year).
NEMA looks forward to working with you and the Committee to address
the issues we raised in our testimony, and to support legislation to
provide for national energy efficiency standards for medium screw-base
general service lamps. I would be pleased to address any questions.
Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you very much for your testimony.
Now we'll hear from Mr. Nadel, and then we'll have some
questions. Go right ahead.
STATEMENT OF STEVEN NADEL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AMERICAN COUNCIL
FOR AN ENERGY-EFFICIENT ECONOMY
Mr. Nadel. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Murkowski,
my name is Steve Nadel, I'm the Executive Director of the
American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy. We're a non-
profit organization dedicated to increasing energy efficiency
as a means to promoting both economic prosperity and
environmental protection.
I'm here today representing not only ACEEE, but also a
variety of other energy efficiency groups, including the
Alliance to Save Energy, The Appliance Standards Awareness
Project, The Earthday Network, The Natural Resources Defense
Council, and the Southwest Energy Efficiency Project.
Our coalition believes that this is a big step in the right
direction for improving the efficient use of energy in the
United States. We thank you, Senator Bingaman, as well as
Senator Stevens and the other co-sponsors for introducing this
bill and moving this dialog along. However, we also think this
bill can and should be improved in several ways, as I discuss
in my written testimony.
In the brief time here today, I just wanted to concentrate
on two issues. First, I wanted to talk about the tier-two or
the stage-two standard, the 2020 standard. We think this is
vitally important. About half of the savings in the bill are in
this tier-two. As Representative Harman testified earlier, this
was an essential ingredient to lock in this tier-two, if you
will, for their agreeing in the House to the preemption
language.
As you noted, Senator Bingaman, this calls for DOE
rulemaking, but then has a backstop. If the backstop were to be
called for, there are a variety of ways that manufacturers can
meet it. Obviously there are compact fluorescent lamps, there
are also LEDs. Assistant Secretary Karsner earlier testified
that we're already up to 79 lumens per watt for LEDs in the lab
and they're targeting 200. So those, by 2020, should be widely
available.
There were also other advanced incandescent products. To
just quote from a recent GE press release on their new high-
efficient product. They say, ``Ultimately, the high-efficiency
lamp technology is expected to be about four times as efficient
as current incandescent bulbs and comparable to CFL bulbs.'' So
GE has already gone public on an incandescent product that
would meet this backstop standard.
Also, I should point out, in the Senate bill, unlike the
House bill, it doesn't mandate as a backstop, 45 lumens per
watt, it says that--it says that the DOE rulemaking should save
an average of 45 lumens per watt. So there is the flexibility
for DOE to say, for certain product classes it will be below 45
lumens per watt, as long as it's higher than others. So these
details can be worked out by DOE.
I think by setting a floor now, Congress is providing firm
direction to manufacturers about what products they need to
develop by 2020. As we just heard, manufacturers believe they
need until 2015 in order to complete the transition to the
tier-one standard. They need multiple years to prepare. If we
delay a decision to the very end, manufacturers don't have
advanced warning, they could again be saying, ``Oops, sorry,
there's not enough time to prepare.'' By providing this
backstop, we give them plenty of time to know about where we're
heading and then the details can be worked out.
The second area I wanted to concentrate on is about
loopholes. This bill regulates the most common types of lamps,
but less common lamps, that still can be used in general
service applications, are not regulated. So you're still free
to sell a 60-, 100-, 150-watt version of these unregulated
products and put them in a normal fixture. We think this needs
to be addressed.
The bill does contain a petition process, under which
someone can petition DOE to set standards for new product
classes, but it's a time-consuming and burdensome process. For
example, you need to provide sales data on the exempted
products, you need to provide data on how these products are
being used in homes. Only manufacturers have the sales data,
other people don't. It would require a field survey, an
expensive process, if you want to show actually how bulbs are
being used in homes. So we think this process doesn't really
achieve its intended purpose.
The bill also does have a process where manufacturers can
petition to add exemptions to the bill. We think this is a much
better process to put most of these bulbs through, rather than
having to close loopholes, we much prefer a manufacturer having
to petition to open a loophole, or to petition to say we're not
opening a loophole. So, we recommend that as a general rule,
you regulate all the products, list a whole bunch of specific
exemptions we can identify now that won't be used in general
service applications, but if someone comes up with new product,
rather than just assume it's exempt, they need to show that
it's needed for an application, it can't meet the standard, and
wouldn't be used in general service applications.
What I wanted to show is a couple of examples of this. This
is a BR lamp. It's a type of lamp that was exempted in the 1992
Energy Policy Act. It was a niche product at the time, but the
slight little bulge made it exempt. It's now over half of the
sales of reflector lamps for residences, become a major
loophole. Likewise, this is what's called an intermediate-base
ceiling fan lamp. These things weren't even invented when the
Energy Policy Act of 2005 was passed. That Act required--only
regulates medium-base bulbs. So, some manufacturers came out
with these intermediate-base bulbs. They're half an inch in
diameter. They're not regulated at all, and virtually all of
the savings from the ceiling fan standard are now being lost
due to bulbs like this.
Turning now to this bill, we have the G lamp. It's a round
lamp, a globe lamp, but you can fit it into most of the
existing fixtures, not regulated, you can still sell a 60-watt,
a 100-watt version of these. We recommend that these be
covered, as well.
To provide a couple of other examples. Here I have what are
called the CP19 and a BT15. These are both products you can fit
in most fixtures. These happen to be regulated. What if someone
were to come up with a CP15, slightly smaller, or a BT19,
slightly larger. They're totally unregulated. There are lots of
ways to get around this standard. So that's why we recommend
that instead of just regulating a narrow group, regulate them
broadly. You can meet these standards with these products, but
allow, both for additional exemptions in this bill and for a
process for people to petition for a new exemptions.
With that, I wrap up my testimony and welcome any questions
you may have. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Nadel follows:]
Prepared Statement of Steven Nadel, Executive Director, American
Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy
summary
This testimony is presented on behalf of a coalition of energy
efficiency advocacy organizations. We believe that S. 2017 is a huge
step in the right direction for improving the efficient use of energy
in the United States. The version of the bill as introduced is a
substantial improvement over earlier drafts, particularly in how it
sets a floor for the DOE rulemaking that will set a revised standard
that takes effect in 2020. We think it is vitally important to set such
a floor so that large savings are ensured (nearly half the savings are
from the second stage standard) and so that manufacturers have ample
time to prepare for the product changes that will be needed to meet
this new standard.
While there are many provisions we like in the bill, we also think
it can and should be improved in order to:
1. Expand coverage of the bill to additional lamp types and
take other steps that are needed to plug loopholes that would
allow low-efficiency exempted products to be sold in place of
the higher efficiency products called for by the bill. If these
loopholes are not addressed, much of the savings projected for
the bill could evaporate.
2. Include lumen per Watt requirements and/or adjust lumen
output bins in order to reduce the likelihood that lamps with
low light output will be sold that consumers think are too dim.
If consumers find that lamps are too dim, some of them will
switch to higher wattage lamps, eliminating significant energy
savings.
3. Modify the preemption of state standard provisions in
order to protect states that have adopted or are in the process
of adopting state standards on general service incandescent
lamps.
4. Make a variety of technical changes so that intent is not
misunderstood and implementation can proceed in a logical
fashion.
5. Consider a new section on fluorescent tube efficiency
standards based on discussions between ACEEE and lamp
manufacturers. This new provision would update standards set by
Congress in the Energy Policy Act of 1992.
With our recommended changes we estimate that this bill will, by
2030, reduce annual electricity use by nearly 200 billion kWh, reduce
peak demand by 31,000 MW (equivalent to capacity of more than 100 power
plants of 300 MW each) and reduce consumer and business energy bills by
about $18 billion per year. These are very large savings. In addition,
these provisions will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by nearly 40
million metric tonnes, adding to the substantial savings in the Senate-
passed energy bill and making a useful downpayment in efforts to
address global warming. We urge you to include these improved
provisions in an energy bill reported out of this Committee and the
upcoming House-Senate energy bill conference.
introduction
My name is Steven Nadel and I am the Executive Director of the
American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE), a nonprofit
organization dedicated to increasing energy efficiency as a means of
promoting both economic prosperity and environmental protection. I am
here today representing a coalition of energy efficiency organizations
that has been working together on lamp standard issues for many months.
In addition to ACEEE, other members of this coalition are the Alliance
to Save Energy, Appliance Standards Awareness Project, Earth Day
Network, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Southwest Energy
Efficiency Project. Our coalition thanks you for the opportunity to
testify today.
S. 2017 is an important step forward in efforts to secure large
energy savings and greenhouse gas reductions by reducing the energy now
used by general service incandescent lamps and also metal halide
lighting fixtures. The provisions on consumer education will also be
very useful as are the sections on research and development and mercury
use. We thank Senators Bingaman and Stevens for introducing this bill
and moving the discussion forward on how best to regulate lighting
products to produce energy savings in a way that provides consumers
with the light and amenities they need and that is workable for
manufacturers.
In my testimony here today I will discuss each of the bill's
sections in turn--what we like about this bill and how it can be
improved. I will also recommend that a new section be added to adopt
updated standards on fluorescent tubes, based on discussions between
ACEEE and the National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA).
general service incandescent lamps
General service incandescent lamps are a very important target for
energy savings. According to a recent study commissioned by the U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE), there are approximately 4 billion general
incandescent lamps in use in the U.S. that consume approximately 286
billion kWh of electricity annually. At the current national average
electricity price of about 9 cents per kWh, this means consumers and
businesses are paying more than $25 billion per year to operate general
service incandescent lamps. Of this energy use, 58% is in the
residential sector, making these standards particularly important to
individual consumers.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Navigant Consulting, 2002, U.S. Lighting Market
Characterization, Volume 1: National Lighting Inventory and Energy
Consumption Estimate. Washington, DC: Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, USDOE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
S. 2017 will save energy from general service incandescent lamps in
several stages. In the first stage, effective 2012-2014, it will phase
out the most common types of incandescent lamps in favor of products
that use about 25-30% less energy (e.g., a 60 Watt bulb will be
replaced with a bulb using 43 Watts or less). In addition, because
these 43 Watt bulbs likely will cost somewhat more than today's 60 Watt
bulbs, many consumers will choose to purchase a compact fluorescent
lamp (CFL), saving additional energy (e.g., one using about 15 Watts
instead of 43 Watts) at little additional cost. In the second stage,
the bill requires the DOE to set a new standard, but provides an
important backstop by requiring that the new standard save at least as
much energy as a standard that would require 45 lumens of light output
per Watt of energy input. Using the same example of a current 60 Watt
bulb, this means that in stage 2, energy use will be reduced to about
20 Watts, more than doubling the energy savings from the first stage.
The bill also calls for a third stage, with the standard to be set by
DOE.
