ARCHIVED — Vol. 147, No. 40 — October 5, 2013

Warning This Web page has been archived on the Web.

Archived Content

Information identified as archived is provided for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It is not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards and has not been altered or updated since it was archived. Please contact us to request a format other than those available.

Regulations Amending the Energy Efficiency Regulations

Statutory authority

Energy Efficiency Act

Sponsoring department

Department of Natural Resources

REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT

(This statement is not part of the Regulations.)

Executive summary

Issue: In response to comments from consumers and industry, the Government of Canada is proposing to amend the minimum energy performance standards (MEPS) for commonly used light bulbs (i.e. 40, 60, 75, and 100 W replacement light bulbs) in Canada’s Energy Efficiency Regulations (the Regulations) to permit a form of incandescent halogen bulb, which is available in the United States, to also be available in Canada. This bulb is not currently permitted under the standards which were published in the Canada Gazette, Part Ⅱ, in December 2008, and are due to come into force in 2014.

This proposed amendment would

  • provide more lighting options to Canadians, specifically, a bulb which closely resembles and performs like a traditional incandescent bulb;
  • reduce the regulatory compliance burden on industry; and
  • support the Government’s regulatory policy of aligning with American standards, where feasible.

Description: The MEPS for light bulbs would be adjusted slightly to align with the U.S. standards, thereby permitting an additional form of incandescent halogen bulb to be compliant.

Cost-benefit statement: The lighting standards proposed under this amendment would allow consumers to choose to purchase higher efficiency products and continue to use alternatives that offer the characteristics that they prefer, such as dimming capability, bulb configuration or light quality. In addition, businesses that operate in both Canada and the United States can expect a decrease in costs due to the integration of product distribution.

It is anticipated that the proposed amended standards would deliver between $749 million and $2.4 billion in net benefits to Canadians from energy and greenhouse gas (GHG) savings. This includes up to 7.5 megatonnes of reduced GHG emissions per year in 2025.

The energy savings attributable to the proposed amended standards will be less than the estimated savings of the current standards because the amendment permits a slightly less efficient bulb to be compliant. However, all products that meet the amended standards consume at least 28% less energy than the traditional incandescent light bulbs available on the market today.

“One-for-One” Rule and small business lens: The “One-for-One” Rule does not apply as this proposal does not impose new administrative burden on business. The small business lens does not apply as this proposal has no impact on small businesses.

Domestic and international coordination and cooperation: The Government of Canada collaborates on MEPS development with both the United States and the provinces. Aligning Canada’s MEPS for light bulbs with those in the United States would continue to support the seamless flow of goods within the North American market for these products, and continue to support consumer choice for Canadians by maintaining availability of the incandescent halogen light bulb in Canadian markets. Provinces that have MEPS for energy-using products have consistently aligned their standards with the federal standards.

Background

Amendment 10 to the Regulations — Setting the light bulb standards

The traditional incandescent light bulb loses about 90% of its energy as heat. From 2007 on, as lighting technologies improved in performance and fell in price, jurisdictions such as Australia, the European Union, the United States and Canada (both at the federal level and the provincial level in Ontario and British Columbia) saw an opportunity to phase out traditional incandescent light bulbs, and realize GHG emission reductions (approximately seven megatonnes per year in 2025) by implementing minimum energy performance standards for general service lighting (i.e. light bulbs). (see footnote 1)

In December 2008, under the authority of the Energy Efficiency Act, Canada amended the Energy Efficiency Regulations (SOR/2008-323) to phase out inefficient light bulbs by using MEPS. Standards introduced in Amendment 10 to the Regulations were to go into effect in January 2012 (for 100 and 75 W) and December 2012 (for 60 and 40 W).

A variety of bulbs are available on the market that would meet the standards, including compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs), incandescent halogen infrared lamps (which are virtually indistinguishable from traditional incandescent bulbs) and light emitting diode (LED) bulbs.

The standards define the maximum amount of electricity that can be used to generate a given amount of light and are set at a level that is about 30% more efficient than the traditional incandescent light bulb, thereby reducing electricity consumption and the GHG emissions that can result from its generation. The standards prevent non-compliant products from being imported into Canada or from being shipped across provincial borders. Exemptions to the standards were identified where a cost-effective, efficient replacement was not available which includes light bulbs for utility bulbs (such as those for use on farms and in industrial applications), coloured bulbs, appliance bulbs, tri-lights and candelabra bulbs. The standards do not affect sales or any product already in Canada, such as those found in retail stores or those found in the homes of Canadians.

Amendment 12 to the Regulations — Delaying the implementation of the standards

Concerns have been raised by some Canadians and the media regarding CFLs, namely their mercury content, the method for their proper disposal, their perceived associated health effects, and their performance.

In 2011, the federal government delayed the coming into force of the MEPS for light bulbs by two years to January 1, 2014, for 100 W and 75 W replacement light bulbs and to December 31, 2014, for 60 W and 40 W replacement light bulbs. The rationale for the delay in implementation was to allow more time for additional communications (i.e. to effectively communicate lighting choices to Canadian consumers), for further advances in lighting technology to develop, to allow both public and private sector programs dealing with the disposal of CFLs to be more firmly established, and to investigate any health-related concerns with CFLs. Amendment 12 to the Regulations was approved in November 2011 (SOR/2011-228).

