# Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for General Service Lamps

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2022-28072

## Record

- **Collection:** Federal Register
- **Document type:** Proposed Rule
- **Published:** January 11, 2023
- **Citation:** 88 FR 1638

## Text

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 430
[EERE-2022-BT-STD-0022]
RIN 1904-AF43
Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for General Service Lamps

AGENCY:

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

ACTION:

Notice of proposed rulemaking and announcement of public meeting.

SUMMARY:

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

DATES:

Comments:
DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this NOPR no later than March 27, 2023.

Comments regarding the likely competitive impact of the proposed standard should be sent to the Department of Justice contact listed in the
ADDRESSES
section on or before February 10, 2023.

Meeting:
DOE will hold a public meeting via webinar on Wednesday, February 1, 2023, from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. See section IX, “Public Participation,” for webinar registration information, participant instructions, and information about the capabilities available to webinar participants.

ADDRESSES:

Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
www.regulations.gov,
under docket number EERE-2022-BT-STD-0022. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Alternatively, interested persons may submit comments, identified by docket number EERE-2022-BT-STD-0022, by any of the following methods:

Email: GSL2022STD0022@ee.doe.gov.
Include the docket number EERE-2022-BT-STD-0022 in the subject line of the message.

Postal Mail:
Appliance and Equipment Standards Program, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 287-1445. If possible, please submit all items on a compact disc (CD), in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies.

Hand Delivery/Courier:
Appliance and Equipment Standards Program, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, 950 L'Enfant Plaza SW, 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202) 287-1445. If possible, please submit all items on a CD, in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies.

No telefacsimiles (faxes) will be accepted. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see section IX of this document.

Docket:
The docket for this activity, which includes
Federal Register
notices, comments, and other supporting documents/materials, is available for review at
www.regulations.gov.
All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov
index. However, not all documents listed in the index may be publicly available, such as information that is exempt from public disclosure.

The docket web page can be found at
www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2022-BT-STD-0022.
The docket web page contains instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket. See section IX of this document for information on how to submit comments through
www.regulations.gov.

EPCA requires the Attorney General to provide DOE a written determination of whether the proposed standard is likely to lessen competition. The U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division invites input from market participants and other interested persons with views on the likely competitive impact of the proposed standard. Interested persons may contact the Division at
energy.standards@usdoj.gov
on or before the date specified in the
DATES
section. Please indicate in the “Subject” line of your email the title and Docket Number of this proposed rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Bryan Berringer, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-0371. Email:
ApplianceStandardsQuestions@ee.doe.gov.

Ms. Celia Sher, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 287-6122. Email:
Celia.Sher@hq.doe.gov.

For further information on how to submit a comment, review other public comments and the docket, or participate in the public meeting, contact the Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or by email:
ApplianceStandardsQuestions@ee.doe.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

DOE proposes to incorporate by reference the following industry test standard into 10 CFR part 430:

Underwriters Laboratories (UL) 1598C, “UL 1598C Standard for Safety Light-Emitting Diode (LED) Retrofit Luminaire Conversion Kits,” approved January 12, 2017.

Copies of UL 1598C can be obtained by going to
https://www.shopulstandards.com/Default.aspx.

For a further discussion of this standard, see section VIII.M of this document.

Table of Contents

I. Synopsis of the Proposed Rule

A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers

B. Impact on Manufacturers

C. National Benefits and Costs

D. Conclusion

II. Introduction

A. Authority

B. Background

1. History of Standards Rulemaking for General Service Lamps

2. Current Standards

III. General Discussion

A. Product Classes and Scope of Coverage

B. Test Procedure

C. Technological Feasibility

1. General

2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels

D. Energy Savings

1. Determination of Savings

2. Significance of Savings

E. Economic Justification

1. Specific Criteria

a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers

b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared to Increase in Price (LCC and PBP)

c. Energy Savings

d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products

e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition

f. Need for National Energy Conservation

g. Other Factors

2. Rebuttable Presumption

IV. Scope of Coverage

A. Definitions of General Service Lamp, Compact Fluorescent Lamp, General

Service LED Lamp, General Service OLED Lamp, General Service Incandescent Lamp

B. Supporting Definitions

C. GSLs Evaluated for Potential Standards in This NOPR

V. Scope of Metrics

1. Lumens per Watt (Lamp Efficacy)

2. Power Factor

3. Lifetime

4. Start Time

5. CRI

6. Summary of Metrics

VI. Methodology and Discussion

A. Market and Technology Assessment

1. Product Classes

a. Lamp Component Location

b. Standby Mode Operation

c. Directionality

d. Lamp Length

e. Product Class Summary

2. Technology Options

B. Screening Analysis

1. Screened-Out Technologies

2. Remaining Technologies

C. Engineering Analysis

1. Efficiency Analysis

2. Representative Product Classes

3. Baseline Lamps

a. Integrated Omnidirectional Short Product Class

b. Integrated Omnidirectional Long Product Class

c. Integrated Directional Product Class

d. Non-Integrated Omnidirectional Short Product Class

e. Non-Integrated Directional Product Class

4. More Efficacious Substitutes

a. Integrated Omnidirectional Short Product Class

b. Integrated Omnidirectional Long Product Class

c. Integrated Directional Product Class

d. Non-Integrated Omnidirectional Short Product Class

e. Non-Integrated Directional Product Class

5. Efficacy Levels

a. Equation Form

b. Integrated Omnidirectional Short Product Classes

c. Integrated Omnidirectional Long Product Class

d. Integrated Directional Product Class

e. Non-Integrated Omnidirectional Short Product Class

f. Non-Integrated Directional Product Class

6. Scaling to Other Product Classes

a. Scaling of Integrated Standby Mode Product Classes

b. Scaling of Non-Integrated Long Product Class

7. Summary of All Efficacy Levels

D. Cost Analysis

E. Energy Use Analysis

1. Operating Hours

a. Residential Sector

b. Commercial Sector

2. Input Power

3. Lighting Controls

F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis

1. Product Cost

2. Installation Cost

3. Annual Energy Consumption

4. Energy Prices

5. Product Lifetime

6. Residual Value

7. Disposal Cost

8. Discount Rates

a. Residential

b. Commercial

9. Efficacy Distribution in the No-New-Standards Case

10. LCC Savings Calculation

11. Payback Period Analysis

G. Shipments Analysis

1. Shipments Model

a. Lamp Demand Module

b. Price-Learning Module

c. Market-Share Module

H. National Impact Analysis

1. National Energy Savings

a. Smart Lamps

b. Unit Energy Consumption Adjustment To Account for GSL Lumen Distribution for the Integrated Omnidirectional Short Product Class

c. Unit Energy Consumption Adjustment To Account for Type A Integrated Omnidirectional Long Lamps

2. Net Present Value Analysis

I. Consumer Subgroup Analysis

J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis

1. Overview

2. Government Regulatory Impact Model and Key Inputs

a. Manufacturer Production Costs

b. Shipments Projections

c. Product and Capital Conversion Costs

d. Markup Scenarios

K. Emissions Analysis

1. Air Quality Regulations Incorporated in DOE's Analysis

L. Monetizing Emissions Impacts

1. Monetization of Greenhouse Gas Emissions

a. Social Cost of Carbon

b. Social Cost of Methane and Nitrous Oxide

2. Monetization of Other Air Pollutants

M. Utility Impact Analysis

N. Employment Impact Analysis

VII. Analytical Results and Conclusions

A. Trial Standard Levels

B. Economic Justification and Energy Savings

1. Economic Impacts on Individual Consumers

a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period

b. Consumer Subgroup Analysis

c. Rebuttable Presumption Payback

2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers

a. Industry Cash Flow Analysis Results

b. Direct Impacts on Employment

c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity

d. Impacts on Subgroups of Manufacturers

e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden

3. National Impact Analysis

a. Significance of Energy Savings

b. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs and Benefits

c. Indirect Impacts on Employment

4. Impact on Utility or Performance of Products

5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition

6. Need of the Nation To Conserve Energy

7. Other Factors

8. Summary of Economic Impacts

C. Conclusion

1. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs Considered for GSLs Standards

2. Annualized Benefits and Costs of the Proposed Standards

D. Reporting, Certification, and Sampling Plan

VIII. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

1. Description on Estimated Number of Small Entities Regulated

2. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements Including Differences in Cost, if Any, for Different Groups of Small Entities

3. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict With Other Rules and Regulations

4. Significant Alternatives to the Rule

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

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

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630

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

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211

L. Information Quality

M. Description of Materials Incorporated by Reference

IX. Public Participation

A. Participation in the Webinar

B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared General Statements for Distribution

C. Conduct of the Webinar

D. Submission of Comments

E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment

X. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Synopsis of the Proposed Rule

Title III, Part B
1

of the EPCA,
2

established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles. (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309) These products include GSLs, the subject of this proposed rulemaking.

1
For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code, part B was redesignated part A. All references to part B in this document refer to the redesignated part A.

2
All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute as amended through the Energy Act of 2020, Public Law 116-260 (Dec. 27, 2020), which reflect the last statutory amendments that impact parts A and A-1 of EPCA.

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

Second, EPCA also provides that not later than 6 years after issuance of any final rule establishing or amending a standard, DOE must publish either a notice of determination that standards for the product do not need to be amended, or a notice of proposed rulemaking including new proposed energy conservation standards (proceeding to a final rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)) Third, pursuant to EPCA, any new or amended energy conservation standard must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that DOE determines is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, the new or amended standard must result in a significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) Lastly, when DOE proposes to adopt an amended standard for a type or class of covered product, it must determine the maximum improvement in energy efficiency or maximum reduction in energy use that is technologically feasible for such product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(1))

In accordance with these and other statutory provisions discussed in this document, DOE proposes energy conservation standards for GSLs. This is the second rulemaking cycle for GSLs. As a result of the first rulemaking cycle, there is currently a sales prohibition on the sale of any GSLs that do not meet a minimum efficacy standard of 45 lumens per watt. There are existing DOE energy conservation standards higher than 45 lumens per watt for medium base compact fluorescent lamps (MBCFLs), which are types of GSLs. 70 FR 60407 (Oct. 18, 2005). The standards proposed in this rulemaking, which are expressed in minimum lumens (lm) output per watt (W) of a lamp or lamp efficacy (lm/W), are shown in Table I.1. These proposed standards, if adopted, would apply to all GSLs listed in Table I.1 manufactured in, or imported into, the United States beginning on the effective date for the standard.