Our coalition believes this bill is a huge step in the right
direction for improving the efficient use of energy in the United
States. However, we also think it can and should be improved, primarily
by plugging potential loopholes in the bill that would allow low-
efficiency exempted products to be sold in place of the higher
efficiency products called for by the bill. In addition, we think that
refinements are needed to reduce the likelihood that lamps with low
light output will be sold that consumers think are too dim and to
protect states that have adopted or are in the process of adopting
state standards on general service lamps. Later in my testimony I
elaborate on these points, as well as several recommended technical
corrections.
As most of you probably know, the energy bill recently adopted by
the House of Representatives includes a section on general service
incandescent lamp standards authored by Representatives Jane Harman and
Fred Upton. This provision is broadly similar to S. 2017 in that it
requires efficiency improvements to these lamps in two stages with
effects similar to the first two stages in S. 2017. However, there are
quite a few differences in the details of these bills, some of which
are important.
For example, S. 2017 was drafted to fit into existing appliance and
equipment standards law while the House bill is a stand-alone section.
We support the S. 2017 approach since it takes advantage of the many
important implementation details now in current law. We also like the
fact that S. 2017 includes phase 1 standards based on maximum power
(watts) for each range of light output (lumens) that is comparable to
today's incandescent lamps. By contrast, the House bill used a lumens-
per-watt approach that, unless Watt caps are also added, could allow
improved efficiency to be translated into more light (i.e., higher-
output lamps) rather than lamps that use less electricity while
providing about the same amount of light. On the other hand, there are
several provisions in the House bill that are superior and should be
incorporated in S. 2017 as I discuss later in my testimony.
ACEEE, with help from the Alliance to Save Energy, has estimated
that the House general service incandescent lamp standard provision
will reduce U.S. electricity use by about 81 billion kWh in 2020, peak
electric demand by nearly 10,000 MW (the capacity of 33 power plants of
300 MW each), and greenhouse gas emissions by 16 million metric tonnes
of carbon. By 2030, due to the stage two standards in the bill, these
annual savings increase to 143 billion kWh, 17,500 MW of peak power
(the capacity of 58 power plants), and 28.5 million metric tonnes of
carbon. At 9 cents per kWh, annual energy bill savings from these
standards will be about $7 billion from stage 1 and $13 billion from
stage 2.
By comparison, our estimate is that S. 2017 will save a little more
energy in 2020 and a little less in 2030 than the House bill. Savings
in 2020 are higher since S. 2017 includes watt limits on intermediate
and candelabra base lamps and also includes wattage caps on all lamps
(these items are not in the House bill). Savings are lower in 2030
since the guaranteed second stage standard is stronger in the House
bill. Specifically, our estimates of savings from S. 2017 are as
follows:
In 2020, annual energy savings of 85 billion kWh (reducing
bills by $7.7 billion) and peak demand reductions of 10,500 MW
(the capacity of 35 power plants of 300 MW each). Greenhouse
gas reductions of 17 million metric tonnes of carbon.
In 2030, annual energy savings of 139 billion kWh (reducing
bills by $12.6 billion) and peak demand reductions of 11,600 MW
(the capacity of 38= power plants of 300 MW each). Greenhouse
gas reductions of 27.8 million metric tonnes of carbon.
Our estimates of savings from both bills are highly approximate as
they depend on judgments on the second stage standard to be set by DOE
(our estimate assumes the minimum) and how widely manufacturers and
importers exploit loopholes that differ between the bills.
To assure these savings, it is absolutely critical that final
legislation close the easy-to-exploit loopholes that would allow
circumvention of the intended standards.
Turning now to some of the details of S. 2017, our comments fall
into five categories:
1. The second stage standard (which takes effect 2020).
2. Closing potential loopholes.
3. Discouraging dim lamps.
4. Preemption of state standards.
5. Additional technical issues.
second stage standard
Our coalition strongly supports having a guaranteed second stage
standard in the bill. S. 2017 takes a smart approach by calling for a
DOE rulemaking but providing a backstop standard in case DOE either
does not complete the rule in time or the DOE standard fails to achieve
the same energy savings as a 45 lumen per Watt standard. Effectively,
this provision puts a floor on the DOE rulemaking, based on current
known products (e.g., CFLs) and products that are expected to achieve
these efficiency levels well before 2020 (e.g., light emitting diodes,
or LEDs).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Other promising technologies are also in development such as
ceramic filaments, selective emitters, and photonic lattices. See
Calwell, Chris, Jan. 25, 2005, ``Technical Basis for General Service
Incandescent Lamp Standards in California.'' Power Point presentation
available from Ecos Consulting, Durango, CO. Additional options are
provided by more efficient fill gases (used today but use could expand)
and low voltage input (planned for some European products).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As this committee knows, DOE has missed all of its Congressionally-
set deadlines for new efficiency standards since 1990, so it is
important to have a clear and achievable minimum standard in place if
DOE does not act in time. Most of the new standards set by Congress in
the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and in energy bills passed by the House
and Senate in 2007 either contain such a backstop provision or allow
states to set standards if DOE misses its deadlines. Also, in the case
of new lamp standards, in order to achieve the large energy savings
that can clearly be achieved with stage two, major product changes will
be needed. The provision to create a floor for the stage 2 standard
provides a clear direction to manufacturers to work on developing a
full array of products that can meet this floor by 2020. In other
words, manufacturers have 13 years to prepare for the new standard.
Without such clear direction, manufacturers could argue during a
2014-2017 rulemaking that they are not ready for a strong standard and
either the standard needs to be weakened or they need many more years
to prepare, delaying the effective date of the new standard. These
savings are substantial--ACEEE estimates that nearly half of the annual
energy and carbon reductions in 2030 from the general service
incandescent lamp standard in S. 2017 are due to the stage 2 standard.
The costs of any delay in stage 2 implementation would be enormous.
Unlike many other products, lamps last a few months to a few years. As
a result, the total effect in reduced electricity demand and emissions
reductions from a new standard is attained soon after implementation.
Our coalition also notes that while we support the approach in S.
2017, we are also comfortable with the approach in the House bill that
sets a similar stage 2 standard, but without the DOE rulemaking. (Some
of our coalition prefer the House approach.)
While we strongly support the stage 2 lamp standard provision in S.
2017, we also think it should be refined in a few ways:
1. The wording on p. 18 (lines 10-16) is ambiguous and should
be clarified in order to make clear that the backstop standard
goes into effect if DOE either misses the deadline or sets a
standard that results in less energy savings than a 45 lumen
per Watt standard. We suggest specific rewording in the
appendix to my testimony.
2. The backup standard of 300% of the efficacy of a 100 Watt
lamp (p. 18, line 19-23) is imprecise, because there are many
types of 100 Watt lamps. The most common 100 Watt lamps on the
market today are about 17 lumens per Watt. To eliminate
ambiguity, we recommend that 50 lumens per Watt (rounding 300%
of 17 lumens per watt) be the backstop standard. This would
save a lot of work to interpret this provision and help avoid
the prospect of controversy, potential delays, and litigation.
3. The bill calls for the Secretary to formally set the
backstop standard (p. 18, lines 17-23), even if the backstop
goes into effect because of DOE inaction. If a specific
backstop standard is set as we recommend above, then Congress
can and should just set the backstop standard instead of
requiring DOE action.
4. The bill makes clear that DOE, in the stage 2 rulemaking,
should not limit consideration of new standards to just those
achievable by incandescent technology (p. 17, lines 9-10). We
think it would be useful to further clarify that if other
provisions of the law are met (including the provision to not
reduce consumer utility), it is possible that the new standard
will be met only by technologies that are not incandescent. We
are not saying such an event is likely, but instead saying that
the legislation should be clear about permitting such an event
if justified. We suggest specific legislative language in the
appendix to this testimony.
5. In discussing the DOE stages 2 and 3 rulemakings, the bill
uses the term ``more stringent maximum wattage than the
standards specified [for stage one]'' (p. 17, lines 1-4) and
page 19, lines 5-10). We think DOE should have more flexibility
to consider other metrics such as lumens per Watt, especially
since the default standard is specified in lumens per Watt.
More agency flexibility could enable DOE to better meet the
underlying legal criteria of economic justification and
technical feasibility and may be useful for harmonizing with
international standards. To allow such consideration, the words
``maximum wattage than the'' should be deleted. Alternatively,
a period could be added after ``amended'' in line 1 on page 17
and the rest of the paragraph through the end of line 4 struck.
closing potential loopholes
Past history shows that when Congress sets lamp standards, creative
manufacturers (not necessarily large companies or even companies in the
market today) can often find ways to legally evade the law by
exploiting loopholes. Typically a small manufacturer takes the first
step to exploit a loophole and evade Congressional intent, and then
larger manufacturers produce similar ``loophole products'' in order to
be competitive.
For example, in the Energy Policy Act of 1992, a small niche
product known as ``BR'' lamps (BR for ``bulged reflector'') were
exempted because they were an obscure niche product. However, after
enactment, the inefficient BR lamp became the dominant reflector lamp
for the residential market, increasing from niche status to more than
50% of sales. This loophole is finally being narrowed in the
incandescent reflector lamp provision of the 2007 House and Senate
energy bills.
Likewise, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 required ceiling fan light
kits to use CFLs, but provided an exception for lamps that do not use
medium-screw bases (the common 1 inch diameter screw base). Since this
legislation, intermediate base incandescent lamps (\1/2\ inch in
diameter) have become prevalent in ceiling fan light kits and use of
candelabra bases (\1/4\ in diameter) has also increased, defeating the
intent of the law, which was to ensure use of more efficient CFLs
rather than inefficient incandescent lamps in ceiling fans.
Given this history, this new legislation should be especially
vigilant for potential loopholes. S. 2017 takes important steps in this
regard, including identifying likely loopholes such as vibration
service, rough service, and shatter-proof lamps and calling for
monitoring of sales of these lamps and a procedure to close these
loopholes if sales of these exempt products double from baseline
levels. However, much more is needed to prevent loopholes. Below we
identify a number of potential loopholes and suggest ways to fix these.