Since November 2011, Natural Resources Canada’s (NRCan or the Department) research revealed a widespread general recognition by Canadians of energy efficient lighting, but also a level of uncertainty concerning the product choices available. NRCan has revised the public information available to Canadians on its Web site to provide guidance on choosing energy-efficient light bulbs and how to phase out inefficient ones. It has met on these issues with industry and utilities stakeholders to discuss how best to inform Canadians. In addition, all provincial and territorial governments are members of a lighting committee where proposed standards were discussed, and Ontario and British Columbia have been particularly engaged. NRCan has also reached out to the retail industry to develop material for salespeople to inform Canadians about the lighting choices. NRCan has also liaised with Health Canada and Environment Canada to ensure that accurate information is available concerning the perceived health effects associated with the mercury content in CFLs.

An important indicator of success in these efforts is the level and substance of correspondence with the public. Incoming correspondence from Canadians revealed that one of the primary concerns was the availability of an affordable alternative product to CFLs. From March 2010 to January 2012, immediately prior to the delay in the implementation of the standards, NRCan received 152 comments from the public on the subject of light bulbs (73 letters to the Minister of Natural Resources and 79 emails to the Department). Of these, 93 expressed concerns about the implementation of the standards, primarily due to the lack of options to or concerns surrounding the mercury content and the proper disposal of CFLs. After Amendment 12 to the Regulations was made, communications totalled about 80 submissions — slightly less than half of which involved concerns with the lighting standards. The majority of the remaining correspondence was to seek information about alternatives to incandescent lighting, exceptions to the Regulations, and technical information about technologies. From July 2, 2013, to July 19, 2013, NRCan received 183 new pieces of correspondence raising similar concerns regarding CFLs, including the perceived health effects and performance of the bulbs. This campaign was in response to media opinion pieces calling on the Government to rescind the implementation of the standards coming into force in January 2014.

Difference in the standards between the United States and Canada

The U.S. approach to determining the light bulb standards is different from that used in Canada, Australia and the European Union. The U.S. approach sets a maximum energy input for a range of light outputs; for example, any light bulb that provides from 750 lumens to 1 049 lumens is allowed a maximum energy consumption of 43 W. (see footnote 2) The Canadian, Australian and European Union standards specify maximum energy consumption for each specific light output. Essentially, the U.S. standards would allow the use of a light bulb (i.e. the incandescent halogen light bulb) that is less efficient and provides slightly less light than the incandescent halogen infrared light bulb, which is currently the least efficient product meeting Canada’s MEPS.

The incandescent halogen light bulb that manufacturers developed to meet the U.S. standards was introduced in 2011 in advance of the implementation of U.S. standards for 100 W replacement bulbs in 2012 and for 75 W replacement bulbs in 2013. In the United States, standards for 60 W and 40 W replacement bulbs will be in effect in 2014.

Issue

Adopted in 2008, the MEPS for commonly used light bulbs (i.e. 40, 60, 75, and 100 W replacement light bulbs) in Canada’s Regulations are not fully aligned with those in the United States. In anticipation of the 2014 coming into force of these standards, a review of the light bulbs currently available in Canada and the United States revealed that incandescent halogen light bulbs will meet U.S. standards but will not meet the Canadian MEPS, which are slightly higher. Aligning the Canadian MEPS with the U.S. standards would permit the incandescent halogen bulb technology to be compliant in Canada. This would provide more choice to consumers, particularly those who raised concerns about CFLs. It would also support the Government’s 2011 Regulatory Cooperation Council policy to align the Canadian regulatory regime with the U.S. regulatory regime wherever feasible.

Objective

To align Canada’s MEPS for commonly used light bulbs that are set to come into force in 2014 in Canada with those in the United States.

Description

By incorporating the text from the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (see footnote 3) into Canada’s Regulations, this proposal would align Canada’s MEPS for commonly used light bulbs with those adopted in the United States. This would replicate the U.S. standards’ levels and product definitions in Canada. The date of application of the MEPS and how the lamps are tested remain the same as currently specified in Canada.

The proposed standards would also apply to another type of light bulb called modified spectrum incandescent lamps, which are specialty lamps generally purchased because of their ability to showcase certain colours. The standards for these bulbs would be 25% lower than for the general service lamps.

Regulatory and non-regulatory options considered

Proposed option

Aligning Canada’s MEPS with the U.S. standards for light bulbs would provide consumers who have concerns about the suitability of CFLs and LEDs as replacement light bulbs with access to an additional technology that looks and operates like the traditional incandescent light bulb. It would help to support the continued practice of economic integration and strong trade relations with the United States, and a seamless flow of goods within the North American market for these products. This approach may result in reduced energy savings and GHG reductions compared to the current standards but would facilitate greater consumer choice and reduce regulatory burden.

Status quo option

Retaining the MEPS that were published in 2008 would maintain the energy and emission savings originally forecast. However, fewer lighting choices would be available to consumers in Canada and the misalignment between the Canadian and U.S. standards could represent undue burden for the major light bulb manufacturers. Suppliers of the North American market would be required to provide different products for the Canadian and U.S. markets, thereby adding additional pressure on their manufacturing and distribution practices and adding cost to the production of efficient light bulbs.