EP11JA23.000

A. Impact on Manufacturers

The industry net present value (INPV) is the sum of the discounted cash flows to the industry from the base year through the end of the analysis period (2022-2058). Using a real discount rate of 6.1 percent, DOE estimates that the INPV for manufacturers of GSLs in the case without new and amended standards is $2,014 million in 2021$. Under the proposed new and amended standards, the change in INPV is estimated to range from −13.5 percent to −7.2 percent, which is approximately −$271 million to −$145 million. In order to bring products into compliance with new and amended standards, it is estimated that the industry would incur total conversion costs of $407 million.

DOE's analysis of the impacts of the proposed standards on manufacturers is described in section VI.J of this document. The analytic results of the manufacturer impact analysis (MIA) are presented in section VII.B.2 of this document.

B. Benefits and Costs to Consumers

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

The average LCC savings

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

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

compare specific efficiency levels, is measured relative to the baseline product (see section VI.F.13 of this document).

Table I.2—Impacts of Proposed Energy Conservation Standards on Consumers of GSLs

Product class

Average
LCC savings
(2021$)

Simple
payback
period
(years)

Residential:

Integrated Omnidirectional Short
0.59
0.8

Integrated Omnidirectional Long
1.82
5.4

Integrated Directional
3.01
0.0

Non-integrated Omnidirectional *

Non-integrated Directional
0.28
4.2

Commercial:

Integrated Omnidirectional Short
1.11
0.5

Integrated Omnidirectional Long
4.74
2.9

Integrated Directional
3.86
0.0

Non-integrated Omnidirectional
6.62
2.1

Non-integrated Directional
0.69
2.8

* Non-integrated Omnidirectional GSLs were only analyzed for the commercial sector.

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

C. National Benefits and Costs
4

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

DOE's analyses indicate that the proposed energy conservation standards for GSLs would save a significant amount of energy. Relative to the case without new or amended standards, the lifetime energy savings for GSLs purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the anticipated first full year of compliance with the amended standards (2029-2058) amount to 4.0 quadrillion British thermal units (Btu), or quads.
5

This represents a savings of 48 percent relative to the energy use of these products in the case without amended standards (referred to as the “no-new-standards case”).

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

The cumulative net present value (NPV) of total consumer benefits of the proposed standards for GSLs ranges from $7.29 billion (at a 7-percent discount rate) to $20.37 billion (at a 3-percent discount rate). This NPV expresses the estimated total value of future operating-cost savings minus the estimated increased product costs for GSLs purchased in 2029-2058.

In addition, the proposed standards for GSLs are projected to yield significant environmental benefits. DOE estimates that the proposed standards would result in cumulative emission reductions (over the same period as for energy savings) of 130.63 million metric tons (Mt)
6

of carbon dioxide (CO
2
), 59.27 thousand tons of sulfur dioxide (SO
2
), 203.05 thousand tons of nitrogen oxides (NO
X
), 902.76 thousand tons of methane (CH
4
), 1.36 thousand tons of nitrous oxide (N
2
O), and 0.39 tons of mercury (Hg).
7

6
A metric ton is equivalent to 1.1 short tons. Results for emissions other than CO
2
are presented in short tons.

7
DOE calculated emissions reductions relative to the no-new-standards case, which reflects key assumptions in the
Annual Energy Outlook 2022
(
AEO2022
).
AEO2022
represents current federal and state legislation and final implementation of regulations as of the time of its preparation. See section VI.K of this document for further discussion of
AEO2022
assumptions that effect air pollutant emissions.

DOE estimates the value of climate benefits from a reduction in greenhouse gases (GHG) using four different estimates of the social cost of CO
2
(SC-CO
2
), the social cost of methane (SC-CH
4
), and the social cost of nitrous oxide (SC-N
2
O). Together these represent the social cost of GHG (SC-GHG). DOE used interim SC-GHG values developed by an Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases (IWG).
8

The derivation of these values is discussed in section VI.L of this document. For presentational purposes, the climate benefits associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate are estimated to be $5.9 billion. DOE does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate and it emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four SC-GHG estimates.
9

8

See
Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases, Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide. Interim Estimates Under Executive Order 13990, Washington, DC, February 2021.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/TechnicalSupportDocument_SocialCostofCarbonMethaneNitrousOxide.pdf.

9
On March 16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (No. 22-30087) granted the federal government's emergency motion for stay pending appeal of the February 11, 2022, preliminary injunction issued in
Louisiana
v.
Biden,
No. 21-cv-1074-JDC-KK (W.D. La.). As a result of the Fifth Circuit's order, the preliminary injunction is no longer in effect, pending resolution of the federal government's appeal of that injunction or a further court order. Among other things, the preliminary injunction enjoined the defendants in that case from “adopting, employing, treating as binding, or relying upon” the interim estimates of the social cost of greenhouse gases—which were issued by the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases on February 26, 2021—to monetize the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. As reflected in this proposed rule, DOE has reverted to its approach prior to the injunction and presents monetized greenhouse gas abatement benefits where appropriate and permissible under law.

DOE estimated the monetary health benefits of SO
2
and NO
X
emissions reductions, also discussed in section VI.L of this document. DOE estimated the present value of the health benefits would be $3.6 billion using a 7-percent discount rate, and $10.1 billion using a 3-percent discount rate.
10

DOE is currently only monetizing (for SO
2
and NO
X
) particulate matter (PM)
2.5
precursor health benefits and (for NO
X
) ozone precursor health benefits, but will

continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as health benefits from reductions in direct PM
2.5
emissions.

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

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

Table I.3—Summary of Economic Benefits and Costs of Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for GSLs (TSL 6)

Billion 2021$

3% discount rate

Consumer Operating Cost Savings
25.0

Climate Benefits *
5.9

Health Benefits **
10.1

Total Benefits †
41.0

Consumer Incremental Product Costs ‡
4.6

Net Benefits
36.4

7% discount rate

Consumer Operating Cost Savings
9.7

Climate Benefits * (3% discount rate)
5.9

Health Benefits **
3.6

Total Benefits †
19.1

Consumer Incremental Product Costs ‡
2.4

Net Benefits
16.7

Note:
This table presents the costs and benefits associated with GSLs shipped in 2029-2058. These results include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2058 from the products shipped in 2029-2058.

* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the social cost of carbon (SC-CO
2
), methane (SC-CH
4
), and nitrous oxide (SC-N
2
O) (model average at 2.5 percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent discount rates; 95th percentile at 3 percent discount rate) (see section VI.L of this rulemaking). Together these represent the global SC-GHG. For presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3 percent discount rate are shown, but DOE does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate. On March 16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (No. 22-30087) granted the federal government's emergency motion for stay pending appeal of the February 11, 2022, preliminary injunction issued in
Louisiana
v.
Biden,
No. 21-cv-1074-JDC-KK (W.D. La.). As a result of the Fifth Circuit's order, the preliminary injunction is no longer in effect, pending resolution of the federal government's appeal of that injunction or a further court order. Among other things, the preliminary injunction enjoined the defendants in that case from “adopting, employing, treating as binding, or relying upon” the interim estimates of the social cost of greenhouse gases—which were issued by the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases on February 26, 2021—to monetize the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. As reflected in this proposed rule, DOE has reverted to its approach prior to the injunction and presents monetized greenhouse gas abatement benefits where appropriate and permissible under law.

** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NO
X
and SO
2
. DOE is currently only monetizing (for NO
X
and SO
2
) PM
2.5
precursor health benefits and (for NO
X
) ozone precursor health benefits, but will continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as health benefits from reductions in direct PM
2.5
emissions. See section VI.L of this document for more details.

† Total benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average SC-GHG with 3-percent discount rate, but the Department does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate. DOE emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four SC-GHG estimates. See Table VII.27 for net benefits using all four SC-GHG estimates.
† Costs include incremental equipment costs as well as installation costs.

The benefits and costs of the proposed standards can also be expressed in terms of annualized values. The monetary values for the total annualized net benefits are (1) the reduced consumer operating costs, minus (2) the increase in product purchase prices and installation costs, plus (3) the value of climate and health benefits of emission reduction, all annualized.
11

The national operating savings are domestic private U.S. consumer monetary savings that occur as a result of purchasing the covered products and are measured for the lifetime of GSLs shipped in 2029-2058. The benefits associated with reduced emissions achieved as a result of the proposed standards are also calculated based on the lifetime of GSLs shipped in 2029-2058. Total benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average social costs with 3-percent discount rate. Estimates of SC-GHG values are presented for all four discount rates in section VII.B.8 of this document. Table I.4 presents the total estimated monetized benefits and costs associated with the proposed standard, expressed in terms of annualized values.