New lamp shapes and bases.--The bill lists specific lamp shapes
that are regulated or their ``equivalent'' (p. 4, lines 14-18).
``Equivalent'' can be a very specific term and this appears to us to
allow manufacturers to develop new shapes that are similar to but not
equivalent to current shapes in order to get around the law. We
strongly recommend changing the bill language to cover all screw base
lamps, and then adding to the list of exemptions as needed--for
example, exempting T and G40 lamps as well as exempting B, BA, CA, F,
G16\1/2\, and S lamps less than or equal to 40 Watts. Significantly, if
all bases are covered, there is no incentive for some manufacturer to
develop a new base.
At a minimum, the phrase ``equivalent'' should be changed to
``similar'' and this section moved to after the reference to the ANSI
standard, since our understanding is that ANSI does not define either
``equivalent'' or ``similar.''
We should note that the House bill also has the same loophole
problems. Representative Harman's staff have told us they are
supportive of efforts to address this problem.
Petitions for extended coverage.--If the Senate elects to stick
with the narrowly defined approach to coverage in the current bill, we
recommend that the provision allowing for extension of coverage on page
14 be clarified. Currently, the language allows for petitions seeking
extension of coverage to those products ``excluded'' from the
definition. The bill explicitly defines nineteen ``exclusions.''
However, the bill also implicitly excludes dozens of other lamp types,
shapes and bases (some of which are not yet even invented) but which
could become common for general service lighting. The law should make
crystal clear that petitions to close loopholes may apply to both
explicitly and implicitly exempted products. We suggest language in the
appendix to the testimony.
Also, the procedure for interested parties to expand coverage to
new lamp classes (p. 15, lines 1-10) provides too high a burden on
petitioners. We recommend that line 5 be amended to insert
``availability and/or'' in front of ``sales.'' It is hard for
petitioners outside of lamp companies to have sales data; data on lamp
availability can be more readily collected. Likewise, on line 9, insert
``likely'' in front of ``being.'' Without doing an expensive field
survey, it cannot be determined if a specific type of lamp is widely
being used. Addition of the word ``likely'' or ``probably'' allows for
reasonable judgments to be made without definitive evidence. This
provision only initiates a longer process during which additional data
can be collected before decisions are made.
G (globe) and P lamps.--G lamps are round lamps, which are becoming
more popular. While large lamps of this type (such as G40 lamps, which
are 5 inches in diameter) cannot be used in the most common lighting
fixtures, smaller lamps such as G25 and G30 (between 3 and 4 inches in
diameter) often can. Likewise, P lamps (pear?) can also be used in many
general lighting fixtures. The change suggested in the paragraph above
will address these problems. But if the Senate elects not to make this
change, these lamps should be added to the coverage of this standard so
they don't become loopholes. At an absolute minimum, these lamps should
be added to the sales monitoring section of the legislation and if
sales double relative to the baseline, then these lamps should be
subject to the same standards as their A-shaped cousins.
B, BA, CA, F, G16\1/2\, and S lamps over 40 Watts.--These are
different types of decorative lamps that are generally 40 Watts or
less, but for most of these products, 60 W lamps are also sold. But 60
Watts is the most common incandescent lamp size and if 60 Watt lamps of
these types are allowed, we would expect sales of these lamps to grow
dramatically, thus undercutting a significant fraction of the energy
savings expected from phase 1 standards. To address this problem, we
strongly recommend that these lamps be limited to no more than 40
Watts, the same as for intermediate base lamps.
Candelabra bases.--As noted above, candelabra bases are becoming
more common in ceiling fan light kits in order to get around the new
standard set in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. If new standards go into
effect for many of the more common lamps, we expect candelabra bases to
become even more common. S. 2017 attempts to addresses this problem by
imposing a 60 W cap on candelabra bases (p. 13, line 12). But, as
discussed above, 60 Watts is the most common incandescent lamp size and
if 60 Watt candelabra bases are allowed, we would expect sales of these
lamps to increase substantially, undercutting the standard. To address
this problem, we recommend that these lamps be limited to no more than
40 Watts, the same as for intermediate bases. Candelabra lamps are
historically designed for decorative purposes, usually in multi-socket
fixtures, and often with dimming controls, where the extra light output
of a 60 Watt lamp is not needed.
Rough, vibration, etc. service.--As discussed above, S. 2017
requires DOE to monitor the sales of rough and vibration service, and
shatter-resistant lamps. These lamps are virtually the same shape as
conventional lamps and can be used in virtually all conventional lamp
sockets. To help keep sales of these lamps from exploding, we recommend
that the bill direct that these lamps be exempted from the standards
only if sold at retail in single-lamp packages. Wholesale sales can
still be in bulk, but retail sales should be restricted. We have
already seen 10-packs of low-cost vibration service lamps for sale in
California in order to get around California's incandescent lamp
standards. Single-lamp packaging (or at most, two-lamp packaging) will
keep that from happening nationally. The House bill includes a
requirement for single-lamp packaging of these lamps. The Senate bill
should adopt this same provision. S. 2017 includes single-lamp
packaging as part of the backstop standard for these lamps, but by the
time the backstop standard is imposed, significant energy savings will
be lost. It is better to close this door before the horse leaves the
barn.
As noted above, S. 2017 calls for an accelerated DOE rulemaking if
the sales of any of these lamps double relative to the baseline and
provides a backup standard if DOE does not complete the rulemaking
within one year. The House bill automatically imposes the backup
standard without a rulemaking, thereby imposing the backstop standard
sooner and also saving rulemaking resources for more important matters.
We recommend that the Senate adopt the House approach and drop the
rulemaking requirement.
discouraging dim lamps
S. 2017 sets minimum lamp wattages for different lumen bins. The
bins are meant to be equivalent to conventional 40, 60, 75 and 100 Watt
lamps, but some of the bins are broad enough that lamps 14% dimmer than
today's most common lamps can be sold. The approach in S. 2017
encourages production of dimmer lamps by implicitly reducing the
efficacy (lumens per watt) requirement as light output declines with
each lumen bin. As lamps get dimmer, some consumers may be dissatisfied
and move up to a higher lumen class, eroding much of the savings
achieved. To address this potential problem, the bill would include
both wattage caps and lumen per Watt floors in order to keep lamps from
being too dim or too bright. We recommend adding the following lumen
per watt (LPW) minimums within the various lumen bins of the tier one
incandescent lamp standards in the table on p. 11 of the bill: 1490-
2600 lumens: 22.5 LPW, 1050-1489 lumens: 22 LPW, 730-1049 lumens: 20
LPW, 310-729 lumens: 17 LPW.
But if this step is not taken, at a minimum, we recommend revising
several of the lumen classes in order to limit the bottom of the class
to only 10% dimmer than today's most common bulbs. Specifically, we
recommend that the 60 Watt equivalent class be 750-1049 lumens (not the
730-1009 lumens now in the bill) and that the adjoining classes be
adjusted so that the next lower class ends at 749 lumens and the next
higher one starts at 1050 lumens (this change should be made in the
table on p. 11).\3\ A similar change should be made to the lumen ranges
for modified spectrum lamps (for the table on top of p. 12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ A soft white 60 W lamp is typically 840 lumens; 10% lower is
756 lumens. A soft white 75 W lamp is typically 1180 lumens; 10% lower
is 1062 lumens. We have rounded to the nearest 50 lumens.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also, regarding the standards for modified spectrum lamps (on top
of p. 12), these modified spectrum lamps will be considerably dimmer
than the conventional lamps they replace. The lumen ranges in S. 2017
for modified spectrum lamps are 25% lower than for standard lamps.
Given recent technical developments announced by the major manufacturer
of modified spectrum lamps,\4\ we believe that lower lumen levels are
not needed, but if lumen levels are relaxed for modified spectrum
lamps, they should be dropped no more than 15%.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ ``GE Announces Advancement in Incandescent Technology; New
High-Efficiency Lamps Targeted for Market by 2010.'' Press release
issued Feb. 23, 2007.http://www.genewscenter.com/Content/
Detail.asp?ReleaseID=1260&NewsAreaID=2&MenuSearchCategoryID=7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
preemption of state standards
S. 2017 preempts state lamp standards with one limited exception--
states with standards that precede the legislation (currently
California and Nevada) are allowed to enforce their standards until the
federal legislation takes effect (p. 34, lines 16-24). We support the
ability of states to enforce their existing standards, but believe that
the preemption language overall is an unacceptable infringement on
states' rights. What is most troubling is that a strong Nevada standard
now part of state law will be replaced by a weaker federal standard
when the initial federal standards in S. 2017 take effect. To our
knowledge, in the 20 years of federal standards legislation, Congress
has never done this before. In the past, stronger state standards have
been grandfathered and preemption does not apply to them. We recommend
that this approach be taken here and the Nevada standard (and any other
state standards on general service incandescent lamps adopted prior to
the enactment of federal standards) be grandfathered.
In addition, California has begun a proceeding to revise its
incandescent lamps efficiency standards and would like to continue this
rulemaking without preemption so that they may meet the requirements of
existing and pending state laws. California is submitting detailed
comments to the Committee on this issue. We support California's
ability to complete their current rulemaking and move up the effective
dates of the different federal standards, if such action is taken by
appropriate authorities in the state.
additional technical issues
We have a few other technical corrections to suggest as follows:
1. General service lamps are defined (p. 4, lines 9-10) to be
200-3000 lumens, but the standard in the legislation only
covers lamps of 310-2600 lumens. The coverage should be
modified to be the same as the specific standards so as not to
leave 200-310 and 2600-3000 lumen lamps in a state of limbo.
2. The definition (p. 4, lines 11-13) includes lamps with ``a
voltage range at least partially within 110 to 130 volts.'' It
is unclear whether lamps that may be advertised as ``rated for
140 volts,'' but that will operate at 110-130 volts, are
covered by the standards. They should be covered, to avoid yet
another potentially serious loophole. We recommend this
sentence be changed to read ``is capable of operating at a
voltage at least partially within the range of 110-130 volts.''
We believe this is the intent of the provision. The same change
should be made in Section 105 on page 35, lines 22-23. Our
understanding is that the major lamp manufacturers agree with
this recommendation.