Repeal of the MEPS option

Repealing the current Canadian MEPS entirely would allow consumers to purchase any type of light bulb regardless of its energy efficiency. Given the focus on energy efficiency for lighting at the international level, this option would cause Canada to lag behind most developed countries in this area, and Canada could become susceptible to product dumping from manufacturers from other countries seeking to sell traditional incandescent light bulbs no longer permitted in their own country. Suppliers to the Canadian light bulb market have already made considerable investments in research, development and retooling to meet the MEPS as written in 2008. Canadian retailers have begun selling, promoting, and educating consumers about more efficient bulbs. Without standards, some consumers would still move to more efficient alternatives, particularly as the costs decline, but energy and GHG savings associated with the proposed option would be delayed or at risk of not occurring.

Benefits and costs

The benefits and costs of amending the minimum energy performance standards for general service lighting are evaluated in five parts:

  1. Benefits and costs to society. A quantitative analysis measuring the change in economic attractiveness to society was conducted for the products specified in the proposed standards as compared to the current standards as written in 2008.
  2. Energy/GHG analysis. A description of the analysis of aggregate energy changes and associated impact in GHG emissions, resulting from the expected market outcomes of the proposed standards as compared to those of the current standards.
  3. Benefits and cost to business. A qualitative discussion of the impact of the proposed standards on affected manufacturers and dealers as compared to that of the current standards.
  4. Benefits and cost to Government. A qualitative discussion of the impact of the proposed standards to Government as compared to that of the current standards.
  5. Total net benefits. An estimate of the cumulative net present value to all of Canadian society from the proposed standards as compared to that of the current standards.
General

Efficient bulbs save money for consumers in two ways, compared to traditional incandescent bulbs — they need to be replaced less frequently because they last longer and they use less energy; therefore, they save on electricity costs. However, efficient bulbs tend to cost more than traditional incandescent bulbs — from under $1 more per bulb to over $10 more. It is expected that many consumers would opt for lower purchase cost light bulbs.

Non-economic factors also play a role in shaping consumers’ purchasing decisions. Consumers would value the greater choice of products in the market under the proposed standards. Further, some consumers would value access to another technology that does not have the issues associated with CFLs such as

  • light quality: some consumers do not like the quality of CFL light;
  • mercury content: some consumers want to avoid the small amount of mercury in each CFL, which must be disposed of and cleaned up appropriately if the CFL is broken; (see footnote 4) and
  • immability: some consumers may opt for a bulb with dimming capacity, which not all CFLs have.

Consumers who reject CFLs are indicating that non-monetized benefits related to incandescent halogen bulbs are more valuable to them than the potential long-term cost savings associated with CFLs.

Two scenarios have been examined with respect to consumer purchasing:

  • The “low-end” scenario reflects preference for the bulb most closely resembling the traditional incandescent light bulb, which is in this case the incandescent halogen bulb. This light bulb could replace up to 75% of traditional incandescent light bulbs currently in use. CFLs could make up the remaining 25% of the market. (see footnote 5)
  • The “high-end” scenario reflects a focus on long-term energy savings. In this case, CFLs would replace 75% of traditional incandescent light bulbs and the incandescent halogen bulb would make up 25% of the remaining market.

The actual outcome could fall somewhere in between the low-end and high-end scenarios.

1. Benefits and costs to society
Methodology and assumptions

The methodology used to calculate the costs and benefits associated with the proposed standards compares a single product below the proposed standards to a single product at the standards, over the life of the product. To allow comparability between lighting options, the purchase cost was amortized on an annualized basis with a 7% discount rate to reflect the time value of money. All analyses reflect three hours of use per day.

Product-specific assumptions are based on market analysis reports, testing reports, industry data from Electro Federation Canada, engineering studies, experience in other regulating jurisdictions, stakeholder consultation, and other data sources.

The price of electricity is based on the energy forecast in Canada’s Energy Future: Energy Supply and Demand Projections to 2035, com the National Energy Board. The estimated national average price of a kWh of electricity in 2014 and 2015 is estimated to be $0.086 and $0.089 in 2012 dollars, respectively.

GHGs are valued using Environment Canada’s social cost of carbon. The estimated price of GHGs per kWh of electricity in 2014 and 2015 is estimated to be $0.014 in 2012.

All prices are of the year 2012, using Statistics Canada’s consumer price index for “all items.”

  • Effective date for 100–75 W light bulb replacement: January 1, 2014.
  • Effective date for 60–40 W light bulb replacement: December 31, 2014.
  • Service life of incandescent light bulbs: 1 095 hours.
  • Service life of compact fluorescent lamps: 8 000 hours.
  • Service life of incandescent halogen light bulbs: 1 095 hours.
  • A variety of low and high purchase costs was used for each wattage and type of lighting technology.

A sensitivity analysis was carried out with high and low energy prices and replacement bulb costs and is available on request.