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

Table I.4—Annualized Benefits and Costs of Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for GSLs (TSL 6)

Million 2021$/year
Primary estimate
Low-net-benefits estimate
High-net-benefits estimate

3% discount rate

Consumer Operating Cost Savings
1,521.4
1,469.8
1,586.0

Climate Benefits *
358.1
357.7
358.5

Health Benefits **
615.6
615.0
616.3

Total Benefits †
2,495.1
2,442.5
2,560.8

Consumer Incremental Product Costs ‡
280.3
291.0
270.0

Net Benefits
2,214.8
2,151.6
2,290.7

7% discount rate

Consumer Operating Cost Savings
1,171.5
1,135.9
1,215.2

Climate Benefits * (3% discount rate)
358.1
357.7
358.5

Health Benefits **
432.0
431.7
432.4

Total Benefits †
1,961.6
1,925.3
2,006.1

Consumer Incremental Product Costs ‡
289.4
299.4
279.8

Net Benefits
1,672.2
1,625.9
1,726.3

Note:
This table presents the costs and benefits associated with GSLs shipped in 2029-2058. These results include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2058 from the products shipped in 2029-2058. The Primary, Low Net Benefits, and High Net Benefits Estimates utilize projections of energy prices from the AEO2022 Reference case, Low Economic Growth case, and High Economic Growth case, respectively. In addition, LED lamp prices reflect a higher price learning rate in the Low Net Benefits Estimate, and a lower price learning rate in the High Net Benefits Estimate. See section VII.B.3.b for discussion. The methods used to derive projected price trends are explained in section VI.G.1.b of this document. Note that the Benefits and Costs may not sum to the Net Benefits due to rounding.

* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the global SC-GHG (see section VI.L of this rulemaking). For presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3 percent discount rate are shown, but the Department does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate, and it emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four SC-GHG estimates. On March 16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (No. 22-30087) granted the federal government's emergency motion for stay pending appeal of the February 11, 2022, preliminary injunction issued in
Louisiana
v.
Biden,
No. 21-cv-1074-JDC-KK (W.D. La.). As a result of the Fifth Circuit's order, the preliminary injunction is no longer in effect, pending resolution of the federal government's appeal of that injunction or a further court order. Among other things, the preliminary injunction enjoined the defendants in that case from “adopting, employing, treating as binding, or relying upon” the interim estimates of the social cost of greenhouse gases—which were issued by the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases on February 26, 2021—to monetize the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. As reflected in this proposed rule, DOE has reverted to its approach prior to the injunction and presents monetized greenhouse gas abatement benefits where appropriate and permissible under law.

** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NO
X
and SO
2
. DOE is currently only monetizing (for SO
2
and NO
X
) PM
2.5
precursor health benefits and (for NO
X
) ozone precursor health benefits, but will continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as health benefits from reductions in direct PM
2.5
emissions. See section VI.L of this document for more details.

† Total benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average SC-GHG with 3-percent discount rate, but the Department does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate.
‡ Costs include incremental equipment costs as well as installation costs

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

D. Conclusion

DOE has tentatively concluded that the proposed standards represent the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified, and would result in the significant conservation of energy. With regards to technological feasibility, products achieving these standard levels are already commercially available for all product classes covered by this proposal. As for economic justification, DOE's analysis shows that the benefits of the proposed standard exceed, to a great extent, the burdens of the proposed standards. Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs and NO
X
and SO
2
reduction benefits, and a 3-percent discount rate case for GHG social costs, the estimated cost of the proposed standards for GSLs is $289.4 million per year in increased product costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $1.17 billion in reduced product operating costs, $358.1 million in climate benefits, and $432.0 million in health benefits. The net benefit amounts to $1.67 billion per year.

The significance of energy savings offered by a new or amended energy conservation standard cannot be determined without knowledge of the specific circumstances surrounding a given rulemaking.
12

For example, some covered products and equipment have most of their energy consumption occur during periods of peak energy demand. The impacts of these products on the energy infrastructure can be more pronounced than products with relatively constant demand. Accordingly, DOE evaluates the significance of energy savings on a case-by-case basis.

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

As previously mentioned, the standards are projected to result in estimated national FFC energy savings of 4.0 quads, the equivalent of the primary annual energy use of 43.0 million homes. In addition, they are projected to reduce CO
2
emissions by 130.63 Mt. Based on these findings, DOE has initially determined the energy savings from the proposed standard levels are “significant” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B). A

more detailed discussion of the basis for these tentative conclusions is contained in the remainder of this document and the accompanying TSD.

DOE also considered less-stringent energy efficiency levels as potential standards, and is still considering them in this rulemaking. However, DOE has tentatively concluded that TSL 6 achieves the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified.

Based on consideration of the public comments DOE receives in response to this document and related information collected and analyzed during the course of this rulemaking effort, DOE may adopt energy efficiency levels presented in this document that are lower than the proposed standards, or some combination of level(s) that incorporate the proposed standards in part.

II. Introduction

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

A. Authority

EPCA authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. Title III, Part B of EPCA established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles. These products include GSLs, the subject of this document. 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6))

EPCA directs DOE to conduct two rulemaking cycles to evaluate energy conservation standards for GSLs. (42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)-(B)) For the first rulemaking cycle, EPCA directed DOE to initiate a rulemaking process prior to January 1, 2014, to determine whether: (1) to amend energy conservation standards for GSLs and (2) the exemptions for certain incandescent lamps should be maintained or discontinued. (42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(i)) The rulemaking was not to be limited to incandescent lamp technologies and was required to include a consideration of a minimum standard of 45 lm/W for GSLs. (42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(ii)) EPCA provides that if the Secretary determined that the standards in effect for GSILs should be amended, a final rule must be published by January 1, 2017, with a compliance date at least 3 years after the date on which the final rule is published. (42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(iii)) The Secretary was also required to consider phased-in effective dates after considering certain manufacturer and retailer impacts. (42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(iv)) If DOE failed to complete a rulemaking in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(i)-(iv), or if a final rule from the first rulemaking cycle did not produce savings greater than or equal to the savings from a minimum efficacy standard of 45 lm/W, the statute provides a “backstop” under which DOE was required to prohibit sales of GSLs that do not meet a minimum 45 lm/W standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(v)). As a result of DOE's failure to complete a rulemaking in accordance with the statutory criteria, DOE codified this backstop requirement in a rule issued on May 9, 2022. 87 FR 27439 (May 2022 Backstop Final Rule)

EPCA further directs DOE to initiate a second rulemaking cycle by January 1, 2020, to determine whether standards in effect for GSILs (which are a subset of GSLs)) should be amended with more stringent maximum wattage requirements than EPCA specifies, and whether the exemptions for certain incandescent lamps should be maintained or discontinued. (42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(B)(i)) As in the first rulemaking cycle, the scope of the second rulemaking is not limited to incandescent lamp technologies. (42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(B)(ii)) As previously stated in Section I of this document, DOE is publishing this NOPR pursuant to this second cycle of rulemaking, as well as section (m) of 42 U.S.C. 6295.

The energy conservation program under EPCA consists essentially of four parts: (1) testing, (2) labeling, (3) the establishment of Federal energy conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. Relevant provisions of EPCA specifically include definitions (42 U.S.C. 6291), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6293), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6294), energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6295), and the authority to require information and reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6296).

Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered products established under EPCA generally supersede State laws and regulations concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42 U.S.C. 6297(a)-(c)) DOE may, however, grant waivers of Federal preemption for particular State laws or regulations, in accordance with the procedures and other provisions set forth under EPCA. (See 42 U.S.C. 6297(d))

Subject to certain criteria and conditions, DOE is required to develop test procedures to measure the energy efficiency, energy use, or estimated annual operating cost of each covered product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A) and (r)) Manufacturers of covered products must use the prescribed DOE test procedure as the basis for certifying to DOE that their products comply with the applicable energy conservation standards adopted under EPCA and when making representations to the public regarding the energy use or efficiency of those products. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(s)) Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures to determine whether the products comply with standards adopted pursuant to EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(s)) The DOE test procedures for GSLs appear at title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 430, subpart B, appendices R, W, BB, and DD.

DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing new or amended standards for covered products, including GSLs. Any new or amended standard for a covered product must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that the Secretary of Energy determines is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) Furthermore, DOE may not adopt any standard that would not result in the significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3))

Moreover, DOE may not prescribe a standard: (1) for certain products, including GSLs, if no test procedure has been established for the product, or (2) if DOE determines by rule that the standard is not technologically feasible or economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A)-(B)) In deciding whether a proposed standard is economically justified, DOE must determine whether the benefits of the standard exceed its burdens. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) DOE must make this determination after receiving comments on the proposed standard, and by considering, to the greatest extent practicable, the following seven statutory factors:

(1) The economic impact of the standard on manufacturers and consumers of the products subject to the standard;

(2) The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average life of the covered products in the type (or class) compared to any increase in the price, initial charges, or maintenance expenses for the covered products that are likely to result from the standard;

(3) The total projected amount of energy (or as applicable, water) savings likely to result directly from the standard;

(4) Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the covered products likely to result from the standard;

(5) The impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from the standard;

(6) The need for national energy and water conservation; and

(7) Other factors the Secretary of Energy (Secretary) considers relevant.