3. The provision on 150 Watt lamps (p. 27, line 4 through p.
28, line 15) should be specified in terms of a lumen range
(e.g., 2601-3300 lumens) and not as a specific wattage. As
currently written, sales of 149 or 151 Watt lamps, for example,
would not be tracked and could become a loophole. Specifically,
the words ``150-Watt'' should be replaced with ``2,601-3,300
lumens'' each place it appears in this section (p. 27, line 4,
p. 27, line 9, and p. 27, line 25).
4. On page 8, we recommend clarifying the language by
deleting ``similar to but not limited to'' in lines 7 and 8 and
adding before the comma at the end of line 9, ``or similar
configurations.'' We recommend parallel clarifications to lines
1 through 4 on page 10.
5. In the heading to the table at the bottom of page 11,
``INSIDE FROST'' should be changed to ``FROSTED'' to be
consistent with the definition on page 4 and usage throughout
the rest of the bill.
metal halide lighting fixtures
Metal halide lamps also provide a substantial savings opportunity,
although not as large as for incandescent lamps. Metal halide lamps are
commonly used in gymnasiums, big box retail stores, and other high-
ceiling applications. A recent study for DOE estimates there are some 4
million metal halide fixtures in the U.S. that consume about 54 billion
kWh per year.\5\ At 9 cents per kWh, these cost nearly $5 billion per
year to operate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See footnote 1 for reference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Multiple states have adopted standards requiring that new metal
halide fixtures use ``pulse start'' ballasts instead of the older and
less efficient ``probe start'' ballasts. Use of pulse start ballasts
typically reduces energy use by about 15%. States that have enacted
these standards are Arizona, California, Connecticut, Massachusetts,
Maryland, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington.
In July, 2007, ACEEE and NEMA completed negotiations on a consensus
federal standard that would achieve the same purpose but provide a
little more flexibility to manufacturers. ACEEE estimates that this
provision will save 14 billion kWh annually by 2030, reducing peak
power demand by about 3900 MW (the capacity of 13 power plants of 300
MW each) and greenhouse gas emissions by nearly 3 million metric tonnes
of carbon. At 9 cents per kWh, this provision will reduce energy bills
by about $1.4 billion per year after stock turnover gradually replaces
the existing fixture base. This provision is included in the House-
passed energy bill. We thank you for including this identical provision
in S. 2017 and support its enactment into law.
consumer education
For incandescent lamp standards to work, consumers need to be
educated that they are purchasing lamps for their light output, not
their watt input. Section 102 directs that the FTC review and revise
current lamp labeling rules to help consumers better understand new
high-efficiency products. We see this as an essential complement to the
standards set in the bill.
fluorescent tubes
Fluorescent lamps account for about the same amount of energy use
in the U.S. as incandescent lamps--313 billion kWh per year according
to a recent study for DOE. At 9 cents per kWh, consumers and businesses
spend $28 billion annually to operate fluorescent lamps.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See footnote 1 for reference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congress passed efficiency standards for these lamps in the Energy
Policy Act of 1992. Revisions to these standards are overdue. ACEEE and
NEMA have been discussing a set of recommendations that would set new
standards for fluorescent tubes. The primary effect of these new
standards will be to encourage consumers and businesses now using T12
tubes (1.5 inches in diameter) to use the more efficient T8 tubes (1
inch in diameter). T8 lighting systems are highly cost-effective to
consumers and businesses, but many (roughly half) have yet to convert
to T8. Our recommended standard would encourage the change by limiting
T12 tubes to the very highest efficiency levels on the market. As a
result, T8 lamps will not only be more efficient than T12, they will
also be less expensive.
As this point, ACEEE and NEMA have not reached agreement. The
primary differences are in the stringency of the new T12 standard.
ACEEE wants only the most-efficient T12 lamps to meet the standard,
thereby encouraging further conversions to even more efficient T8
systems. NEMA is suggesting that only the least-efficient T12 systems
fail the standard. There is also a difference regarding the effective
date.
ACEEE estimates that its version of this provision will reduce U.S.
energy use by 23.5 billion kWh in 2030, reducing peak demand by 7550 MW
(the capacity of 25 power plants of 300 MW each). At 9 cents per kWh,
more than $2 billion in annual energy bill savings will result.
Greenhouse gas emissions reductions will total nearly 5 million metric
tonnes of carbon in 2030.
A copy of our recommended changes to existing law is attached to my
testimony. If remaining issues can be resolved with manufacturers, we
urge you to incorporate this language into federal legislation.
other provisions
S. 2017 also includes provisions on research and development,
market research on ways to increase use of products that exceed the new
standards, and research on ways to limit the release of mercury from
lamps. We support all of these provisions.
conclusion
S. 2017 contains important provisions to improve the efficiency of
general service incandescent lamps and metal halide lighting fixtures.
In my testimony our coalition recommends crucial ways to improve this
legislation by minimizing opportunities for loopholes and
misinterpretation, and addressing technical concerns and protecting
states' rights for continuing to enforce state efficiency standards. We
also recommend adding new fluorescent tube standards to the
legislation. A table summarizing our estimate of savings from S. 2017,
and savings from our recommended modifications to the bill, is provided
below.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual Savings in 2030
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Item Power Plants Energy Bills Million Metric
Billion kWh Peak MW (300 MW ea.) (@ $.09/kWh) Tonnes Carbon
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S. 2017
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incandescent 139 17,100 57 $12.6 27.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metal halide 14 3,900 13 1.4 2.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal 153 21,000 70 14.0 30.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modifications
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incandescent 20 2,500 8 1.8 4.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fluorescent 24 7,500 25 2.1 4.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal 44 10,000 33 3.9 8.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 197 31,000 103 $17.9 39.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With our recommended changes we estimate that this bill will, by
2030, reduce annual electricity use by nearly 200 billion kWh, reduce
peak demand by 31,000 MW (the capacity of more than 100 power plants)
and reduce consumer and business energy bills by about $18 billion per
year. These are very large savings. In addition, these provisions will
reduce greenhouse gas emissions by nearly 40 million metric tonnes,
adding to the substantial savings in the Senate-passed energy bill and
making a useful downpayment in efforts to address global warming. We
urge you to include these improved provisions in an energy bill
reported out of this Committee and the upcoming House-Senate energy
bill conference.
This concludes my testimony. Thank you for the opportunity to
present these views.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Thanks to all three of you for your excellent testimony.
Let me ask a few questions and then Senator Murkowski, I'm
sure, will have some questions.
Mr. Waide, let me ask you first. You referred to the fact
that Canada is getting ready to establish similar standards,
requiring more efficient lighting. It would seem to me to make
good sense for us to be in sync with what they're doing in
Canada, since our economies are so integrally connected in a
lot of ways. To your knowledge, what is the extent of the
difference between what they're likely to be doing there and
what we're proposing to be doing here?
Mr. Waide. I think firstly, is to say that my understanding
is that the Canadian government and the people who are
preparing the regulations for the Canadian government would
very much like for there to be harmonization between the two
economies' requirements, as well. Obviously, as you share the
same lamp market, that makes perfect sense. They have in mind,
my understanding is, the main difference, they have a,
everything by 2012 at the current requirement. They would, I
believe that includes lamps of 40 watts and below, as well.
They have a lumen per watt approach that is based on a curve.
The thinking here is that all lamps, whether you're dealing
with compact fluorescent lamps or incandescent lamps, they
actually are less efficient, that means they give out less
lumens per watt of power going in at lower light output levels,
than they do at higher light output levels. They typically
follow a curve of that kind. They've devised an equation, which
is intended to be 50 percent higher for their tier-one
standard, than the average current incandescent performance,
based on that curve. So, they are saying from 2012, lamps
should meet that.
This is their proposal and I believe they're in discussions
about, in consultation process about it, so I'm sure there's
flexibility to consider some issues on it. But that's what
they've proposed so far.
The Chairman. Let me ask Mr. Pitsor and Mr. Nadel, if you
had any opinion as to whether there should be an effort by us
here in the United States to coordinate with Canada on the
standards, or whether it's not a big issue either way?
Mr. Pitsor. Mr. Chairman, we have been meeting with the
Canadian authorities of the new lamp member manufacturers and
are participating in those discussions. We think it's important
to try to harmonize as much as possible and are participating
in those discussions.
The Chairman. OK. Do you know if anyone from our Department
of Energy is involved or monitoring the details of those
discussions?
Mr. Pitsor. I don't have firsthand knowledge as to that,
no.
The Chairman. OK. Mr. Nadel, did you have any knowledge
about this?
Mr. Nadel. I don't know whether DOE is monitoring the
Canadian procedures. I know that NRK in Canada usually attends
most of the DOE procedures. Frankly, the United States market
is much bigger than the Canadian market and they tend to pay
close attention and often follow what we do, because we're such
a larger market.
The Chairman. OK. Let me ask, Mr. Pitsor especially, one of
the issues Senator Salazar raised, is concern about how we can
maintain some of the manufacturing jobs here, that result from
moving to these newer technologies. Do you have any thoughts? I
know there is some manufacturing of lighting fixtures and
products in this country. What will the effect be on that, of
moving to these higher or different standards, as you see it?
Will we lose additional manufacturing activity here or can we
maintain our manufacturing level here and perhaps even grow it
with these new standards?
Mr. Pitsor. Mr. Chairman, this is an important part of the
whole standards efficiency discussion. Because the
transformation to transform a $4 billion installed base, we
need a phase-in period in order for us to phase-out our current
production lines and install new production lines, retrain
workers, qualify new suppliers. That's why it's important to
have this 4 year, or this 3 year phase- in period, so we can
maintain U.S. manufacturing for the new technologies that we
want to do to replace today's general service incandescent
light bulb. We're not going to see CFLs being made here. Those
are sourced from China. These are the products, I think that
Senator Domenici was referring to. These actually end up being
hand-assembled. They're very energy efficient, but they're
labor-intensive. So, that's why these are globally sourced from
China, I think, for the European market, Canadian market, U.S.
market.
So, the phase-in is very important to us, so we can
reposition equipment to maintain a U.S. manufacturing and
production base for the new technologies.
The Chairman. OK. My time is up.
Senator Murkowski.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm sorry that
I missed the testimony from Undersecretary Karsner, but I
appreciate the opportunity to hear the discussion this morning
from you gentleman.