Anticipated results

The results of the benefits and costs analysis, detailed in Annex 1, indicate that the proposed standards could deliver $2.4 billion in net benefits to Canadians, in a high-end scenario, where incandescent halogen bulbs have 25% of the market and CFLs have 75% of the market. In this case, Canadians would be paying $388 million dollars in increased costs for more efficient light bulbs, but this increase in cost is more than offset by $2.83 billion in energy and GHG savings resulting from the more efficient light bulbs. These results aggregate all costs and benefits to 2025 across all consumers and businesses using an expected cumulative number of light bulb shipments from 2014 to 2025, compared to a case where there are no standards.

In a low-end scenario, where incandescent halogen bulbs have 75% of the market and CFLs have 25% of the market, the proposed standards could deliver $749 million in net benefits to Canadians. In this case, Canadians would be paying $1.1 billion dollars in increased costs for more efficient light bulbs, but this increase in cost is more than offset by $1.85 billion in energy and GHG savings resulting from the more efficient light bulbs.

These results are $189 million to $1.9 billion lower than under the current standards, as written in 2008, for the high- and low- end scenarios, respectively. The impacts on individual consumers will be small, but they are larger when aggregated cumulatively across all consumers and over 10 years of analysis.

2. Energy/GHG analysis
Methodology and assumptions

Energy savings associated with MEPS for light bulbs were calculated for both the residential and commercial sectors. The reductions in GHG emissions were calculated by applying emissions factors (see footnote 6) for specific fuels consistent with those published by Environment Canada (see footnote 7) and based on the marginal fuels (see footnote 8) used to generate the electricity that would be saved through the proposed standards.

Anticipated results

Table 1 indicates that the proposed standards, under a low-end scenario, would reduce energy use by 37.1 petajoules per year and GHG emissions by 5.17 megatonnes per year in 2025. Under a high-end scenario, the proposed standards would reduce energy use by 51.5 petajoules and GHG emissions by 7.5 megatonnes in 2025.

In 2025, these results would be 14.8 petajoules per year and 2.4 megatonnes per year lower than under the current standards, under the low-end scenario and 0.51 petajoules per year and 0.07 megatonnes per year lower under the high-end scenario.

3. Benefits and cost to business

Industry, distributors and retailers consistently articulated the viewpoint that an aligned U.S./Canadian market for light bulb products would reduce their overall costs once the Canadian standards came into effect in 2014. The proposed standards would achieve alignment with the U.S. standard, which is beneficial to Canadian industry, distributors, and retailers because it would allow for the continued seamless flow of goods within the North American market for these products, and permit decreased costs for those companies that operate in both U.S. and Canadian markets as they would be able to integrate their marketing and distribution practices. Therefore, there is a non-monetized benefit of an aligned market under the proposed standards when compared to the current standards.

The proposed standards would not change the administrative or compliance burden imposed on dealers for these currently regulated light bulbs.

4. Benefits and cost to Government

Resources have already been approved for the Energy Efficiency Standards and Labelling Program under the EcoENERGY Efficiency Initiative (2011–2016) for bringing these standards into force, maintaining the regulations, and compliance and labelling efforts. Thus, the proposed standards would result in no incremental impact to the Government.

5. Total net benefits

Because NRCan could not monetize the impacts to business and because there is no change in the impact on Government, the net impact to society is the same as presented above in Section 1 and in Annex 1. In 2025, there will be at least $749M in cumulative net benefits as a result of general service lighting standards, 37.1 petajoules of energy savings per year and a reduction of 5.17 megatonnes in GHG emissions per year.

“One-for-One” Rule

The “One-for-One” Rule does not apply to this proposal, as it does not impose new administrative burden on business.

Small business lens

The small business lens does not apply to this proposal, as the changes do not impact small businesses.

Consultation

Since the publication of Amendment 10 to the Regulations in 2008, and the publication of Amendment 12 in 2011, NRCan has continued to welcome comments on the upcoming implementation of the MEPS (in 2014) and has been available to answer any questions and concerns from Canadians regarding the more efficient alternative lighting options available on the market (e.g. CFLs, LEDs).

Subsequently, NRCan has kept a record of all inquiries concerning Canada’s lighting standards. The dialogue in the written, electronic, and telephone inquiries received and responded to by NRCan demonstrates that of the 37% of Canadians who are aware of Canada’s efficiency standards for lighting, a small minority continue to express concerns (particularly about CFLs) despite a delay in the implementation of the standards. Accordingly, it is anticipated that Canadians would likely not object to the continued availability of the incandescent halogen light bulb on the Canadian market, as it would allow for an additional product choice for Canadian consumers.

In November 2012, major lighting manufacturers supplying the market in Canada wrote NRCan requesting that Canada’s standards be aligned with those in the United States. Accordingly, it is generally expected that industry manufacturers would be supportive of the proposed standards.

Regulatory cooperation

The proposed standards would align the MEPS for light bulbs with those in the United States, but would implement them on a slightly delayed Canadian timetable, as per the following table:

Coming into force date

United States

Canada

January 1, 2012

100 W

 

January 1, 2013

75 W

 

January 1, 2014

60 W / 40 W

100 W / 75 W

December 31, 2014

 

60 W / 40 W

In British Columbia, the current Canadian standards for 100 W and 75 W replacement bulbs as published in 2008 are currently in force, while the standards for 60 W and 40 W replacement bulbs are set to come into force on December 31, 2014.