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

Further, EPCA establishes a rebuttable presumption that a standard is economically justified if the Secretary finds that the additional cost to the consumer of purchasing a product complying with an energy conservation standard level will be less than three times the value of the energy savings during the first year that the consumer will receive as a result of the standard, as calculated under the applicable test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii))

EPCA also contains what is known as an “anti-backsliding” provision, which prevents the Secretary from prescribing any amended standard that either increases the maximum allowable energy use or decreases the minimum required energy efficiency of a covered product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1)) Also, the Secretary may not prescribe an amended or new standard if interested persons have established by a preponderance of the evidence that the standard is likely to result in the unavailability in the United States in any covered product type (or class) of performance characteristics (including reliability), features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as those generally available in the United States. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4))

Additionally, EPCA specifies requirements when promulgating an energy conservation standard for a covered product that has two or more subcategories. DOE must specify a different standard level for a type or class of product that has the same function or intended use, if DOE determines that products within such group: (A) consume a different kind of energy from that consumed by other covered products within such type (or class); or (B) have a capacity or other performance-related feature which other products within such type (or class) do not have and such feature justifies a higher or lower standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)) In determining whether a performance-related feature justifies a different standard for a group of products, DOE must consider such factors as the utility to the consumer of the feature and other factors DOE deems appropriate.
Id.
Any rule prescribing such a standard must include an explanation of the basis on which such higher or lower level was established. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(2))

Finally, pursuant to the amendments contained in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA), Public Law 110-140, any final rule for new or amended energy conservation standards promulgated after July 1, 2010, is required to address standby mode and off mode energy use. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)) Specifically, when DOE adopts a standard for a covered product after that date, it must, if justified by the criteria for adoption of standards under EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)), incorporate standby mode and off mode energy use into a single standard, or, if that is not feasible, adopt a separate standard for such energy use for that product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)(A)-(B)) DOE determined that it is not feasible for GSLs included in the scope of this rulemaking to meet the off-mode criteria because there is no condition in which a GSL connected to main power is not already in a mode accounted for in either active or standby mode. DOE notes the existence of commercially available GSLs that operate in standby mode. DOE's current test procedures for GSLs address standby mode and off mode energy use. In this rulemaking, DOE intends to incorporate such energy use into any amended energy conservation standards that it may adopt.

B. Background

1. History of Standards Rulemaking for General Service Lamps

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

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

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

apply the backstop standard prohibiting the sale of lamps not meeting a 45 lm/W efficacy standard. 82 FR 7276, 7277-7278. The two final rules were to become effective as of January 1, 2020.

On March 17, 2017, the National Electrical Manufacturer's Association (NEMA) filed a petition for review of the January 2017 Definition Final Rules in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
National Electrical Manufacturers Association
v.
United States Department of Energy,
No. 17-1341. NEMA claimed that DOE “amend[ed] the statutory definition of `general service lamp' to include lamps that Congress expressly stated were `not include[d]' in the definition” and adopted an “unreasonable and unlawful interpretation of the statutory definition.” Pet. 2. Prior to merits briefing, the parties reached a settlement agreement under which DOE agreed, in part, to issue a notice of data availability requesting data for GSILs and other incandescent lamps to assist DOE in determining whether standards for GSILs should be amended (the first question of the rulemaking required by 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(i)).

With the removal of the Appropriations Rider in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017, DOE was no longer restricted from undertaking the analysis and decision-making required to address the first question presented by Congress,
i.e.,
whether to amend energy conservation standards for GSLs, including GSILs. Thus, on August 15, 2017, DOE published a notice of data availability and request for information (NODA) seeking data for GSILs and other incandescent lamps (August 2017 NODA). 82 FR 38613.

The purpose of the August 2017 NODA was to assist DOE in determining whether standards for GSILs should be amended. (42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(i)(I)) Comments submitted in response to the August 2017 NODA also led DOE to re-consider the decisions it had already made with respect to the second question presented to DOE—whether the exemptions for certain incandescent lamps should be maintained or discontinued. 84 FR 3120, 3122 (See also 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(i)(II)) As a result of the comments received in response to the August 2017 NODA, DOE also re-assessed the legal interpretations underlying certain decisions made in the January 2017 Definition Final Rules.
Id.

On February 11, 2019, DOE published a NOPR proposing to withdraw the revised definitions of GSL, GSIL, and the new and revised definitions of related terms that were to go into effect on January 1, 2020 (February 2019 Definition NOPR). 84 FR 3120. In a final rule published September 5, 2019, DOE finalized the withdrawal of the definitions in the January 2017 Definition Final Rules and maintained the existing regulatory definitions of GSL and GSIL, which are the same as the statutory definitions of those terms (September 2019 Withdrawal Rule). 84 FR 46661. The September 2019 Withdrawal Rule revisited the same primary question addressed in the January 2017 Definition Final Rules, namely, the statutory requirement for DOE to determine whether “the exemptions for certain incandescent lamps should be maintained or discontinued.” 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(i)(II) (
See
also 84 FR 46661, 46667). In the rule, DOE also addressed its interpretation of the statutory backstop at 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(v) and concluded the backstop had not been triggered. 84 FR 46661, 46663-46664. DOE reasoned that 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(iii) “does not establish an absolute obligation on the Secretary to publish a rule by a date certain.” 84 FR 46661, 46663. “Rather, the obligation to issue a final rule prescribing standards by a date certain applies if, and only if, the Secretary makes a determination that standards in effect for GSILs need to be amended.”
Id.
DOE further stated that, since it had not yet made the predicate determination on whether to amend standards for GSILs, the obligation to issue a final rule by a date certain did not yet exist and, as a result, the condition precedent to the potential imposition of the backstop requirement did not yet exist and no backstop requirement had yet been triggered.
Id.
at 84 FR 46664.

Similar to the January 2017 Definition Final Rules, the September 2019 Withdrawal Rule clarified that DOE was not determining whether standards for GSLs, including GSILs, should be amended. DOE stated it would make that determination in a separate rulemaking.
Id.
at 84 FR 46662. DOE initiated that separate rulemaking by publishing a notice of proposed determination (NOPD) on September 5, 2019, regarding whether standards for GSILs should be amended (September 2019 NOPD). 84 FR 46830. In conducting its analysis for that notice, DOE used the data and comments received in response to the August 2017 NODA and relevant data and comments received in response to the February 2019 Definition NOPR, and DOE tentatively determined that the current standards for GSILS do not need to be amended because more stringent standards are not economically justified.
Id.
at 84 FR 46831. DOE finalized that tentative determination on December 27, 2019 (December 2019 Final Determination). 84 FR 71626. DOE also concluded in the December 2019 Final Determination that, because it had made the predicate determination not to amend standards for GSILs, there was no obligation to issue a final rule by January 1, 2017, and, as a result, the backstop requirement had not been triggered.
Id.
at 84 FR 71636.

Two petitions for review were filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit challenging the September 2019 Withdrawal Rule. The first petition was filed by 15 States,
14

New York City, and the District of Columbia. See
New York
v.
U.S. Department of Energy,
No. 19-3652 (2d Cir., filed Nov. 4, 2019). The second petition was filed by six organizations
15

that included environmental, consumer, and public housing tenant groups. See
Natural Resources Defense Council
v.
U.S. Department of Energy,
No. 19-3658 (2d Cir., filed Nov. 4, 2019). The petitions were subsequently consolidated. Merits briefing has been concluded, but the case has not been argued or submitted to the Circuit panel for decision. The case has been in abeyance since March 2021, pending further rulemaking by DOE.

14
The petitioning States are the States of New York, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

15
The petitioning organizations are the Natural Resource Defense Council, Sierra Club, Consumer Federation of America, Massachusetts Union of Public Housing Tenants, Environment America, and U.S. Public Interest Research Group.

Additionally, in two separate petitions also filed in the Second Circuit, groups of petitioners that were essentially identical to those that filed the lawsuit challenging the September 2019 Withdrawal Rule challenged the December 2019 Final Determination. See
Natural Resources Defense Council
v.
U.S. Department of Energy,
No. 20-699 (2d Cir., filed Feb, 25, 2020);
New York
v.
U.S. Department of Energy,
No. 20-743 (2d Cir., filed Feb. 28, 2020). On April 2, 2020, those cases were put into abeyance pending the outcome of the September 2019 Withdrawal Rule petitions.

On January 20, 2021, President Biden issued Executive Order (E.O.) 13990, “Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis.” 86 FR 7037 (Jan. 25, 2021). Section 1 of that Order lists a number of policies related to the

protection of public health and the environment, including reducing greenhouse gas emissions and bolstering the Nation's resilience to climate change.
Id.
at 86 FR 7041. Section 2 of the Order instructs all agencies to review “existing regulations, orders, guidance documents, policies, and any other similar agency actions promulgated, issued, or adopted between January 20, 2017, and January 20, 2021, that are or may be inconsistent with, or present obstacles to, [these policies].”
Id.
Agencies are then directed, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, to consider suspending, revising, or rescinding these agency actions and to immediately commence work to confront the climate crisis.
Id.

In accordance with E.O. 13990, on May 25, 2021, DOE published a request for information (RFI) initiating a re-evaluation of its prior determination that the Secretary was not required to implement the statutory backstop requirement for GSLs. 86 FR 28001 (May 2021 Backstop RFI). DOE solicited information regarding the availability of lamps that would satisfy a minimum efficacy standard of 45 lm/W, as well as other information that may be relevant to a possible implementation of the statutory backstop.
Id.
On December 13, 2021, DOE published a NOPR proposing to codify in the CFR the 45 lm/W backstop requirement for GSLs. 86 FR 70755 (December 2021 Backstop NOPR). On May 9, 2022, DOE published the May 2022 Backstop Final Rule codifying the 45 lm/W backstop requirement. 87 FR 27439. In the May 2022 Backstop Final Rule, DOE determined the backstop requirement applies because DOE failed to complete a rulemaking for GSLs in accordance with certain statutory criteria in 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A).

On August 19, 2021, DOE published a NOPR to amend the current definitions of GSL and GSIL and adopt associated supplemental definitions to be defined as previously set forth in the January 2017 Definition Final Rules. 86 FR 46611. (August 2021 Definition NOPR). On May 9, 2022, DOE published a final rule adopting definitions of GSL and GSIL and associated supplemental definitions as set forth in the August 2021 Definition NOPR. 87 FR 27461 (May 2022 Definition Final Rule).

Upon issuance of the May 2022 Backstop Final Rule and the May 2022 Definition Final Rule, DOE concluded the first cycle of GSL rulemaking required by 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A). This NOPR initiates the second cycle of GSL rulemaking under 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(B). As detailed above, EPCA directs DOE to initiate this rulemaking procedure no later than January 1, 2020. However, DOE is delayed in initiating this second cycle because of the Appropriations Rider, DOE's evolving position under the first rulemaking cycle, and the associated delays that resulted in DOE certifying the backstop requirement for GSLs two years after the January 1, 2020, date specified in the statute.