Coming from the State of Alaska, I'm very interested in
understanding where the technology is. Mr. Pitsor, you have
indicated that the CFLs have low light output, particularly in
the hot temperatures and the cold temperatures. Can you define
what the cold temperatures are? I'm sure the people here or in
the South would be interested in knowing what the range is on
the hot temperatures, too. But when I've got a family that's
pulling into their driveway at 6 o'clock at night in the middle
of winter in Fairbanks, Alaska and it's pitch dark and there's
ice fog. They need to now that that porch light or that garage
light is actually working in temperatures that are 40 to 60
degrees below zero. Can you give me a little more background on
the adequacy of or performance in the cold and hot
temperatures?
Mr. Pitsor. I can supply you with some more technical
information.
Senator Murkowski. OK.
Mr. Pitsor. We refer to some of the technical data from the
manufacturers. The issue with the heat is that because the CFLs
have, if you will, the little ballast is built in here, heat
causes the electronics of this to fail, if it overheats. So in
hot temperatures or in enclosed fixtures, this base, the
electronics stop working----
Senator Murkowski. So does it fail completely? Or is it
just a dimmer output, if you will.
Mr. Pitsor. No, no. In an overheating capacity, the
capacitor basically burns out and it fails completely.
Senator Murkowski. In cold as well?
Mr. Pitsor. In cold temperatures, it's an issue of starting
the light, for it to be excited, in order to provide the light
in the cold temperature. The actual temperature range I'll have
to get back to you on.
Senator Murkowski. Do you know, just from experience now,
Canada is clearly utilizing these. In Europe, I'm sure you've
got some Scandinavian countries where they face the same
issues, in terms of cold. So I'm just wondering how extreme it
needs to be on either end of it to allow for the failure of the
technology, really.
If you could get me the specifics on that, I think
customers in general would want to know. They're looking at
these as, we all want to be more efficient in our usage when it
comes to electricity, but we also recognize that these bulbs
are a little more expensive. If I'm going to buy it, I want to
make sure that it's going to be working. So it would be very
helpful if we could have a better understanding of that. But
further to that point, is there continuing work with the
technology to address these inefficiencies in performance at
the low end and the high end of the thermometer here?
Mr. Pitsor. Yes, I mean there's work going on, both with
the compact fluorescent technology, improving the color of the
light, the quality of the light, as well as in LEDs, the light
emitting diodes.
Senator Murkowski. Right.
Mr. Pitsor. That whole technology, which is, you know, we
see it in niche applications today, in traffic signal lights,
for instance, some under-cabinet lighting, getting a white LED
so that we can convert that into the new general-purpose light
bulb. That's something which is, we see, proceed down the road.
All the major manufacturers are investing and studying that
technology.
Senator Murkowski. What about dimmers? This is really
important to my husband.
Mr. Pitsor. Right. Dimming is very important. The halogen
and incandescent technologies and the LEDs are fully dimmable
products.
Senator Murkowski. But not the CFLs?
Mr. Pitsor. The CFLs, generally, are not dimmable. You
can--you can make a dimmable CFL, but you have--it's more
expensive, it's a larger product and you also have different
dimmers for them.
Senator Murkowski. But, I guess my question is, are we
looking to make those advances in the technology so that will
ultimately be available to us?
Mr. Pitsor. Yes. There's work occurring on all those fronts
by the manufacturers.
Senator Murkowski. All right.
Mr. Pitsor. Bringing new products to the market every day.
Senator Murkowski. Good.
Let me ask you, Dr. Waide, you noted in your testimony that
the CFLs contain the small amounts of mercury vapor. If I
understand correctly, that in Europe you have a recycling
process of sorts for the CFL bulbs. Can you explain to me how
much mercury vapor is actually contained in one of the CFLs and
is it your recommendation that we would want to provide for
some form of a recycling process in this country as well?
Mr. Waide. This is quite a sensitive issue, and
unfortunately I'm not an expert on mercury, critical pathways,
and human health risks to be able to really answer that
question competently. What I can say, is that it's roughly up
to five milligrams or less or mercury, which is a lot less than
what used to be in fluorescent lamps. In terms of total
quantity of mercury, or at least to the environment, you will
see far more when you have coal as your--as a significant
contributor to your generating mix, as you do in the United
States, by avoiding power consumption from using a CFL, because
coal-fired generation gives rise to mercury emissions.
Now, in terms of the health risk, that depends on the
critical pathways of airborne versus mercury in lamps and how
that might potentially get into humans. I'm really not
qualified to talk about that. I can comment that I understand
that in Europe, this scheme which is really just getting
underway, and so I'm waiting to see how it's really going to
function in practice. But I understand from manufacturers, this
is going to add about 25 Eurocents per lamp to the cost of a
CFL, to pay for end-of-life recycling.
Senator Murkowski. The recycling----
Mr. Waide. Yes. So that might----
Senator Murkowski [continuing]. Process?
Mr. Waide [continuing]. Be a ballpark figure. But I think
it--the way the recycling is being done is quite different, I
understand, than in the States, and even in some different
regions within States, depending on how they're structured. So
it's really going to be a huge laboratory, and if people are
interested in looking at that issue, I would suggest that they
go and have a look at what's happening.
Senator Murkowski. Does Canada have a recycling program?
Mr. Waide. Scandinavia?
Senator Murkowski. Canada?
Mr. Waide. Canada. Not yet. That's what I understand.
There's certainly no requirement to. This is quite an important
issue that was being discussed in their first consultation
meeting they had on this topic, as to whether or not they
should be setting up some sort of mandated recycling or not of
fluorescent lamps.
Senator Murkowski. Mr. Pitsor, did you want to join in on
that?
Mr. Pitsor. A complement on those. The--earlier this year,
the NEMA manufacturers issued a public statement committing to
a mercury maximum in CFLs or no more than five milligrams--as
Mr. Waide has indicated. In actual practice, today these are
around three to four milligrams of mercury per CFL. There are a
number of State programs that are being looked at, in terms of
some recycling. NEMA has supported recycling of fluorescent,
both compact and linear product. There's a lot more installed,
in terms of the commercial product, your four-foot linear. But
today there's not any optimal solution for recycling of these.
Given the very small amount of mercury in them, it is very
costly to reclaim that mercury. I think EPA has come out with
an analysis of a running, between 50 cents to $2 per bulb to
undertake recycling.
Senator Murkowski. Wow.
Mr. Pitsor. So, that's why in this bill, Mr. Chairman, is
your section 108, which has--which calls for a, the EPA and DOE
to come back to Congress with recommendations on mercury. We
think that's an appropriate mechanism, to come back to Congress
with recommendations and what we might be able to do with
respect to the mercury and recycling.
Senator Murkowski. I think that would be an important
point, to make sure that we fully understand and get those
systems in place if they will be necessary.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Let me ask on this loophole issue that, Mr. Nadel, you
talked about there. What's the solution to this? Do we just
have general authority to DOE to issue regulations to fix these
problems as they develop, or to cover anything that we're not
otherwise specifically covering, or what do we do? Maybe Mr.
Pitsor, you have a point of view as to whether this is a
serious issue that needs to be addressed as part of our
legislation. Either one of you.
Mr. Pitsor. OK.
Mr. Nadel. I will start and I'm sure he will add a few
comments.
What we believe is that the coverage of the bill should be
broadened, that all screw-base lamps need to meet the standard,
unless they are specifically exempted. We could come up with
exemptions for, you know the flame shape bulbs, less than 40
watts, and various other ones. Get rid of most of the specialty
products. But that a product that can be used in a general
service application, that's 60 watts or more, generally should
meet the standard unless they specifically petition DOE to be
exempted, and the exemption would say they can't meet the
standard, they need an exemption for special applications, and
it won't be used, is unlikely to be used in general purpose
applications.
So we think the coverage should be much broader, but then
deal with these special product for exemptions. Now, we're just
letting all these special products out. I can think of a dozen
ways, if I were a manufacturer, that I could evade this
standard with no trouble at all, and we need to close those.
The Chairman. Mr. Pitsor, what are your thoughts on that?
Mr. Pitsor. We--NEMA obviously would be concerned about
loopholes as well, because our members are making investments
in these new technologies. We don't want that to be
circumvented by some other manufacturers, from overseas
perhaps, trying to skirt the U.S. law by coming up with new
products that--or coming up with products to, that are not as
energy efficient.
However, we think that there's two things to be done here.
One, is maintain the focus on general service light bulbs.
That's what we're trying to transform in the U.S., the four
billion sockets, the four billion of these that we're trying to
convert out to new efficient products. Keep our focus on
general service. We think the petition process and having an
active monitoring of the marketplace will be the way to go
here, not over regulate decorative and decor and all these
specialty light bulbs, which we don't see as being, right now,
a loophole at this time. We would revisit this as we go forward
through the legislation.
The Chairman. Let me ask about the one other issue that
Congresswoman Harman addressed, and that is the preemption
issue. The House has provisions in their bill, to ensure that
once we establish Federal standards, they are the standards
that apply nationwide. I assume that's something the
manufacturers strongly support and I'd also be interested in
your view on it, Mr. Nadel. Also, Mr. Waide, if you could give
us any insights as to how this has been handled in Europe.
Mr. Pitsor. If we're going to be successful in transforming
the market, this has to be done at the national level, at a
Federal level, and we need to then put those standards in
place. We can allow the States to adopt those standards with
those same effective dates so they can enforce the in their own
State. But we need to be able to do this in an orderly for the
manufacturers to make the changes, make the products, and bring
them to the market on a national basis. So, that's why we
support the proposal that's in the bill.
The Chairman. Mr. Nadel.
Mr. Nadel. Yes. I'm representing a diverse coalition with
different views on this issue. I think we all agree with
Representative Harman that you should not have Federal
preemption that overrides an existing State standard. In this
case, the State of Nevada has passed a law that is stronger
than this bill. They would be preempted and I don't believe
Congress has ever before preempted a stronger State standard.
What they typically have done is grandfathered in that specific
standard. So, our whole coalition supports grandfathering, as
the House bill did, for existing standards.
Beyond that, our coalition does vary some, in terms of
preemption and whether a State like California, which is now
working on new standards, should be allowed to proceed. I know
the California Energy Commission was invited to testify here.
They weren't able to make it, but they'll be submitting
detailed comments on their desire, effectively, to continue
with their current rulemaking.
The Chairman. Mr. Waide, is this an issue in Europe or that
the European Union is taking on, so everyone understands that
that preempts everyone else, or how does this work?
