Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 203 / Monday, October 25, 2021 / Rules and Regulations published by NEMA. This same approach was used in the final determination for general service incandescent lamps GSILs; see chapter 9 of that final determination TSD.22 84
FR 71626 December 27, 2019.
The CA IOUs commented on the MHLF NOPD that DOEs current A-Line based shipment curves approach to modelling shipments for MHLF
products should be replaced by a diffusion curve based on linear fluorescent shipments. CA IOUs, No. 14
at p. 2 However, DOE found that a Bass diffusion curve based on market share data for general service LED lamps provided a better fit to the historic MHLF shipments data from NEMA than a Bass diffusion curve based on linear fluorescent shipments, and NEMA
expressed support for the shipment declines projected in the NOPD.
NEMA, No. 12 at p. 2 Additionally, the lighting power allowance from the 2019
update to ASHRAE 90.1, noted during the MHLF NOPD public meeting, suggests a rapid transition to LED
technology. EEI, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 11 at p. 47 As a result, DOE continued to base the Bass diffusion model on market share data for general service LED lamps for this final determination.
Another key input to the national impacts analysis is the distribution of MHLF shipments by EL in the no-new standards case and the standards cases.
DOE apportioned the total shipments of MHLFs to each EL in the no-newstandards case using data downloaded from the compliance certification database 23 and data provided by NEMA
in comments to the July 2019 RFI.
NEMA, No. 3 at pp. 1114. Equipment listed in the CCMS database were
categorized by equipment class, efficiency level, and ballast type. The counts for each category were scaled based on ballast type by the NEMA
market shares for magnetic and electronic ballasts reported in 2018.
For the standards cases, DOE used a roll-up approach to estimate market share for each EL for the year that standards are assumed to become effective 2025. For each standards case, the market shares of ELs in the nonew-standards case that do not meet the standard under consideration roll up to meet the new standard level, and the market share of equipment above the standard remains unchanged.
For both the no-new-standards and standards cases, DOE assumed no efficiency trend over the analysis period. For a given case, market shares were held fixed to their 2025
distribution.
DOE typically includes the impact of price learning in its analysis. In a standard price learning model,24 the price of a given technology is related to its cumulative production, as represented by total cumulative shipments. DOE assumed MHLFs have reached a stable price point due to the high volume of total cumulative shipments and would not undergo price learning in this final determination analysis.
H. National Impact Analysis The NIA assesses the NES and the NPV from a national perspective of total customer costs and savings that would be expected to result from new or amended standards at specific efficiency levels.25 DOE calculates the NES and NPV for the potential standard levels considered based on projections of
58783

annual equipment shipments, along with the annual energy consumption and total installed cost data from the energy use and LCC analyses. For the present analysis, DOE projected the energy savings, operating cost savings, equipment costs, and NPV of customer benefits over the lifetime of MHLFs sold from 2025 through 2054.
DOE evaluates the impacts of new or amended standards by comparing a case without such standards with standardscase projections. The no-new-standards case characterizes energy use and customer costs for each equipment class in the absence of new or amended energy conservation standards. DOE
compares the no-new-standards case with projections characterizing the market for each equipment class if DOE
adopted new or amended standards at specific energy efficiency levels i.e., the TSLs or standards cases for that class.
For the standards cases, DOE considers how a given standard would likely affect the market shares of equipment with efficiencies greater than the standard.
DOE uses a spreadsheet model to calculate the energy savings and the national customer costs and savings from each TSL. Interested parties can review DOEs analyses by changing various input quantities within the spreadsheet. The NIA spreadsheet model uses typical values as opposed to probability distributions as inputs.
Table IV.18 summarizes the inputs and methods DOE used for the NIA
analysis for this final determination.
Discussion of these inputs and methods follows the table. See chapter 10 of the final determination TSD for further details.

TABLE IV.18SUMMARY OF INPUTS AND METHODS FOR THE NATIONAL IMPACT ANALYSIS

jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1

Inputs
Method
Shipments
First Full Year of Standard Compliance
No-new-standards Case Efficiency Trend
Standards Case Efficiency Trend
Annual Energy Consumption per Unit
Total Installed Cost per Unit
Repair and Maintenance Cost per Unit
Residual Value per Unit
Electricity Prices
Electricity Price Trends
Energy Site-to-Primary and FFC Conversion
Discount Rate
Present Year

22 Chapter 9 of the GSIL final determination TSD
is available at www.regulations.gov/
document?D=EERE-2019-BT-STD-0022-0116.
23 See www.regulations.doe.gov/certificationdata/products.html Last accessed on May 5, 2021.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:11 Oct 22, 2021

Jkt 256001

Annual shipments from shipments model for each considered TSL.
2025.
No trend assumed.
No trend assumed.
Calculated for each efficiency level based on inputs from the energy use analysis.
MHLF prices and installation costs from the LCC analysis.
Cost to replace lamp and ballast over the lifetime of the fixture.
The monetary value of remaining lamp and ballast lifetime at the end of the fixture lifetime.
Estimated marginal electricity prices from the LCC analysis.
AEO 2021 forecasts to 2050 and extrapolation thereafter.
A time-series conversion factor based on AEO 2021.
3 percent and 7 percent.
2021.

24 Taylor, M. and S.K. Fujita. Accounting for Technological Change in Regulatory Impact Analyses: The Learning Curve Technique. 2013.
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory: Berkeley, CA. Report No. LBNL6195E. Last accessed
PO 00000

Frm 00021

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

January 7, 2020. https eta.lbl.gov/publications/
accounting-technological-change.
25 The NIA accounts for impacts in the 50 states and U.S. territories.

E:FRFM25OCR1.SGM

25OCR1