2. Current Standards

This is the second cycle of energy conservation standards rulemakings for GSLs. As noted in section II.B of this document, in the May 2022 Backstop Final Rule, DOE codified the statutory backstop requirement prohibiting sales of GSLs that do not meet a 45 lm/W requirement. Because incandescent and halogen GSLs would not be able to meet the 45 lm/W requirement, they are not being considered in this analysis. The analysis does take into consideration existing standards for MBCFLs by ensuring that proposed levels do not decrease the existing minimum required energy efficiency of MBCFLs in violation of EPCA's anti-backsliding provision, which precludes DOE from amending an existing energy conservation standard to permit greater energy use or a lesser amount of energy efficiency (
see
42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1)). The current standards for MBCFLs are summarized in Table II.1. 10 CFR 430.32(u).

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

Table II.1—Existing Standards for MBCFLs

Lamp configuration

Lamp power
(W)

Minimum efficacy
(lm/W)

Bare lamp
Lamp power 100 ms: survive one cycle per hour of lifetime * or a maximum of 15,000 cycles. MBCFLs with a start time of ≤100 ms: survive one cycle per every two hours of lifetime.*

Lifetime *
10,000 hours.

Power factor
0.5.

CRI
80.

Start time
The time needed for a MBCFL to remain continuously illuminated must be within: (1) one second of application of electrical power for lamp with standby mode power. (2) 750 milliseconds of application of electrical power for lamp without standby mode power.

Integrated LED Lamps
Power factor
0.7.

Non-modified spectrum lamps with a medium screw base or any other screw base not defined in ANSI C81.61-2006; intended for a general service or general illumination application (whether incandescent or not); capable of being operated at a voltage at least partially within the range of 110 to 130 volts
CRI
80.

Modified spectrum lamps with a medium screw base or any other screw base not defined in ANSI C81.61-2006; intended for a general service or general illumination application (whether incandescent or not); capable of being operated at a voltage at least partially within the range of 110 to 130 volts
CRI
75.

* Lifetime refers to lifetime of a CFLs as defined in 10 CFR 430.2.

VI. Methodology and Discussion

This section addresses the analyses DOE has performed for this rulemaking with regard to GSLs. Separate subsections address each component of DOE's analyses.

DOE used several analytical tools to estimate the impact of the standards proposed in this document. The first tool is a spreadsheet that calculates the LCC savings and PBP of potential amended or new energy conservation standards. The NIA uses a second spreadsheet set that provides shipments projections and calculates NES and NPV of total consumer costs and savings expected to result from potential energy conservation standards. DOE uses the third spreadsheet tool, the Government Regulatory Impact Model (GRIM), to assess manufacturer impacts of potential standards. These three spreadsheet tools are available on the DOE website for this rulemaking:
https://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/standards.aspx?productid=4.
Additionally, DOE used output from the latest version of the Energy Information Administration's (EIA's)
Annual Energy Outlook
(
AEO
), a widely known energy projection for the United States, for the emissions and utility impact analyses.

In this NOPR, DOE anticipates compliance in the second half of 2028 and uses 2029 as the first full compliance year for purposes of conducting the analysis based on the requirement in 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(4)(B) that DOE shall not require new standards for a product within 6 years of the compliance date of the previous standard. Since compliance with the statutory backstop requirement for GSLs commenced on July 25, 2022 a July 25, 2028 compliance date for any GSL standard would provide a 6-year spread between GSL compliance dates consistent with 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(4)(B). A compliance date of July 25, 2028, is also consistent with the timespan described in 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(B), which contemplates at least a 5-year time period between any GSL rule arising out of the first cycle of rulemaking under 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A) and the effective date of a final rule for the second cycle of rulemaking under 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(B). However, per 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(B)(iv)(I)-(II), for this proposed rulemaking, the Secretary shall consider phased-in effective dates after considering the impact of any amendments on manufacturers (
e.g.,
retiring, repurposing equipment, stranded investments, labor contracts, workers and raw materials) and the time needed to work with retailers/lighting designers to revise sales/marketing strategies. As is evident in this analysis, DOE is collecting information and evaluating the industry and market with respect to potential standards for GSLs.

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

A. Market and Technology Assessment

DOE develops information in the market and technology assessment that provides an overall picture of the market for the products concerned, including the purpose of the products, the industry structure, manufacturers, market characteristics, and technologies used in the products. This activity includes both quantitative and qualitative assessments, based primarily on publicly-available information. The subjects addressed in the market and technology assessment for this rulemaking include (1) a determination of the scope of the rulemaking and product classes, (2) manufacturers and industry structure, (3) existing efficiency programs, (4) shipments information, (5) market and industry trends; and (6) technologies or design options that could improve the energy efficiency of GSLs. The key findings of DOE's market assessment are summarized in the following sections. See chapter 3 of the NOPR TSD for further discussion of the market and technology assessment.

1. Product Classes

DOE divides covered products into classes by: (a) the type of energy used; (b) the capacity of the product; or (c) other performance-related features that justify different standard levels, considering the consumer utility of the feature and other relevant factors. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)) In evaluating product class setting factors, DOE considers their impact on both efficacy and consumer utility. In this analysis, DOE reviewed several factors including lamp component location, standby mode operation, base type, bulb shape, CRI, correlated color temperature (CCT), lumens, and length. In this NOPR, DOE proposes product class divisions based on lamp component location (
i.e.,
location of ballast/driver) and capability of operating in standby mode; directionality (
i.e.,
omnidirectional versus directional) and lamp length (
i.e.,
45 inches or longer [“long”] or less than 45 inches [“short”] as product class setting factors. In the section below, DOE discusses its proposed product class setting factors. In chapter 3 of the NOPR TSD, DOE discusses features it considered but determined to not be valid product class setting factors including lamp technology, lumen package, lamp cover, dimmability, base type, lamp spectrum, CRI and CCT.
See
chapter 3 of the NOPR TSD for further discussion.

a. Lamp Component Location

Lamp component location refers to the position of the ballast or driver. Integrated lamps have these components enclosed within the lamp, whereas non-integrated lamps have them external to the lamp. Due to the additional components and circuity enclosed within it, an integrated lamp will have an inherent difference in efficacy compared to a lamp that utilizes external components. For consumers using an integrated lamp, there is also the utility of requiring replacement of one lamp unit rather than two separate components. In certain cases, integrated lamps are also generally more compact and thus can be used in applications with size constraints. For these reasons, DOE is proposing a product class based on lamp component location.

b. Standby Mode Operation

DOE observed that some integrated lamps have standby mode functionality and conducted an analysis to determine its impact on lamp efficacy. Because this functionality seems to be increasingly incorporated in LED lamps compared to CFLs, DOE focused on LED lamps. DOE conducted active mode and standby mode testing per DOE's integrated LED lamp test procedure (see appendix BB). These lamps were designed with varying communication methods, including Zigbee, Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, and radio frequency remote controls. Almost half of the lamps tested were operated using a central hub for communication between the end-user and the lamp itself. DOE's test results, as presented in appendix 5a of the NOPR TSD, indicate that the tested standby power generally varied between 0.2 W and 0.5 W. DOE finds that these results indicate that lamps with standby power have a non-negligible standby power consumption that will likely lower their efficacy, compared to lamps without standby power, all things being equal. Therefore, based on utility and impact on efficacy, DOE is proposing a product class division based on standby mode.

c. Directionality

In this analysis, DOE assessed whether directionality should be a product class setting factor—that is, whether a lamp designed to direct light should be subject to separate standards from a lamp that is not. DOE compared pairs of integrated LED lamps from the same manufacturer with the same lumens, lifetime, range of CCT and CRI, except one was directional (
e.g.,
parabolic aluminized reflector [“PAR”]) and the other omnidirectional (
e.g.,
A-shape). DOE also ensured the pairs were of comparable size. For example, a PAR30 was compared with an A19—the numbers indicate the diameter in inches when divided by 8. DOE determined that in over 80 percent of cases, omnidirectional lamps had a higher efficacy. Additionally, by directing or not directing light, directional and omnidirectional each provide a unique consumer utility. DOE was unable to compare the efficacy impact from directionality for the non-integrated lamps due to difference in size. The non-integrated directional lamps are predominantly MR16 shape lamps and the non-integrated omnidirectional lamps are longer tube, pin base CFLs and their LED replacements, or linear LED lamps. However, based on the analysis of integrated lamps, DOE has tentatively concluded that lamps differing only in directionality, all other attributes held constant, will likely differ in lamp efficacy. Due to the impact of directionality on efficacy and consumer utility, DOE is proposing directionality as a product class setting factor in this analysis.

d. Lamp Length

Efficacy tends to increase with length. GSLs span a range of lengths. A-shape or reflector shape lamps typically have a maximum overall length (MOL) of about 1.8-7 inches. Pin base CFLs and their LED replacements typically have a MOL of about 3.7-23 inches. Linear LED lamps are 2-, 3-, 4- and 8-foot lamps. In general, of these lamps, regardless of whether compared to integrated or non-integrated lamps, DOE found a considerable jump in efficacy for the 4-foot (about 45 inches) linear T8 LED lamps. Further, because consumers must change a lamp fixture to substitute lamps of different geometries for one another, lamp length affects utility. Due to the impact of length on efficacy and utility, DOE is proposing lamp length as a product class setting factor—specifying the product class division between lamps of 45 inches or longer length (long) and less than 45 inches (short).