Mr. Waide. I think in a slightly different it is an issue
in Europe. This is probably why we're seeing some many EU
member States introducing their own measures to phase-out
incandescent lighting. Going in parallel with what's happening
at EU process. But of course, it's not in the technical sense
because it's quite clear in EU law, that EU member States don't
have right to introduce performance regulations for tradable
goods, which are not harmonized at the EU level.
In reality, what can happen is, and what does happen, is
that they have the right to set building code requirements, so
they can say you can't install a product, you can buy it, you
can sell it, you can trade it, but you can't install it. Or you
can, and obviously for compliance purposes, that's a very
complex way of handling something. Or they have the right to
deal with different duties and to use fiscal measures and
subsidies as the UK is currently exploring.
I think, you know, one of the issues that--I haven't heard
it mentioned here, but I don't know if there's any means by
which the Federal level subsidies for higher-performing lamps
could be introduced as a way of dealing with the tradeoff
between quality, ensuring that lamps of all types of optimum
light quality are available, but on the other hand, ensuring
that when the sensitivity of that issue is less important,
which it is in the majority of cases, that there is an
incentive to go for the higher-efficiency option. I think we're
seeing economies starting to introduce blends of measures to
try and stimulate, get the right balance in terms of getting
the energy savings outcome, but still permitting lamps of a
sufficient variety to be available on sale.
The Chairman. We could go on here, but I think I'll just
stop with that. I want to thank you all for testifying. I think
your testimony's been useful. I think the hearing's been useful
in informing our deliberations on the issue around here. We
appreciate it. That will conclude the hearing.
[Whereupon, at 12:32 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
[The following statement was received for the record.]
Statement of the California Energy Commission
The California Energy Commission believes that S. 2017 is a
significant and welcome step to address the inadequate level of energy
efficiency of existing general service lighting in the United States,
and will, if passed into law, provide for significant national energy
savings and accompanying greenhouse gas reductions. That said, however,
we must register our strong opposition to the proposed law's strict and
inflexible preemption of state ability to develop strong, early, and
effective lighting efficiency standards. We believe that such
limitation challenges California's ability to meet our climate change
goals.
We appreciate the commitment of Chairman Bingaman and Senator
Stevens towards achieving significant national energy savings in
lighting use. Such energy savings, and more, are an essential part of
achieving not only national goals for greenhouse gas reductions, but
also for California's enacted greenhouse gas reduction targets signed
into law by Governor Schwarzenegger in 2006 (Assembly Bill 32).
We particularly appreciate the acceptance of the Chair and
Committee members of this written testimony on S. 2017.
Our testimony will focus on S. 2017's language preempting state
standards regulating lighting, an issue of utmost importance to
California if we are to meet our enacted greenhouse gas targets.
In addition, we support the recommendations for closing loopholes,
expanding coverage, changing lumen bin levels, and improving clarity
that are included in the testimony of Steven Nadel on behalf of the
ACEEE and a coalition of energy efficiency advocacy organizations.
S. 2017 preempts all state general service lamp standards with one
limited exception--states with standards in place prior to the
enactment date of the legislation are allowed to enforce their
standards until the federal legislation takes effect (p. 34, lines 16-
24). While we understand that the lighting industry would prefer the
certainty of one national standard in place at one time, we must
strongly oppose the preemption language as written in S. 2017.
Over thirty years ago California took on the mantle of setting
energy efficiency standards for appliances and buildings--leading the
nation in this effort. We continue to update our building standards
every three years, providing--cost-effectively--the most efficient
homes and buildings in the nation to our citizens. We continue to lead
the nation in regularly developing and adopting cost-effective
appliance standards--where not preempted by Federal standards. The
majority of current federal appliance standards have been built upon
California's previous efforts, often using the same language. We
believe that it is valuable to the nation, not just California, to
continue to allow strong state leadership and innovation in lighting
regulations. S. 2017 would shut down this path to better national
lighting policies.
In 2006, we adopted standards for general service lighting that go
into effect at the beginning of 2008. Indeed, many of the definitions
and basic regulatory structure envisioned in S. 2017 are derived from
California's adopted lighting standards. These standards, which we have
found to be technically-feasible and cost-effective for the state's
electricity consumers, will lead to significant energy savings in
California and dramatic changes in general service lighting options
available to our citizens. While we are pleased that SB 2017 will allow
us to enforce these standards until the effective dates of any Federal
standards, we are deeply troubled that the bill would prevent us from
acting to update these standards.
Subsequent to our adoption of the current California general
service lighting standards, the California Legislature enacted and
Governor Schwarzenegger signed into law Assembly Bill 32, committing
California to reduce the greenhouse gases the state is responsible for
to 1990 levels by 2020. This represents approximately a 30% reduction
in GHG emissions from projected levels, and more than a 40% reduction
on a per capita basis, in just 13 years. It is clear that meeting these
targets will require strong and early actions to improve energy
efficiency in California. We have committed to updating our lighting
standards to address this challenge, indicating our intention to update
the lighting standards by January 1, 2010. S. 2017 would cause this
effort to come to a halt.
Recognizing California's commitment to climate change goals, the
Legislature recently passed and sent to the Governor, Assembly Bill
1109, requiring the California Energy Commission to establish a
schedule of lighting efficiency standards by December 31, 2008 that
would lead to a 50% reduction in residential lighting use in the state
by 2018. While this bill has yet to be signed into law by Governor
Schwarzenegger, its passage is a clear directive to the Commission to
move forward on updated lighting standards in an expeditious and
significant manner. The preemption language in S. 2017 would prevent
California from pursuing state regulations that reflect the state's
climate change timetable.
Reasonable state standards do not present an undue burden to
industry on a national level. In our three decades of experience, no
member of the appliance industry has ever approached the Commission
after a standard has been in effect and made a case that the standard
is imposing an undue burden. Industries already produce, ship, and
distribute appliances with different performance characteristics to
different regions of the country and the globe. In fact, for a decade
before DOE regulated appliances, California had its own standards for
refrigerators, heating and cooling equipment, water heaters, and
plumbing fittings, and industry complied with the separate standards
without obvious difficulty. In addition, the lighting market is an
international marketplace, with a variety of standards in progress for
general service lighting. A national standard that preempts state
standards does not remove the likelihood that industry will be faced
with making products to meet a variety of international standards.
In fact, we believe that more flexibility in allowing states to
pursue standards at a pace consistent with that state's energy goals
provides a valuable `phasing' function for the change in lighting
technology envisioned by the industry. States like California that have
strong reasons to accelerate the movement to more efficient lighting
can act as the initial phase for manufacturers, smoothing out the
transition to new technologies. This also provides for lessons learned
in earlier states to be brought to bear nationally or in states that
represent later `phases' of the transition.
In addition, we are troubled that a sister state, Nevada, will have
the stronger early standard it has enacted replaced, in only a few
years, by the weaker federal standard in S. 2017. To our knowledge, in
the 20 years of federal standards legislation, Congress has never done
this. In the past, stronger state standards have been grandfathered. We
recommend that this approach be taken here and that the Nevada standard
be grandfathered. It is particularly ironic that by the time the Nevada
market gets used to the reduced efficiency allowed by the Federal
standard in the 2012 to 2020 timeframe, S. 2017 would enact a
significantly stricter Federal standard. We believe that it makes sense
to leave the Nevada standard in place until the stricter Tier 2
standard in S. 2017 becomes effective.
We understand that the energy bill recently adopted by the House of
Representatives includes a section on general service incandescent lamp
standards authored by Representatives Jane Harman and Fred Upton. While
this bill also unduly limits states ability to adopt lighting
standards, it provides more flexibility than S. 2017. Specifically, the
House bill would allow states to modify their state standards to
reflect the provisions in federal law with earlier enforcement dates.
While we believe that any federal preemption of California's
ability to adopt strong lighting standards is detrimental to the
state's goals, if federal preemption is to occur, we support as much
state flexibility as possible. Here, the House bill clearly provides
more flexibility than S. 2017. If the federal government limits
California's ability to adopt lighting standards without including such
flexibility, California will likely fail in its attempt to meet the
greenhouse gas reduction targets adopted in Assembly Bill 32, and will
likely fail in its attempt to reduce average residential lighting use
by 50% by the year 2018, as envisioned by Assembly Bill 1109. We need
to take early actions in California to meet our goals, and S. 2017
unduly constrains us from taking such an early action.
Further, we believe that preemption of general service incandescent
standards, if enacted, should be subject to the same `preemption
sunsetting' provisions as S. 2017 contains for metal halides (Section
206, adding new subparagraph (9) to 42 U.S.C. section 6297(c)). We have
consistently supported preemption sunsetting if the federal government
fails to meet deadlines for timely updating of standards.
In summary, the S. 2017 language goes further in preemption than is
necessary to protect the legitimate interests of the industry. The bill
would severely restrict the states in their efforts to protect their
consumers and their environments. We do not believe that the federal
government should limit state entrepreneurship in establishing lighting
standards. Doing so can frustrate the ability of the states to meet
individual state goals such as California's global climate change
targets.
APPENDIX
Responses to Additional Questions
----------
Responses of Paul Waide to Questions From Senator Domenici
Question 1. As more nations look to more efficient CFL lighting,
will global production be able to meet this increased demand? In other
words, will we mandate the phase-out of incandescent lights only to be
faced with CFL shortages?
Answer. At the moment the situation is not sufficiently clear and
it is for this reason that the IEA is proposing to do an analysis of
the combined impact of mooted or pending legislation on the
international demand for higher efficiency lamps and the capacity of
the global lamp industry to meet it. The IEA would be happy to send the
Senate details of this work on request. We believe that it is important
that this analysis be done quickly to clarify whether or not there may
be a need to coordinate international regulations.
Question 2. Are other nations planning to rely solely on CFLs as a
substitute for general service incandescent lighting or will they allow
efficient halogen, more efficient incandescent, and LED lighting?
Answer. All of the pending regulations in OECD economies are
technology neutral, in other words they set minimum energy performance
criteria rather than specify compliant technologies; however, in
practice the regulations as proposed would result in conventional
screw-based incandescent lamps (GLS) being phased-out. In practice this
means that they could be satisfied by any mix of:
CFLs, which are already commercialized and are available in
numerous forms.
Advanced efficiency halogen lamps, which are just being
commercialized and whose costs are not yet very clear but may
be above or below those of CFLs once mature.
LEDs, which are developing very rapidly, are commercialized
for some applications but have yet to be fully demonstrated as
a commercially viable option for screw-based lamps and for
which product costs are hard to predict at present.