Ontario’s standards are completely aligned with the current federal standards, and are therefore set to come into force on January 1, 2014, for 100 W and 75 W light bulbs and December 31, 2014, for 60 W and 40 W light bulbs.

British Columbia and Ontario may amend their standards following the proposed standards to ensure identical requirements in all regions. Otherwise industry will have to customize shipments to different jurisdictions, depending on their destinations within Canada. However, the decision to change standards is at the discretion of the respective provincial governments.

Rationale

The purpose of the proposed standards is to align Canada’s current MEPS for commonly used light bulbs with those in the United States. This would provide Canadian consumers, who expressed concerns about CFLs, with an additional light bulb replacement option, which looks exactly like the traditional incandescent light bulb but is more efficient, and which is comparable to CFLs in purchase cost. While this proposal may result in a slight decrease in the stringency of the current standards, Canada’s eco-energy programs would still contribute to significant energy savings, GHG emission reductions and economic benefits for Canadians in the long term.

Implementation, enforcement and service standards

The proposed standards are set to come into force upon registration of the final Regulations. They would apply to the light bulbs manufactured after the in-force date for the particular wattage, upon import or interprovincial shipment for the purposes of lease or sale. All major stakeholders would be notified of the proposed standards by email upon prepublication and later of the final Regulations upon registration.

Industry stakeholders will still be able to ship products manufactured before the in-force date of the standards, which will allow them time to use existing inventories while they prepare to comply with the proposed standards.

The compliance and enforcement procedures already in place for this product under the Regulations will continue to serve for the proposed standards. The main features of this system are reporting and customs monitoring. Energy performance data is submitted to NRCan by the dealer in an energy efficiency report as specified in the Regulations. This is only required once for each model, before importation or inter-provincial shipment. Customs monitoring occurs upon importation, when dealers are required to provide specific data elements on their customs documents. This information is then checked against the energy efficiency reports to ensure compliance with the Regulations.

As the proposed standards align with standards in the United States, compliance risks are much less than they would be if Canada had unique standards. Canada would benefit from the compliance regime that is in place to support U.S. standards. Canada and the United States are part of an integrated North American market and when aligned, both jurisdictions benefit from each other’s en-forcement regimes, thereby reducing the risks of non compliance.

Performance measurement and evaluation

The current Canadian MEPS for light bulbs were originally identified in the Clean Air Regulatory Agenda. The proposed revision to the standards is being implemented under the current ecoENERGY Efficiency Standards and Labelling program. Detailed accounts of progress towards achieving the objectives of this initiative will be found in departmental business plans, reports on plans and priorities, and the Report to Parliament under the Energy Efficiency Act. A formal evaluation of the program is planned for 2014–2015.

Performance measurement and evaluation plans have been established for the Energy Efficiency Standards and Labelling program as a whole, and these include the proposed regulatory activity where key activities and outputs are identified, expectations are quantified, ongoing data collection from program files are maintained, and appropriate targets are defined.

A formal evaluation of the Energy Efficiency Standards and Labelling Program by NRCan’s Evaluation Branch was completed in July 2010 for the period from 2005 to 2009. The evaluation reported that because of standards implemented under the Energy Efficiency Act, improvements in the energy efficiency of energy-using equipment happened much more quickly than they would have otherwise.

NRCan routinely conducts technology and market assessments to determine the energy consumption of products sold in Canada and identify distribution channels. These studies provide evidence of the energy and environmental impacts of previously established standards and serve as a reflection of the performance of the program. They also assist in determining the cost-benefit and environmental impacts of future revisions to MEPS.

With respect to an intermediate outcome, over time, it is anticipated that the proposed standards would help to increase the level of acceptability for MEPS for many Canadians, thus facilitating the adoption of further MEPS for these and other products in the future.

Contacts

John Cockburn
Director
Equipment Division
Office of Energy Efficiency
Natural Resources Canada
CEF, Building 3, Observatory Crescent, 1st Floor
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0Y3
Telephone: 613-996-4359
Fax: 613-947-5286
Email: equipment@nrcan.gc.ca

For more information on the full cost-benefit analysis, please contact

Laura Oleson
Director
Demand Policy and Analysis Division
Office of Energy Efficiency
Natural Resources Canada
580 Booth Street, 18th Floor
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0E4
Email: equipment@nrcan.gc.ca

Annex 1

Benefits and Costs (Millions of 2012 of dollars) — Quantified Impacts

The tables below present the national-level impacts for the current and proposed standards in both low- and high-end scenarios. Each table presents the annual benefits and costs discounted to 2012, the cumulative present value of the benefits, costs and net present value of benefits (benefits minus costs) to 2025, plus the annualized average for each. The benefits comprise the cumulative energy saved in each year by switching to a more efficient light bulb and the corresponding GHG emission reductions. The costs are the cumulative costs of switching from an incandescent light bulb to a more efficient light bulb.