DOE did observe that 4-foot T5 and 8-foot T8 linear LED lamps were not reaching the same efficacies as 4-foot T8 linear LED lamps. DOE has tentatively concluded that this is not due to a technical constraint due to diameter but rather lack of product development of 4-

foot T5 and 8-foot T8 linear LED lamps. DOE requests comments and data on the impact of diameter on efficacy for linear LED lamps. Finally, DOE observed that pin base LED lamp replacements with 2G11 bases and lengths close to two feet are less efficacious than 2-foot linear LED lamps. DOE requests comments on all attributes the same, how the efficacy of pin base LED lamp replacements and linear LED lamps compare.
See
section IX.E for a list of issues on which DOE seeks comment.

e. Product Class Summary

Table VI.1 shows the product classes DOE is proposing in this NOPR. DOE requests comments on the proposed product classes.
See
section IX.E for a list of issues on which DOE seeks comment.

Table VI.1—Proposed GSL Product Classes

Lamp type
Lamp component location
Directionality
Lamp length
Standby mode operation

GSLs
Integrated
Omnidirectional
Short (6.6
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1

Non-integrated Directional
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
3.4
3.4

Shipment-Weighted Average
*

0.8
0.4
0.7
0.8
0.9
0.9

Percent of Consumers that Experience a Net Cost

Integrated Omnidirectional Short
0.8%
1.2%
18.0%
19.0%
19.8%
19.8%

Integrated Omnidirectional Long
4.2%
6.6%
4.9%
4.9%
4.9%
5.1%

Integrated Directional
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

Non-integrated Omnidirectional
9.4%
0.2%
0.2%
0.2%
0.2%
0.2%

Non-integrated Directional
14.6%
14.6%
14.6%
14.6%
24.2%
24.2%

Shipment-Weighted Average
*

1.2%
1.7%
14.4%
15.1%
15.8%
15.9%

Parentheses indicate negative (−) values.
* Weighted by shares of each product class in total projected shipments in 2029.
** Two lamp options exist at the minimum EL for TSL 1. One lamp option has a simple payback period of 6.6 years, and the other lamp has an infinite simple payback period. The aggregated simple payback period is therefore reported as greater than 6.6 years. Note that the shipment-weighted average (two rows below) assumes a defined value of 6.6 years for Non-integrated Omnidirectional lamps at TSL 1.

DOE first considered TSL 6, which represents the max-tech efficiency levels for all product classes. At this level, DOE expects that all product classes would require the most efficacious LED technology current available on the market. DOE estimates that approximately 17 percent of annual shipments across all GSL product classes currently meet the max-tech efficiencies required. TSL 6 would save an estimated 3.98 quads of energy, an amount DOE considers significant. Under TSL 6, the NPV of consumer benefit would be $7.3 billion using a discount rate of 7 percent, and $20.4 billion using a discount rate of 3 percent.

The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 6 are 130.6 Mt of CO
2
, 59.3 thousand tons of SO
2
, 203.0 thousand tons of NO
X
, 0.4 tons of Hg, 902.8 thousand tons of CH
4
, and 1.4 thousand tons of N
2
O. The estimated monetary value of the climate benefits from reduced GHG emissions (associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate) at TSL 6 is $5.9 billion. The estimated monetary value of the health benefits from reduced SO
2
and

NO
X
emissions at TSL 6 is $3.6 billion using a 7-percent discount rate and $10.1 billion using a 3-percent discount rate.

Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs, health benefits from reduced SO
2
and NO
X
emissions, and the 3-percent discount rate case for climate benefits from reduced GHG emissions, the estimated total NPV at TSL 6 is $16.7 billion. Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs, the estimated total NPV at TSL 6 is $36.4 billion. The estimated total NPV is provided for additional information, however DOE primarily relies upon the NPV of consumer benefits when determining whether a proposed standard level is economically justified.

At TSL 6 in the residential sector, the largest product classes are Integrated Omnidirectional Short GSLs, including traditional pear-shaped, candle-shaped, and globe-shaped GSLs, and Integrated Directional GSLs, including reflector lamps commonly used in recessed cans, which together account for 99 percent of annual shipments. The average LCC impact is a savings of $0.59 and $3.01 and a simple payback period of 0.8 years, and 0.0 years, respectively, for those product classes. The fraction of purchases associated with a net LCC cost is 22.0 percent and 0.0 percent, respectively. In the commercial sector, the largest product classes are Integrated Omnidirectional Short GSLs and Integrated Omnidirectional Long GSLs, including tubular LED GSLs often referred to as TLEDs, which together account for 91 percent of annual shipments. The average LCC impact is a savings of $1.11 and $4.74 and a simple payback period of 0.5 years and 2.9 years, respectively, for those product classes. The fraction of purchases associated with a net LCC cost is 4.8 and 2.3 percent, respectively. Overall, 15.9 percent of GSL purchases are associated with a net cost and the average LCC savings are positive for all product classes.

At TSL 6, an estimated 21.0 percent of purchases of Integrated Omnidirectional Short GSLs and 0.0 percent of purchases of Integrated Directional GSLs by low-income households are associated with a net cost. While 21.0 percent of purchases of Integrated Omnidirectional Short GSLs by low-income households would be associated with a net cost, DOE notes that a third of those purchases have a net cost of no more than $0.25 and over 75 percent of those purchases have a net cost of no more than $1.00. Moreover, DOE notes that the typical low-income household has multiple Integrated Omnidirectional Short GSLs. Based on the average total number of lamps in a low-income household (23, based on RECS 2015) and the average fraction of lamps in the residential sector that are Integrated Omnidirectional Short GSLs (84 percent, based on DOE's shipments analysis), DOE estimates that low-income households would have approximately 19 Integrated Omnidirectional Short GSLs, on average. An analysis accounting for multiple lamp purchases would show significantly fewer low-income consumers experience a net cost at the household level than on a per-purchase basis. For example, assuming low-income households purchase two lamps per year over a period of seven years (corresponding to the average service life of the baseline Integrated Omnidirectional Short lamp), DOE estimates that only 6.0 percent of low-income households would experience a net cost and 94.0 percent would experience a net benefit.

At TSL 6, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of $271 million to a decrease of $145 million, which corresponds to decreases of 13.5 percent and 7.2 percent, respectively. DOE estimates that approximately 83 percent of Integrated Omnidirectional Short shipments; approximately 86 percent of the Integrated Omnidirectional Long shipments; approximately 66 percent of the Integrated Directional shipments; approximately 45 percent of the Non-Integrated Omnidirectional-Short shipments; approximately 73 percent Non-Integrated Directional shipments are estimated to not meet the ELs analyzed at TSL 6 by 2029, the estimated first full year of compliance.

DOE estimates that industry must invest approximately $407 million to redesign these non-compliant models into compliant models in order to meet the ELs analyzed at TSL 6. DOE assumed that most, if not all, LED lamp models would be remodeled between the estimated publication of this rulemaking's final rule and the estimated date which energy conservation standards are required, even in the absence of DOE energy conservation standards for GSLs. Therefore, GSL energy conservation standards set at TSL 6 would require GSL manufacturers to remodel their GSL models to a higher efficacy level during their regularly scheduled remodel cycle, due to energy conservation standards. GSL manufacturers would incur additional engineering resources to redesign their LED lamps to meet this higher efficacy requirement. DOE did not estimate that GSL manufacturers would incur any capital conversion costs as the volume of LED lamps manufactured in 2029 would be fewer than the volume of LED lamps manufactured in the previous year, 2028, even at TSL 6. Additionally, DOE did not estimate that manufacturing more efficacious LED lamps would require additional or different capital equipment or tooling.

After considering the analysis and weighing the benefits and burdens, the Secretary has tentatively concluded that a standard set at TSL 6 for GSLs would result in the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified. At this TSL, the average LCC savings for all product classes is positive. An estimated 15.9 percent of all GSL purchases are associated with a net cost. While 21.0 percent of purchases of Integrated Omnidirectional Short GSLs by low-income households would be associated with a net cost, a third of those purchases have a net cost of no more than $0.25 and over 75 percent of those purchases have a net cost of no more than $1.00. And significantly fewer low-income consumers experience a net cost at the household level after accounting for multiple lamp purchases. The FFC national energy savings of 3.98 quads are significant and the NPV of consumer benefits is positive using both a 3-percent and 7-percent discount rate. Notably, the benefits to consumers vastly outweigh the decrease in manufacturers' INPV. At TSL 6, the NPV of consumer benefits, even measured at the more conservative discount rate of 7 percent is over 26 times higher than the maximum estimated manufacturers' loss in INPV. The standard levels at TSL 6 are economically justified even without weighing the estimated monetary value of emissions reductions. When those emissions reductions are included—representing $5.9 billion in climate benefits (associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate), and $10.1 billion (using a 3-percent discount rate) or $3.6 billion (using a 7-percent discount rate) in health benefits—the rationale becomes stronger still.

As stated, DOE conducts the walk-down analysis to determine the TSL that represents the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified as required under EPCA. 86 FR 70892, 70908. Although DOE has not conducted a comparative economic analysis to select the proposed energy conservation standards, DOE notes that the proposed standard level represents the maximum

improvement in energy efficiency for all product classes and is only $0.1 billion less that the maximum consumer NPV, represented by TSL 5, at both 3 and 7 percent discount rates. Compared to TSL 4, Integrated Omnidirectional Short purchases at TSL 6 are approximately 1 percent more likely to be associated with a net cost, but NES is an additional 0.3 quads and NPV is an additional $1.1 billion at 3 percent discount rate and $0.3 billion at 7 percent discount rate. Compared to TSL 1 or 2, while 18 percent of Integrated Omnidirectional Short purchases at TSL 6 are associated with a net cost, compared to 1 percent at TSL 1 or 2, NES is more than 3 quads larger at TSL 6 and NPV is greater by more than $16 billion at 3 percent discount rate and more than $5 billion at 7 percent discount rate. These additional savings and benefits at TSL 6 are significant. DOE considers the impacts to be, as a whole, economically justified at TSL 6.