High efficiency incandescent lamps. GE has been pioneering
technology for the latter and put out a press release early in
2007 asserting that they expected to have a high efficiency
incandescent technology available.
Responses of Paul Waide to Questions From Senator Salazar
Question 1. Many of the compact fluorescent light bulbs currently
used in the United States are manufactured abroad. Can you describe the
current manufacturing situation in the U.S. for producing the more
energy efficient light bulbs? Is it realistic to expect greater U.S.
production of the energy efficient light bulbs?
Answer. NEMA are better placed to answer this than I; however, it
is important to consider the following factors. Based on what is known
about current screw-based lamp technology the standards as currently
proposed in the Senate and House bills would enable any combination of
the following technologies to be sold:
advanced halogen lamps
CFLs
light emitting diodes (LEDs)
high efficiency incandescent lamps
CFLs are the only technology among these that tend to have a
relatively high manual labor input and hence are relatively sensitive
to labor cost advantages, which in global market terms has resulted in
the majority of them being produced in China. Nontheless, TCP, based in
Aurora, Ohio, is a major supplier of CFLs to the North American market
and my understanding is that their production is based in North America
and is highly automated. They report that they have been substantially
increasing production in response to rising CFL demand in North America
in recent years.
GE, the main US-based screw-based lamp producer, is reported to be
a leader in advanced incandescent lamp technology and put out a press
release early in the year asserting that they planned to commercialize
a highly efficient incandescent screw-based lamp; however, to my
knowledge this is not yet on the market.
Philips are understood to have begun to commercialize a series of
advanced halogen lamps that would meet the standards requirements of
both the Senate and House bills; however, it is not yet fully apparent
how expensive these lamps will be and thus whether they, or CFLs, would
be the cheapest regulatory-compliant screw-based lamp in the medium
term. While having an energy efficiency that is higher than GLS lamps
the best advanced halogen lamps are about half as energy efficient as
the best current CFLs.
To my knowledge at present LEDs have not been able to produce as
much light as most screw-based lamps at a reasonable cost; however, the
energy efficiency of this technology has been increasing at a very
rapid rate, while light output levels are rising and production costs
are probably falling. It is thus not yet clear how viable LEDs may be
as GLS alternatives in the medium term albeit they appear to have
considerable promise. Commercially available LEDs are already more
efficient than GLS lamps and are getting near to CFL efficacy
performance levels, albeit with some difficulty in producing the same
quantity of light.
Question 2. Can you describe the areas of research you think are
most needed to help the industry achieve the energy efficiency
standards mandated by S. 2017? What are the most pressing areas of need
to ensure the new energy efficient lighting provides consumers the same
quality of lighting they are accustomed to getting?
Answer. In terms of research there are two main strands that need
support:
a) continuing to provide resources to support the accelerated
development of high efficiency, high quality and affordable
solid state lighting, such as LED technology (the DOE is
already active in this area),
b) support to develop superior phosphors and lamp electronics
used in CFLs and other fluorescent lighting technology. In
theory, improved phosphors might be able to significantly
increase the efficiency of fluorescent lamp technology.
Aside from research there is arguably an even more important need
to strengthen lamp quality control mechanisms to minimize the risk of
consumer dissatisfaction. Quality control is already an important issue
for CFLs and may well become one for solid state lighting too. It is
less likely to be a serious issue for the advanced halogen lamps. Most
economies have not yet done enough to prevent low quality CFLs from
being present on the market and in the past this has resulted in
consumer dissatisfaction with the technology. Accordingly, additional
resources may be required to set up and administer a robust lamp
quality control system while it may also be appropriate to set legally-
binding minimum lamp quality requirements.
______
Responses of Steven Nadel to Questions From Senator Domenici
Question 1. The original agreement between industry and efficiency
advocates presented to me in June called for a three-year phase out
instead of the two-year time frame set forth in S. 2017. Why was this
change made? Would you contain to support the agreement with a three-
year time frame?
Answer. S. 2017 provides a three-year period for the regulations to
go into effect, with bulbs currently around 100 W replaced in 2012,
bulbs currently around 75 W replaced in 2013, and bulbs currently
around 40 and 60 W replaced in 2014. The June agreement you refer to
was between NEMA with one efficiency organization (the Alliance to Save
Energy). This agreement delays the effective date for bulbs currently
around 40 W to 2015. While we prefer the 2014 date, the difference
between 2014 and 2015 is low on our list of priorities. We can support
a 2015 date if our other key priorities are addressed. These
priorities, as discussed in my testimony, are to retain tier 2, cover
all screw-in incandescent lamps, and revise the third lumen bin to
cover lamps from 750-1049 lumens.
Question 2. S. 2017 establishes a ``back-stop'' standard of 45
lumens per watt for the year 2020 if DOE fails to complete a timely
rulemaking. Isn't this ``lumens-per-watt'' approach contrary to the
legislation's wattage cap approach? Why do you support setting a
lighting standard 13 years in advance--even before the phase-out is
initiated? Do you agree with industry's assessment that this standard,
if imposed, will result in the use of CFLs only?
Answer. We support setting a backstop standard for 2020 of 45 or 50
LPW. While this is 13 years in the future, we believe it is important
to establish this backstop standard now so manufacturers know many
years in advance that the standard will be at least 45 LPW and they can
focus their R&D efforts on products that will at least meet these
levels. Going from 20-22 LPW (tier 1) to 45 LPW will require many
product changes and we want to give manufacturers adequate time to
prepare. We do not want manufacturers arguing in 2017, just before when
DOE finalizes its standard, that 2020 is too close and they need
additional time to prepare. Given the large change in efficiency
between the initial standard and the backstop revised standard, we
believe that a LPW standard will be adequate but do not oppose setting
equivalent values in terms of wattage caps. Both LPW and wattage caps
have advantages and disadvantages. Finally, we strongly disagree that a
45 LPW standard will result in use of CFLs only. In addition to CFLs,
in the 2020 timeframe, 45 LPW can be met by LEDs and probably by new
advanced incandescent lamps. For example, on Feb. 23, 2007, GE
announced an advanced incandescent lamp and in their press release
stated that: ``Ultimately, the high efficiency incandescent (HEI)
technology is expected to be about four times as efficient as current
incandescent lamps and comparable to CFL bulbs.'' A copy of this press
release is attached to these responses for inclusion in the hearing
record. Finally, there are a variety of new technologies in
development, some of which are likely to be on the market by 2020.
Footnote 2 on page 4 of my testimony includes references to some of
these technologies.
Question 3. You testified that you would like to see the state
preemption standards modified. Isn't a national approach preferable to
a patchwork of conflicting state standards?
Answer. The preemption issue is a complicated one. On the one hand,
we agree that national standards are much easier for manufacturers to
implement than a patchwork of state standards. ACEEE and other
efficiency advocates have supported preemption of state standards once
national standards take effect, provided standards are regularly
reviewed and updated and existing state standards stronger than the
initial national standard are ``grandfathered''. Given the slow pace by
which DOE has issued updated standards, all of our recent consensus
agreements with manufacturers include some type of ``backstop'' if DOE
does not act--either a backstop standard set in the legislation or the
waiving of preemption after DOE misses a deadline. S. 2017 contains a
backstop standard and meets this criteria.
Given DOE's poor history at revising standards, the California
Energy Commission is now questioning whether uniform national standards
make sense for California, particularly given several new California
laws which require substantial energy savings and emissions reductions
beyond levels achievable with current federal standards. They are
providing their own comments on this issue for the hearing record.
Responses of Steven Nadel to Questions From Senator Salazar
Question 1. Many of the compact fluorescent light bulbs currently
used in the United States are manufactured abroad. Can you describe the
current manufacturing situation in the U.S. for producing the more
energy efficient light bulbs? Is it realistic to expect greater U.S.
production of the energy efficient light bulbs?
Answer. I will let the NEMA representative answer this question as
they have much more information on this issue than I do.
Question 2. Can you describe the areas of research you think are
most needed to help the industry achieve the energy efficiency
standards mandated by S. 2017? What are the most pressing areas of need
to ensure the new energy efficient lighting provides consumers the same
quality of lighting they are accustomed to getting?
Answer. Industry is now bringing to market products that will meet
the initial standards in S. 2017. While some products on the market now
meet the 2020 backstop requirements, further research will be useful to
improve these products and bring additional products to market. Areas
meriting additional research in my view include the following:
1. Improved CFLs including further size reductions for the
highest lumen output bulbs, decreased time to reach full
brightness, and efforts to reduce the cost of dimmable CFLs and
to develop CFLs that can operate on a common dimmer switch
(current dimmable products require more sophisticated dimming
controls).
2. Continued improvements in LED lighting including improved
efficiency, improved color quality and reduced prices.
3. Continued research on advanced incandescent technologies
such as the new GE technology (details not released yet),
ceramic filaments, selective emitters, and photonic lattices.
References to these technologies are provided in footnote 2 of
my testimony.
There are likely additional productive areas for research, but
these are the ones I know about.
______
Responses of Alexander Karsner to Questions From Senator Domenici
Question 1a. S. 2017 contains a ``back-stop'' standard of 45 lumens
per watt for the year 2020 if DOE fails to complete a rulemaking in
time. Does it make sense to specify a new standard today that would
take effect 13 years from now? Also, if we did set a future standard,
shouldn't we use the wattage cap approach set forth in the legislation
instead of a lumens-per-watt approach?
Answer. DOE believes a ``back-stop is unnecessary. First. DOE is
committed to meeting its rulemaking schedule. Since DOE issued its
first Report to Congress on the status of the Appliance Standards
Program in January 2006, the Department has not missed a single
rulemaking deadline. Second. this is a time of rapid market and
technological development for lighting products, and there is
considerable uncertainty around the future price and performance of
lamp products in 2020. DOE believes the appropriate standard level
should be determined based on a lull technical and economic impact
analysis as required by section 325 of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6295).
Question 1b. Also, if we did set a future standard. shouldn't we
use the wattage cap approach set forth in the legislation instead of a
lumens-per-watt approach?
Answer. Both a lumen per watt and a wattage cap can be equally
effective, if the levels are structured to be mindful of consumer and
market responses to the standard. A wattage-cap approach can be
effective if the product classes on which the limits are established
are based around appropriate lumen output levels (or ranges).
Question 2. The lighting industry maintains that the two-year
phase-out directed by S. 2017 is too short--particularly to reach the
new requirements for a standard 40 watt bulb. Instead, the
manufacturers support a 3-year phase out. What is DOE's position on
this timing issue?
