Regulatory Impact Statement: Minimum Energy Performance Standards and Alternative Strategies for Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts

Downloading the PDF Version

The full document is available as a PDF file. You will need Adobe Acrobat Reader installed on your computer to view it. The Adobe Reader is a free product.

Download Regulatory Impact Statement: Minimum Energy Performance Standards and Alternative Strategies for Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts (ris-lampballasts2001.pdf - 296 kB)

If you are unable to access this document, please contact The Australian Greenhouse Office to organise a suitable alternative format.

Summary

Linear fluorescent lighting is the most common form of lighting in commercial buildings in Australia. It is also used in the manufacturing and the household sector. It is estimated that this form of lighting accounts for nearly 7% of national electricity use (including the energy used to remove unwanted lamp heat from air-conditioned buildings), and this share is projected to increase. As electricity is the most greenhouse-intensive energy form, lighting contributes significantly to growth in greenhouse gas emissions.

This document considers various schemes for minimum energy performance standards (MEPS) for fluorescent lamp ballasts. These schemes are based on the Energy Efficiency Index (EEI) classifications defined in the forthcoming Australian and New Zealand Standard Performance of electrical lighting equipment .Ballast for fluorescent lamps Part 1: Method of measurement to determine energy consumption and performance of ballast lamp circuits), and Part 2: Energy labelling and minimum energy performance standards requirements.

After consideration of the mandatory MEPS option and the provisions of the proposed Standard, it is concluded that:

The mandatory MEPS option is likely to be effective in meeting its stated objectives.
None of the non-MEPS alternatives examined appear as effective in meeting all objectives, some would be completely ineffective with regard to some objectives, and some appear to be far more difficult or costly to implement.
The effectiveness of MEPS would be increased by other elements in the proposed Standard: marking of EEI on each ballast and registration of models.
Of the 10 modelled MEPS scenarios, the ones which give the highest energy and greenhouse savings are those which exclude EEI levels C, B2 and B1. However, these also lead to the greatest increases in ballast costs, because of the relatively high cost of electronic ballasts (even though it is assumed that these will fall in the event that they become the only type available).
On balance, the scenarios which exclude EEI levels C and B2 in a single step offer the highest net benefits and greenhouse reductions with lowest uncertainty.
One year. s deferment of the introduction of MEPS reduces net benefits over the period 2001-15 by about 10-12%. Selecting a MEPS level of B2 rather than B1 reduces net benefits by about 50%.
The projected monetary benefits of the preferred option exceeds the projected costs by a ratio of about 4 to 1, without assigning monetary value to the reductions in CO2 emissions that are likely to occur.
Given that the proposed MEPS levels have been in the public domain since June 1997, and issued in a draft standard in April 2000, the program could be implemented as early as 1 July 2002.
Commencement in July 2003 may be less disruptive for industry, if it coincided with the adoption of 230V as the new standard for electricity supply.

This page last modified 02 February 2009