DOE acknowledges that TSL 6 is estimated to result in 0.02 quads of additional FFC national energy savings compared to TSL 5. The national consumer NPV is larger at TSL 5, compared to TSL 6, by $0.1 billion using either a 7-percent discount rate or a 3-percent discount rate. However, as noted previously, EPCA requires DOE to adopt the standard that would represent the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technically feasible and economically justified. DOE seeks comment on the merits of adopting TSL 5 as an alternative for the final rule. DOE could consider TSL 5, among others, in the final rule based on comments received. Additionally, given the relatively modest differences, DOE requests comment on the relative estimates of energy savings and net benefits for TSLs 6 and 5 and whether there are additional sensitivities to consider beyond the equipment switching for TLEDs.

Although DOE considered proposed amended standard levels for GSLs by grouping the efficiency levels for each product class into TSLs, DOE evaluates all analyzed efficiency levels in its analysis. DOE notes that among all possible combinations of ELs, the proposed standard level represents the max NES and differs from max NPV by only $0.1 billion.

Therefore, based on the previous considerations, DOE proposes to adopt the energy conservation standards for GSLs at TSL 6. The proposed amended energy conservation standards for GSLs, which are expressed as lamp efficacy or lumens per watt (lm/W), are shown in Table VII.30.

Table VII.30—Proposed Amended Energy Conservation Standards for GSLs

Representative product class

Efficacy
(lm/W)

Integrated Omnidirectional Short (Not Capable of Operating in Standby Mode)

123/(1.2+e
−0.005*(Lumens−200))
) + 25.9

Integrated Omnidirectional Long (Not Capable of Operating in Standby Mode)

123/(1.2+e
(−0.005*(Lumens−200))
) + 74.1

Integrated Directional (Not Capable of Operating in Standby Mode)

73/(0.5+e
(−0.0021*(Lumens+1000))
)−47.2

Non-integrated Omnidirectional Short

122/(0.55+e
(−0.003*(Lumens+250))
)−83.4

Non-integrated Directional

67/(0.45+e
(−0.00176*(Lumens+1310))
)−53.1

Integrated Omnidirectional Short (Capable of Operating in Standby Mode)

123/(1.2+e
(−0.005*(Lumens−200))
) + 17.1

Integrated Directional (Capable of Operating in Standby Mode)

73/(0.5+e
(−0.0021*(Lumens+1000)
)−50.9

Non-integrated Omnidirectional Long

123/(1.2+e
(−0.005*(Lumens−200))
) + 93.0

2. Annualized Benefits and Costs of the Proposed Standards

The benefits and costs of the proposed standards can also be expressed in terms of annualized values. The annualized net benefit is (1) the annualized national economic value (expressed in 2021$) of the benefits from operating products that meet the proposed standards (consisting primarily of operating cost savings from using less energy), minus increases in product purchase costs, and (2) the annualized monetary value of the climate and health benefits from emission reductions.

Table VII.31 shows the annualized values for GSLs under TSL 6, expressed in 2021$. The results under the primary estimate are as follows.

Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs and NO
X
and SO
2
reduction benefits, and a 3-percent discount rate case for GHG social costs, the estimated cost of the proposed standards for GSLs is $289.4 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $1,171.5 million from reduced equipment operating costs, $358.1 million from GHG reductions, and $432.0 million from reduced NO
X
and SO
2
emissions. In this case, the net benefit amounts to $1,672.2 million per year.

Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs, the estimated cost of the proposed standards for GSLs is $280.3 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $1,521.4 million in reduced operating costs, $358.1 million from GHG reductions, and $615.6 million from reduced NO
X
and SO
2
emissions. In this case, the net benefit amounts to $2,214.8 million per year.

Table VII.31—Annualized Benefits and Costs of Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for GSLs (TSL 6)

Million 2021$/year
Primary estimate

Low-net-benefits
estimate

High-net-benefits
estimate

3% discount rate

Consumer Operating Cost Savings
1,521.4
1,469.8
1,586.0

Climate Benefits *
358.1
357.7
358.5

Health Benefits **
615.6
615.0
616.3

Total Benefits †
2495.1
2,442.5
2,560.8

Consumer Incremental Product Costs ‡
280.3
291.0
270.0

Net Benefits
2,214.8
2,151.6
2,290.7

7% discount rate

Consumer Operating Cost Savings
1,171.5
1,135.9
1,215.2

Climate Benefits * (3% discount rate)
358.1
357.7
358.5

Health Benefits **
432.0
431.7
432.4

Total Benefits †
1,961.6
1,925.3
2,006.1

Consumer Incremental Product Costs ‡
289.4
299.4
279.8

Net Benefits
1,672.2
1,625.9
1,726.3

Note:
This table presents the costs and benefits associated with GSLs shipped in 2029-2058. These results include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2058 from the products shipped in 2029-2058.

* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the global SC-GHG (see section VI.L of this erulemaking). For presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3 percent discount rate are shown, but the Department does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate, and it emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four SC-GHG estimates. On March 16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (No. 22-30087) granted the federal government's emergency motion for stay pending appeal of the February 11, 2022, preliminary injunction issued in
Louisiana
v.
Biden,
No. 21-cv-1074-JDC-KK (W.D. La.). As a result of the Fifth Circuit's order, the preliminary injunction is no longer in effect, pending resolution of the federal government's appeal of that injunction or a further court order. Among other things, the preliminary injunction enjoined the defendants in that case from “adopting, employing, treating as binding, or relying upon” the interim estimates of the social cost of greenhouse gases—which were issued by the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases on February 26, 2021—to monetize the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. As reflected in this proposed rule, DOE has reverted to its approach prior to the injunction and presents monetized greenhouse gas abatement benefits where appropriate and permissible under law.

** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NO
X
and SO
2
. DOE is currently only monetizing (for NO
X
and SO
2
) PM
2.5
precursor health benefits and (for NO
X
) ozone precursor health benefits, but will continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as health benefits from reductions in direct PM
2.5
emissions.
See
section VI.L of this document for more details.

† Total benefits include consumer, climate, and health benefits. Total benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average SC-GHG with 3-percent discount rate, but the Department does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate. DOE emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four SC-GHG estimates.
‡ Costs include incremental equipment costs as well as installation costs.

D. Reporting, Certification, and Sampling Plan

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

VIII. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

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

Section 6(a) of E.O. 12866 also requires agencies to submit “significant regulatory actions” to OIRA for review. OIRA has determined that this proposed regulatory action constitutes an “economically significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866. Accordingly, pursuant to section 6(a)(3)(C) of E.O. 12866, DOE has provided to OIRA an assessment, including the underlying analysis, of benefits and costs anticipated from the proposed regulatory action, together with, to the extent feasible, a quantification of those costs; and an assessment, including the underlying analysis, of costs and benefits of potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives to the planned

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

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
et seq.
) requires preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) for any rule that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless the agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As required by E.O. 13272, “Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking,” 67 FR 53461 (Aug. 16, 2002), DOE published procedures and policies on February 19, 2003, to ensure that the potential impacts of its rules on small entities are properly considered during the rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE has made its procedures and policies available on the Office of the General Counsel's website (
www.energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel
). DOE has prepared the following IRFA for the products that are the subject of this rulemaking.

1. Description on Estimated Number of Small Entities Regulated

For manufacturers of GSLs, the SBA has set a size threshold, which defines those entities classified as “small businesses” for the purposes of the statute. DOE used the SBA's small business size standards to determine whether any small entities would be subject to the requirements of the rule. (See 13 CFR part 121.) The size standards are listed by NAICS code and industry description and are available at
www.sba.gov/document/support-table-size-standards.
Manufacturing of GSLs is classified under NAICS 335139, “electric lamp bulb and other lighting equipment manufacturing.” The SBA sets a threshold of 1,250 employees or less for an entity to be considered as a small business for this category.

DOE created a database of GSLs covered by this rulemaking using publicly available information. DOE's research involved information from DOE's compliance certification database,
92

EPA's ENERGY STAR Certified Light Bulbs Database,
93

manufacturers' websites, and retailer websites. DOE found over 800 companies that sell or manufacture GSLs covered in this rulemaking. Using information from D&B Hoovers, DOE screened out companies that have more than 1,250 employees or are completely foreign owned and operated. Based on the results of this analysis, DOE estimates there are approximately 347 small businesses that sell or manufacture GSLs covered by this rulemaking. Based on DOE's database, 326 of these potential small businesses exclusively sell or manufacture LED lamps and do not sell lamps using other technologies (
i.e.,
CFLs), while 21 potential small businesses sell or manufacture some CFLs covered by this rulemaking.

92

www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data.

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

2. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements Including Differences in Cost, if Any, for Different Groups of Small Entities

For the 326 small businesses that exclusively sell or manufacture LED lamps, these small businesses will be required to remodel many of the LED lamps they sell or manufacture if the proposed standards are adopted. However, GSL manufacturers stated during manufacturer interviews conducted prior to the March 2016 NOPR that their normal redesign cycle for an LED lamp model is between 18 months to 24 months.
94

DOE assumed that most, if not all, LED lamp models would be remodeled between the estimated publication of this rulemaking's final rule and the estimated date which energy conservation standards are required, even in the absence of DOE energy conservation standards for GSLs. However, small businesses exclusively selling or manufacturing LED lamps would be required to spend additional engineering time to remodel all LED lamp models that would not meet the proposed energy conservation standards, since these LED lamp models would be required to be more efficacious than originally planned, in the no-new-standards case.

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

The methodology DOE used to estimate product conversion costs for this NOPR analysis is described in section VI.J.2.c of this document. At the proposed standards, TSL 6, DOE estimates that all manufacturers would incur approximately $407 million in product conversion costs. These estimated product conversion costs, at TSL 6, represent approximately 6.6 percent of annual revenue over the estimated five-year compliance period.
95

While small manufacturers are likely to have lower per-model sales volumes than larger manufacturers, GSL manufacturer revenue from LED lamps is estimated to be approximately $1,503 million in 2029, the estimated first full year of compliance, at TSL 6 compared to $1,340 million in the no-new-standards case. This represents an increase of approximately 12 percent in annual revenue generated from the sales of LED lamps, since LED lamps will be the only technology capable of meeting the proposed standard.
96

DOE estimates that small GSL manufacturers exclusively selling LED lamps would incur no more than 4.5 percent of their annual revenue over the estimated five-year compliance period to redesign non-compliant LED lamps into compliant LED lamps meeting the proposed standards (
i.e.,
TSL 6).