Answer. DOE has not conducted a manufacturer impact analysis on the
phase-out of 40 watt lamps within these time periods. DOE therefore
cannot comment on whether a two--year phase-out is adequate or would
impose undue hardship relative to a three-year phase-out.
Question 3a. There has been concern over the mercury content in
CFLs and the proper disposal of such lighting. I understand that the
mercury contained in a CFL is much less than that contained in a
thermometer. Does the mercury contained in CFLs pose any danger if the
bulb breaks?
Answer. Mercury is a common ingredient in compact fluorescent
lighting sources, and we take this matter very seriously. However, as
you have correctly observed, there is a great disparity in the amount
of-mercury present in a compact fluorescent lamp (CFL) versus that
contained in a mercury thermometer. Typically, about four or five
milligrams of mercury are present in a CFL, while a ``traditional''
thermometer contains anywhere from 500 to 3,000 milligrams.
While CFLs are in use, the mercury within them presents absolutely
no health risk. It is only when lamps are broken that tiny amounts of
mercury may be released into the atmosphere where. if inhaled, it could
pose a health risk. The possible health risks associated with the
occasional breakage of CFLs in homes. especially if the area is
ventilated and the breakage cleaned up and properly disposed of, are
thought to be insignificant. There may also be health risks associated
with the disposal of large numbers of CFLs in conventional landfills.
However, these risks may be offset by the reductions in airborne
mercury emissions as a result of the lower electricity demand achieved
through the use of CFLs.
Question 3b. What is the proper method of disposal?
Answer. The recommended disposal method is through local recycling
options for compact fluorescent light bulbs, if available. Consumers
can identify their recycling options by going to www.epa.gov/
bulbrecycling or contacting their local municipal solid waste agency
directly.
If their state permits disposing of CFLs in the garbage, consumers
should seal the light bulb in two plastic bags and place it in the
outside trash for the next regular trash collection.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/promotions/change--light/
downloads/Fact--Sheet--Mercury.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 3c. Does breakage on different surface areas affect
disposal in any way?
Answer. The best way to dispose of a broken CFL does vary based on
whether the surface is hard or carpeted. Regardless of the surface
type, one should open a window and leave the room for at least 15
minutes after the bulb breaks. Also, one should not handle the
fragments with bare hands, instead using disposable rubber gloves if
they are available.
For a solid surface, the best cleanup method is to scoop the glass
fragments and powder into a plastic bag using cardboard or stiff paper
and placing the contents in two plastic bags. One should then wipe the
area clean with damp paper towels or we wipes and place them in the bag
as well. The scaled bags should be placed in the outside trash
container for the next pickup. Ideally, brooms and vacuum cleaners
should not be used to clean up bulbs broken on hard surfaces.
When a CFL breaks on a carpeted surface, one should follow the
above directions as well as possible and then use sticky tape, such as
duct tape, to pick up remaining pieces and powder. If vacuuming is
still needed, one should vacuum the area where the bulb was broken and
then remove the vacuum bag (or empty and wipe the canister) and place
the bag or vacuum debris into two sealed plastic bags. The sealed bags
should be placed outside in the trash container for pickup.
It is important to note that some states prohibit disposal of
broken and unbroken lamps in the trash and require that they be taken
to a recycling center.
Response of Alexander Karsner to Question From Senator Cantwell
Question 1. Mr. Karsner, Pacific Northwest Laboratory (PNNL) has
been the technical lead on a number of DOE lighting projects in recent
years, including projects intended to improve the technical performance
and market adoption of compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs), reflector CFLs
(R-CFLs), and CFL recessed downlight fixtures. In addition, PNNL led a
DOE-funded project to investigate the effects on human productivity of
lighting systems that provide both high quality light and superior
energy efficiency. Currently, PNNL is assisting DOE in developing novel
organic light emitting diodes (OLEDs), strategies and projects to speed
commercial sector acceptance of high efficiency lighting equipment and
systems in commercial buildings, and the technical foundation for
launching solid state lighting (SSL) into the general illumination
market.
I understand DOE has been very active in working with the SSL
industry to create a technical foundation for the launch of SSL
products into the general illumination market. In this regard I've
heard a little about DOE's work on Energy Star SSL specifications, new
SSL performance test procedures, and a range of technical information
products. Could you please tell me more about what work DOE is doing in
this area and why DOE believes it is so important?
Answer. To complement the ongoing R&D portfolio, DOE has developed
a suite of programs that are responding to real-time market needs for
emerging LED technologies and products, including the ENERGY STAR label
for qualifying LED products, announced September 12, 2007. Working with
a number of partners (about 150 companies), including the Next
Generation Lighting Industry Alliance (Alliance), DOE is establishing
product performance expectations through ENERGY STAR, creating an
educational and foundational information base, and, through product
testing and design completions, reducing the risk of poorly performing
early products which result in lost consumer confidence and lost energy
savings. Through early market support actions, DOE seeks to encourage
early and continuing energy savings through consumer confidence. DOE
has produced a series of ``Fact Sheets'' to educate initial buyers
about the technology and appropriate applications for early adoption,
and the code and standards-writing organizations (IES, ANSI, NEMA, and
others) are teamina up to provide standard definitions, testing
procedures, and safety guidelines to lay a foundation for an organized
market. This year. DOE is demonstrating LED lighting in several
buildings to establish the functionality and performance of these
lighting systems. To learn more about available products, DOE tests
white-light LED products, informs manufacturers of results, and makes
the information available on its web site for educational purposes. The
``Lighting for Tomorrow'' design contest encourages lighting
manufacturers to produce new, high performance LED-based products. In
conjunction with the Alliance, lighting industry, efficiency groups and
other interested parties, DOE created the performance specification for
white light LED-based products necessary must meet to receive the
ENERGY STAR designation. By ``setting the bar high'' in these early
market years, DOE will show the product quality level possible and,
through a better informed consumer, encourage manufacturers to provide
better engineered and designed lighting.
Response of Alexander Karsner to Question From Senator Smith
Question 1. With regard to Section 104 of S. 2017, it appears that
preempting the states abilities to establish their own standards upon
the date of enactment of the legislation could inhibit progress on
regional efforts to increase energy efficiency and reduce carbon
emissions. For example, why should the states of Oregon and Washington
be preempted from taking action in the near term that would, at a
minimum, match California's recently established lighting standard
thereby creating a west-wide market for light bulbs having the same
level of efficiency?
Answer. The preemption language in S. 2017 being referred to here
is consistent with preemption language contained in section 327 of
Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) (42 U.S.C. 6297). Consistent
with EPCA's focus on setting national energy efficiency standards, DOE
generally believes it is appropriate that individual States be
preempted from establishing standards in those areas in which national
standards apply. Futhermore, this is consistent with the preemption
that applies if DOE were to establish the standard through rulemaking
under EPCA. While DOE carefully considers existing State standards as
one source of relevant information in the standard-setting process,
EPCA directs a preference for a single national standard.
Responses of Alexander Karsner to Questions From Senator Salazar
Question 1a. Many of the compact fluorescent light bulbs currently
used in the United States are manufactured abroad. Can you describe the
current manufacturing situation in the U.S. for producing the more
energy efficient light bulbs?
Answer. While the vast majority of CFLs are manufactured offshore,
there is some CFL manufacturing capacity in the U.S. Current
manufacturing methods for CFLs requires substantial labor input,
making, it unlikely that U.S. manufacturing of CFLs would grow
substantially in response to higher U.S. demand for CFLs. Finally,
there may not be adequate global capacity to satisfy the demand for
CFLs if the market rapidly shifts from incandescent lamps to CFLs. This
is a topic receiving significant study by several countries, DOE, and
the International Energy Agency.
Question 1b. Is it realistic to expect greater U.S. production of
the energy efficient light bulbs?
Answer. There is significant opportunity for U.S. industry to
increase production of efficient lighting technologies, apart from
CFLs. This is especially true for solid state lighting (SSL) because,
as directed by Congress. the patents emanating from the DOE Solid State
Lighting research program are subject to a requirement that substantial
manufacturing must occur in the U.S. We are working closely with our
industry partners in the Next Generation Lighting Industry Alliance to
accelerate this technology to market through R&D and commercialization
efforts, including the recently announced ENERGY STAR labeling program
for solid state lighting.
Question 2a. Can you describe the areas of research you think are
most needed to help the industry achieve the energy efficiency
standards mandated by S. 2017?
Answer. The Department interprets the term ``general service
lighting'' to include a wide range of traditional lighting. Currently,
our R&D program addresses the full range of lighting technologies,
including incandescent. fluorescent. and solid state technologies. The
goal is a portfolio that maximizes potential energy savings from all
lighting technologies. For example, among the ``general service
lamps'', traditional technologies that show better energy savings
potential are high intensity discharge lamps (HID) and fluorescent
lamps. Improving HID lamps requires R&D in luminaire efficacy,
coatings, dimming, and chemical fills. A key area in fluorescent
technology is improvement in phosphors for better energy conversion
into visible light.
Question 2b. What are the most pressing areas of need to ensure the
new energy efficient lighting provides consumers the same quality of
lighting they are accustomed to getting?
Answer. Quality is a paramount concern for the Department's R&D and
deployment efforts. ENERGY STAR programs for CFLs and SSLs ensure only
top quality products get the ENERGY STAR label. For solid state
lighting, key areas of quality include total cost of ownership, color
rendering, appropriate shade of white light for the application, and
geometry of lamp. For compact fluorescent lamps. manufacturers are
addressing delay in start up and dimmability. Also additional attention
is being paid to mercury content and disposal. Development of fixtures
and lighting systems appropriate for the new technologies is being
encouraged through the Lighting for Tomorrow competition co-sponsored
with the American Lighting Association.
______
[Responses to the following questions were not received at
the time the hearing went to press:]
Questions for Kyle Pitsor From Senator Domenici
Question 1. The original agreement between industry and efficiency
advocates presented to me in June called for a three-year phase out
instead of the two-year time frame set forth in S. 2017. Why was this
change made? Do you still support the agreement?
Question 2. S. 2017 establishes a ``back-stop'' standard of 45
lumens per watt for the year 2020 if DOE fails to complete a timely
rulemaking. Isn't this ``lumens-per-watt'' approach contrary to the
legislation's wattage cap approach? Why do you believe this standard,
if imposed, will result in the use of CFLs only?