Current Standards (2008)

Costs, benefits and distribution

Annual Totals

Total Cumulative Present Value (PV)

Annualized Average

2014

2025

A. Quantified impacts (in millions of CAN$, 2012 constant dollars)

Benefits

Electricity

Canadians

117

371

2,458

309

GHGs

18

60

387

49

Costs

 

Canadians

12

31

209

26

Net benefits

2,635

332

B. Quantified impacts in Non-$ (monetized in Section A)

Impact on Canadians

Energy savings (petajoules)

8.54

52.03

524

 

GHG emission reductions (megatonnes)

1.22

7.57

76.30

 

 

Proposed Standards

Costs, benefits and distribution

Annual Totals

Total Cumulative Present Value (PV)

Annualized Average

2014

2025

A. Quantified impacts (in millions of CAN$, 2012 constant dollars)

Benefits

Electricity

Canadians

High End

116

372

2,447

308

Low End

79

253

1,584

199

GHGs

High End

18

60

388

49

Low End

12

41

264

33

Costs

Cost of replacement bulbs

Canadians

High End

19

58

388

49

Low End

45

166

1,099

138

Net Benefits

High End

2,446

308

Low End

749

94

B. Quantified impacts in Non-$ (monetized in Section A)

Impact on Canadians

Energy savings (petajoules)

High End

8.45

51.52

518.51

 

Low End

8.85

37.19

379

 

GHG emission reductions (megatonnes)

High End

1.21

7.50

76

 

Low End

1.18

5.17

52.66

 

 

Net
Diffe-
rences

Costs, benefits and distribution

Annual Totals

Total Cumulative Present Value (PV)

Annualized Average

2014

2025

A. Quantified impacts (in millions of CAN$, 2012 constant dollars)

Benefits

Electricity

Canadians

High End

–1

1

–11

(1)

Low End

–38

–118

–874

(110)

GHGs

High End

0

0

1

0

Low End

–6

–19

–122

(15)

Costs

 

Canadians

High End

7

27

179

23

Low End

33

135

890

112

Net benefits

High End

–189

(24)

Low End

–1,886

(237)

B. Quantified impacts in Non-$ (monetized in Section A)

Impact on Canadians

Energy savings (petajoules)

High End

(0.09)

(0.51)

(5.13)

 

Low End

0.31

(14.84)

(144.57)

 

GHG emission reductions (megatonnes)

High End

(0.01)

(0.07)

(0.75)

 

Low End

(0.04)

(2.40)

(23.64)

 

C. Qualitative impacts (non-monetized)

  • Reduced costs to business

PROPOSED REGULATORY TEXT

Notice is given, pursuant to section 26 of the Energy Efficiency Act (see footnote a), that the Governor in Council, pursuant to sections 20 (see footnote b) and 25 of that Act, proposes to make the annexed Regulations Amending the Energy Efficiency Regulations.

Interested persons may make representations concerning the proposed Regulations within 75 days after the date of publication of this notice. All such representations must cite the Canada Gazette, Part Ⅰ, and the date of publication of this notice, and be addressed to John Cockburn, Director, Equipment Division, Office of Energy Efficiency, Department of Natural Resources, 930 Carling Avenue (CEF, Building 3, Observatory Crescent), 1st Floor, Room 136-C, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0Y3 (tel.: 613-996-4359; email: equipment@nrcan.gc.ca).

Ottawa, October 2, 2013

JURICA ČAPKUN
Assistant Clerk of the Privy Council

REGULATIONS AMENDING THE ENERGY EFFICIENCY REGULATIONS

AMENDMENTS

1. (1) The definition “reference standard spectrum lamp” in subsection 2(1) of the Energy Efficiency Regulations (see footnote 9) is repealed.

(2) The definitions “modified spectrum lamp” and “vibration service lamp” in subsection 2(1) of the Regulations are replaced by the following:

“modified spectrum lamp” means a lamp, other than a coloured lamp, that

  • (a) is marketed as a modified spectrum lamp, and
  • (b) when operated at its nominal voltage and nominal power, has a colour point that, on the 1931 chromaticity diagram described in CIE 15, lies below the black-body locus and that is at least 4 MacAdam steps, as described in IES LM16, distant from the colour point of a clear lamp with the same filament and bulb shape and operating at the same nominal voltage and nominal power; (lampe à spectre modifié)

“vibration service lamp” means a lamp that

  • (a) is marketed as a vibration service lamp,
  • (b) has a maximum nominal power of 60 W, and
  • (c) has a C-5, C-7A or C-9 filament configuration — as illustrated in figure 6.12 of the IES Handbook — or a similar configuration, with less than five supports; (lampe anti-vibrations)

(3) Paragraphs (a) and (b) of the definition “general service lamp” in subsection 2(1) of the Regulations are replaced by the following:

  • (a) has a luminous flux of at least 310 lm but no greater than 2 600 lm,
  • (b) a nominal voltage of at least 110 V but not more than 130 V or a nominal voltage range that lies at least partially between those voltages, and

(4) Paragraphs (i) and (j) of the definition “general service lamp” in subsection 2(1) of the Regulations are replaced by the following:

  • (i) a lamp that has a G-shape as specified in ANSI C78.20 and ANSI C79.1, with a diameter of 12.7 cm or more,
  • (j) a lamp that has a T-shape as specified in ANSI C78.20 and ANSI C79.1 and a maximum nominal power of 40 W or a length exceeding 25.4 cm,

(5) The definition “general service lamp” in subsection 2(1) of the Regulations is amended by striking out “and” at the end of paragraph (s), by adding “and” at the end of paragraph (t) and by adding the following after paragraph (t):

  • (u) a modified spectrum lamp; (lampe standard)

(6) Paragraph (c) of the definition “luminous flux” in subsection 2(1) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

  • (c) for general service lamps and modified spectrum incandescent lamps, the lumen output determined according to IES LM45, and

(7) Subsection 2(1) of the Regulations is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order:

“CIE 15” means the CIE standard CIE 15: 2004 entitled Colorimetry; (CIE 15)

“IES LM16” means the IES standard IES LM-16-1993 entitled Practical Guide to Colorimetry of Light Sources; (IES LM16)

“modified spectrum incandescent lamp” means, subject to subsection (4), a modified spectrum lamp that has

  • (a) a luminous flux of at least 232 lm but no greater than 1 950 lm,
  • (b) a nominal voltage of at least 110 V but not more than 130 V or a nominal voltage range that lies at least partially between those voltages, and
  • (c) a screw base,

but it does not include

  • (d) an appliance lamp,
  • (e) a CFL,
  • (f) an explosion resistant lamp, namely, a lamp that is designed and certified to operate in a Class I, Division 1 or Class II, Division 1 environment as defined in the IEC standard CEI/IEC 60079-0 (2007) entitled Explosive atmospheres – Part 0: Equipment – General Requirements,
  • (g) an infrared lamp,
  • (h) a lamp that has a G-shape as specified in ANSI C78.20 and ANSI C79.1, with a diameter of 12.7 cm or more,
  • (i) a lamp that has a T-shape as specified in ANSI C78.20 and ANSI C79.1 and a maximum nominal power of 40 W or a length exceeding 25.4 cm,
  • (j) a lamp that uses solid state technology, namely, a lamp with a light source that comes from light-emitting diodes,
  • (k) a left-hand thread lamp, namely, a lamp with a base that screws into a lamp socket in a counter-clockwise direction,
  • (l) a plant lamp,
  • (m) an incandescent reflector lamp that has a shape specified in ANSI C79.1,
  • (n) a sign service lamp, namely, a vacuum type or gas-filled lamp that has sufficiently low bulb temperature to permit exposed outdoor use on high-speed flashing circuits and is marketed as a sign service lamp,
  • (o) a silver bowl lamp,
  • (p) a traffic signal module, a pedestrian module or a street light,
  • (q) a submersible lamp,
  • (r) a lamp that has a screw base size of E5, E10, E11, E12, E17, E26/50×39, E26/53×39, E29/28, E29/53×39, E39, E39d, EP39 or EX39 as specified in ANSI C81.61, and
  • (s) a lamp that has a B, BA, CA, F, G16-½, G25, G30, S or M-14 shape or other similar shape, as specified in ANSI C78.20 and ANSI C79.1, and a maximum nominal power of 40 W; (lampe à incandescence à spectre modifié)

(8) Subsection 2(4) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

(4) For the purposes of Part Ⅱ, the definitions “general service lamp” and “modified spectrum incandescent lamp” do not include a rough service lamp, a vibration service lamp, a shatter resistant lamp or a lamp with an E26d screw base as specified in ANSI C81.61.

2. (1) The portion of subsection 3(1) of the Regulations before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

3. (1) Subject to subsections (2) to (30), the following products are prescribed as energy-using products:

(2) Subsection 3(1) of the Regulations is amended by striking out “and” at the end of paragraph (z.91), by adding “and” at the end of paragraph (z.92) and by adding the following after paragraph (z.92):

  • (z.93) modified spectrum incandescent lamps.

(3) Subparagraphs 3(21)(c)(i) and (ii) of the Regulations are replaced by the following:

  • (i) it has a luminous flux greater than or equal to 1 050 lm and its manufacturing process is completed on or after January 1, 2014, or
  • (ii) it has a luminous flux less than 1 050 lm and its manufacturing process is completed on or after December 31, 2014.

(4) Section 3 of the Regulations is amended by adding the following after subsection (29):

(30) A product referred to in paragraph (1)(z.93) shall not be considered to be an energy-using product

  • (a) for the purposes of Part ⅠV;
  • (b) for the purposes of Parts Ⅲ and V, unless its manufacturing process is completed on or after September 1, 2008; or
  • (c) for the purposes of Part Ⅱ, unless
    • (i) it has a luminous flux greater than or equal to 788 lm and its manufacturing process is completed on or after January 1, 2014, or
    • (ii) it has a luminous flux less than 788 lm and its manufacturing process is completed on or after December 31, 2014.