95
The total estimated revenue between 2024, the estimated announcement year, and 2028, the year prior to the compliance year is approximately, $9,078 million. $407 ÷ $9,078 = 4.5%.

96
In the no-new-standards case, the revenue in 2029 includes revenue from the sale of CFLs in addition to the revenue from LED lamps.

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

Table VIII.1—Number of Small Businesses by Number of Covered CFL Models Sold

Number of covered CFL models sold by a small business

1-5
CFL models

6-20
CFL models

21-60
CFL models

61-533
CFL models

Total

Number of Small Businesses
8
4
4
5
21

Revenue from Small Business (Upper)
$68 million
$68 million
$31 million
$216 million

Revenue from Small Business (Lower)
$0.4 million
$28 million
$1.8 million
$7.1 million

Based on data from D&B Hoovers, DOE collected estimates of the range of annual revenue for small businesses based on the number of covered CFL models each small business sells or manufactures.

For the eight small businesses that sell or manufacture five or fewer covered CFLs, DOE does not anticipate these proposed standards would significantly impact these small businesses. All of the small businesses sell other products not covered by this rulemaking and would either continue to sell LED lamps covered by this rulemaking or exit the GSL market and would not recover any of the revenue previously earned from the sale of their five or fewer CFL models.

For the four small businesses that sell or manufacture between six and 20 CFL models, DOE also does not anticipate these proposed standards would significantly impact these small businesses. All these small businesses have annual revenue over $28 million. The loss of sales from up to 20 CFL models is not likely to be a significant impact to a company with annual sales of $28 million.

Some small businesses that sell or manufacture between 21 and 60 CFL models, could be potentially impacted by the proposed standards. Specifically, one small business has an annual revenue of $1.8 million and sells approximately 41 CFL models (compared to 264 LED lamp models) covered by this rulemaking and another small business has an annual revenue of $3.2 million and sells approximately 59 CFL models (compared to 557 LED lamp models) covered by this rulemaking. These two small businesses could be significantly impacted by the potential loss of CFL sales if these manufacturers are not able to replace these lost CFL sales with LED lamp sales.

For the five small businesses that manufacture between 61 and 533 CFL models, four of them have annual revenue of more than $50 million. All of these four manufacturers also offer more than 1,000 LED lamps that are covered by this rulemaking. The loss of sales from these CLFs models, between 61 and 533 CFL models, is not likely to be a significant impact to a company with annual sales of more than $50 million, especially since all of these small manufacturers have more than 1,000 LED lamp models in addition to their CFL models. The last small business sells approximately 336 CFL models (compared to 925 LED lamp models) covered by this rulemaking and has an annual revenue of approximately $7.1 million. This small business could be significantly impacted by the potential loss of CFL sales if this manufacturer is not able to replace their lost CFL sales with LED lamp sales.

Lastly, these CFL model counts represent the current market offerings of the identified small businesses. The shipment analysis projects a significant decline in CFL shipments from the reference year of the analysis (in 2022 CFL shipments are estimated to be approximately 33 million) compared to the CFL shipments in the estimated first full year of compliance (in 2029 CFL shipments are estimated to be approximately 6.6 million). Many of these small businesses will continue to replace CFL models with LED lamp models between now and the estimated compliance date even in the absence of energy conservation standards.

3. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict With Other Rules and Regulations

DOE is not aware of any rules or regulations that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed new and amended standards. As discussed in this NOPR, the May 2022 Backstop Rule and May 2022 Definition Rule were recently issued under the first cycle of GSL rulemaking under 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A). Effective July 2022, these rules expanded the definition of GSL and codified a statutorily prescribed backstop sales prohibition for the sale of any GSL that does not meet a minimum efficacy standard of 45 lm/W. Pursuant to statutory direction in 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(B), DOE is initiating this second cycle of rulemaking for GSLs to determine whether standards for GSLs should be further amended. While the statute directs DOE to begin this second cycle no later than January 1, 2020, DOE is delayed in initiating this rulemaking for the reasons previously discussed in this NOPR. DOE is proposing an effective date for this NOPR consistent with statutory requirements in 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(B)(iii) that the Secretary publish a final rule with an effective date that is not earlier than 3 years after the date on which the final rule under this second cycle of rulemaking is published. DOE seeks comment on any rules or regulations that could potentially duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed new and amended standards.

4. Significant Alternatives to the Rule

The discussion in the previous section analyzes impacts on small businesses that would result from DOE's proposed rule, represented by TSL 6. In reviewing alternatives to the proposed rule, DOE examined energy conservation standards set at lower efficiency levels. While TSL 1, TSL 2, TSL 3, TSL 4, and TSL 5 would reduce the impacts on small business manufacturers, it would come at the expense of a reduction in energy savings and consumer NPV. TSL 1 achieves 95.9 percent lower energy savings and a 95.0 percent lower consumer NPV compared to the energy savings and consumer NPV at TSL 6. TSL 2 achieves 87.1 percent lower energy savings and a 81.9 percent lower consumer NPV compared to the energy savings and consumer NPV at TSL 6. TSL 3 achieves 21.1 percent lower energy savings and a 16.9 percent lower consumer NPV compared to the energy savings and consumer NPV at TSL 6. TSL 4 achieves 7.5 percent lower energy savings and 5.5 percent lower consumer NPV compared to the energy savings and consumer NPV at TSL 6. TSL 5 achieves 0.5 percent lower energy savings compared to the energy savings at TSL 6.

Based on the presented discussion, establishing standards at TSL 6 balances the benefits of the energy savings at TSL 6 with the potential burdens placed on GSL manufacturers, including small business manufacturers. Moreover, establishing standards at TSL 6 represents the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and

economically justified as required under EPCA. Accordingly, DOE declines to propose one of the other TSLs considered in the analysis, or the other policy alternatives examined as part of the regulatory impact analysis included in chapter 16 of the NOPR TSD.

Additional compliance flexibilities may be available through other means. EPCA provides that a manufacturer whose annual gross revenue from all of its operations does not exceed $8 million may apply for an exemption from all or part of an energy conservation standard for a period not longer than 24 months after the effective date of a final rule establishing the standard. Additionally, section 504 of the Department of Energy Organization Act, 42 U.S.C. 7194, provides authority for the Secretary to adjust a rule issued under EPCA in order to prevent “special hardship, inequity, or unfair distribution of burdens” that may be imposed on that manufacturer as a result of such rule. Manufacturers should refer to 10 CFR part 430, subpart E, and part 1003 for additional details.

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

Manufacturers of GSLs must certify to DOE that their products comply with any applicable energy conservation standards. In certifying compliance, manufacturers must test their products according to the DOE test procedures for GSLs, including any amendments adopted for those test procedures. DOE has established regulations for the certification and recordkeeping requirements for all covered consumer products and commercial equipment, including GSLs. (
See
generally 10 CFR part 429). The collection-of-information requirement for the certification and recordkeeping is subject to review and approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). This requirement has been approved by OMB under OMB control number 1910-1400. Public reporting burden for the certification is estimated to average 35 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.

Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.

D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

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

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132

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

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988

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

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

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

officers of State, local, and Tribal governments on a proposed “significant intergovernmental mandate,” and requires an agency plan for giving notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small governments before establishing any requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect them. On March 18, 1997, DOE published a statement of policy on its process for intergovernmental consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 12820. DOE's policy statement is also available at
https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/gcprod/documents/umra_97.pdf.

Although this proposed rule does not contain a Federal intergovernmental mandate, it may require expenditures of $100 million or more in any one year by the private sector. Such expenditures may include: (1) investment in research and development and in capital expenditures by GSL manufacturers in the years between the final rule and the compliance date for the new standards and (2) incremental additional expenditures by consumers to purchase higher-efficiency GSLs, starting at the compliance date for the applicable standard.

Section 202 of UMRA authorizes a Federal agency to respond to the content requirements of UMRA in any other statement or analysis that accompanies the proposed rule. (2 U.S.C. 1532(c)) The content requirements of section 202(b) of UMRA relevant to a private sector mandate substantially overlap the economic analysis requirements that apply under section 325(o) of EPCA and Executive Order 12866. The
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section of this NOPR and the TSD for this proposed rule respond to those requirements.

Under section 205 of UMRA, the Department is obligated to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives before promulgating a rule for which a written statement under section 202 is required. (2 U.S.C. 1535(a)) DOE is required to select from those alternatives the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the proposed rule unless DOE publishes an explanation for doing otherwise, or the selection of such an alternative is inconsistent with law. As required by 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)-(B)), this proposed rule would establish amended energy conservation standards for GSLs that are designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that DOE has determined to be both technologically feasible and economically justified, as required by 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A) and 6295(o)(3)(B). A full discussion of the alternatives considered by DOE is presented in chapter 16 of the TSD for this proposed rule.

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

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

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630

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

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

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

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211

E.O. 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,” 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to OIRA at OMB, a Statement of Energy Effects for any proposed significant energy action. A “significant energy action” is defined as any action by an agency that promulgates or is expected to lead to promulgation of a final rule, and that (1) is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a significant energy action. For any proposed significant energy action, the agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use should the proposal be implemented, and of reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use.

DOE has tentatively concluded that this regulatory action, which proposes amended energy conservation standards for GSLs, is not a significant energy action because the proposed standards are not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, nor has it been designated as such by

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2022-28072. Public record. Not legal advice.