3. Paragraph 4(1)(a) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

  • (a) for an energy-using product referred to in any of paragraphs 3(1)(a) to (h.1), (h.3), (i), (j), (j.2), (j.5), (j.7) to (m.3), (n.1) to (s), (w) and (y) to (z.93), an energy efficiency standard set out in column III of Part 1 of Schedule I applies to the product set out in column I if the manufacturing process of the product is completed during the period set out in column IV;

4. Section 4.4 of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

4.4 In respect of an energy-using product referred to in paragraph 3(1)(j.5) or (z.93), compliance with the energy efficiency standard referred to in subsection 4(1) shall be determined in accordance with the testing procedures established by IES LM45 and IES LM49 that are applicable to the product, except that it must be tested at 120 volts regardless of its nominal voltage.

5. Section 10.1 of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

10.1 This Division applies to the following energy-using products:

  • (a) general service incandescent reflector lamps;
  • (b) modified spectrum incandescent lamps;
  • (c) general service lamps; and
  • (d) CFLs.

6. (1) Subparagraph 12(2)(e)(i) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

  • (i) in the case of an energy-using product referred to in paragraph 3(1)(j.5), (j.6) or (z.93), if a laboratory — accredited in respect of lighting energy performance by either the Standards Council of Canada or the National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program — has verified the information displayed on the product’s package under Division 2 of Part III, the name of that laboratory, and

(2) Paragraph 12(2)(g) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

  • (g) if there are reasonable grounds to believe, in respect of an energy-using product referred to in paragraph 3(1)(j.5) or (z.93), that the performance of the product does not correspond with the information displayed on its package under Division 2 of Part Ⅲ, on the request of the Minister, test data that confirms that information from a laboratory accredited in respect of lighting energy performance by either the Standards Council of Canada or the National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program.

7. Items 136 to 139 of Part 1 of Schedule I to the Regulations are replaced by the following:

Item

Column I


Energy-using Product

Column II


Standard/Legislative Provision

Column III

Energy Efficiency Standard

Column IV


Completion Period

136.

General service lamps with a luminous flux < 750 lm

Section 4.4 for luminous flux, nominal power and life

 

CIE 13.3 for colour rendering index

nominal power ≤ 29 W life ≥ 1 000 hours

colour rendering index ≥ 80

on or after December 31, 2014

136.1

General service lamps with a luminous flux ≥ 750 lm and < 1 050 lm

Section 4.4 for luminous flux, nominal power and life

 

CIE 13.3 for colour rendering index

nominal power ≤ 43 W life ≥ 1 000 hours

colour rendering index ≥ 80

on or after December 31, 2014

136.2

General service lamps with a luminous flux ≥ 1 050 lm and < 1 490 lm

Section 4.4 for luminous flux, nominal power and life

 

CIE 13.3 for colour rendering index

nominal power ≤ 53 W life ≥ 1 000 hours

colour rendering index ≥ 80

on or after January 1, 2014

136.3

General service lamps with a luminous flux ≥ 1 490 lm

Section 4.4 for luminous flux, nominal power and life

 

CIE 13.3 for colour rendering index

nominal power ≤ 72 W life ≥ 1 000 hours

colour rendering index ≥ 80

on or after January 1, 2014

137.

Modified spectrum incandescent lamps with a luminous flux < 563 lm

Section 4.4 for luminous flux, nominal power and life

 

CIE 13.3 for colour rendering index

nominal power ≤ 29 W life ≥ 1 000 hours

colour rendering index ≥ 75

on or after December 31, 2014

137.1

Modified spectrum incandescent lamps with a luminous flux ≥ 563 lm and < 788 lm

Section 4.4 for luminous flux, nominal power and life

 

CIE 13.3 for colour rendering index

nominal power ≤ 43 W life ≥ 1 000 hours

colour rendering index ≥ 75

on or after December 31, 2014

137.2

Modified spectrum incandescent lamps with a luminous flux ≥ 788 lm and < 1 118 lm

Section 4.4 for luminous flux, nominal power and life

 

CIE 13.3 for colour rendering index

nominal power ≤ 53 W life ≥ 1 000 hours

colour rendering index ≥ 75

on or after January 1, 2014

137.3

Modified spectrum incandescent lamps with a luminous flux ≥ 1 118 lm

Section 4.4 for luminous flux, nominal power and life

 

CIE 13.3 for colour rendering index

nominal power ≤ 72 W life ≥ 1 000 hours

colour rendering index ≥ 75

on or after January 1, 2014

8. The portion of item 15.6 of Schedule IV to the Regulations in column II is replaced by the following:

Item

Column II

Standard/Legislative Provision

15.6

ANSI C79.1 for description

Section 4.4 for luminous flux, nominal power and life

CIE 13.3 for colour rendering index

9. Schedule IV to the Regulations is amended by adding the following after item 15.6:

Item

Column I

Energy-using Product

Column II

Standard/Legislative Provision

Column III


Information

15.61

Modified spectrum incandescent lamps

ANSI C79.1 for description

Section 4.4 for luminous flux, nominal power and life

CIE 13.3 for colour rendering index

  • (a) lamp description;

  • (b) nominal power and, in the case of a three-way lamp, the nominal power at each operating level;

  • (c) luminous flux and, in the case of a three-way lamp, the luminous flux at each operating level;

  • (d) colour rendering index; and

  • (e) life.

COMING INTO FORCE

10. These Regulations come into force on the day on which they are registered.

[40-1-o]