I found this on DoE website, and the meeting was Thursday March 1st.  I didn't read all of it, its a LOT of pages to read, 457 pages long.  But I did see what the proposed changes for the fluorescent lamps will be.  This hasn't passed yet and I do not know the status yet.  But the TableI.1 chart lists the Energy Conservation for General Service Fluorescent Lamps.  It appears for the 8'HO lamps have the highest percentage increase over current standards, while the 8' slimlines have the lowest percentage increase over the current standards.  Its something for everyone to look at, and would like to know what you think.

http://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/04/f14/gsfl_irl_ecs_nopr_0.pdf

All the lamps are the U-bend lamps, all 4' lamps and 8' lamps are in that chart.  I couldn't sit down and read all 457 pages of this.

And if you think all the lawmakers will read all 457 pages of this, you're dreaming. 

The sad part to all of this is that everything is based on estimates of expected savings.
Also saving energy does not automatically mean saving money.
Energy saving lighting in some applications might pay back in a short time and in other situations will never pay back.

In some situations, a lighting electrical load may be significant, in other situations a lighting load may not even register on the chart.
Most of the big users of lighting already changed to energy efficient lighting a long time ago anyway.

This one size fits all approach to saving energy in my opinion is stupid at best.
It is better to let the market dictate which approach is better not by legislation.
It is one thing for the government to offer guide lines to save energy and quite another to have it forced on you no matter what or regardless of what your situation is.

In a market based environment, the true winner will emerge over time.
But in a forced situation, energy saving lighting products may be inadvertently forced go the wrong direction.
in the end it could backfire and have unintended consequences.

I still say that if T12 fluorescent lighting was so inefficient, consumers would have abandoned it a long time ago.
Of course there is always room for improvement and innovation, but not forced improvement and innovation.

I think the idea that passing this legislation and then there will be a whole bunch of power plants shut down is fuzzy thinking at best.   

There is always a room for an improvement, but these regulations only force people the available $100 spend on a lighting, where it save about 100W, instead of upgrading e.g. the house insulation and save 1kW or buy a new, more efficient car sooner (or a smaller vehicle for daily commute) and save ~2kW equivalent in average in that way...
Or eventually suffice with a bit less paid local job, but save a 10kW equivalent on daily commuting to work and back...

In this way all people are just forced to spend the $100 on the lighting and have no budget for any of the rest...

I read all 457 pages, my obsession with lights allows me to do that lol. Here are the highlights:

-The technology for T5 and T8 lamps that meet the proposed standards taking effect three years from now already exists, the standards mainly just removes some lower performing lamps from the market. In fact the technology that meets the 2017 standard was around since the 1990s at least. I remember the Philips TL80 line was capable of reaching 104 lumens per watt on certain ballasts, that is more than the 92 lumens per watt standard in 2017.

-From what I understand, it exempts T12 lamps because it is a declining market, so the present T12 choices should be available beyond 2017. It doesn't state a minimum CRI where lamps would be exempt however. Lamps with a CRI of 87 or greater are exempt under the current rulemaking. Some T-10 lamps already meet the 92 LPW standard, but very few manufacturers make them and they are hard to find.

-Despite the mention that T12 ballasts may be dropped from production this coming november, I'm still not sure if it's going to happen. Advance says on their page there will be only minimal changes to the ballast lineup. However the up and coming ballast standards this fall will ban magnetic high output ballasts for use in signage, but one manufacturer recently announced the introduction of electronic replacements that will operate the same old school T12 HO lamps. I don't see how electronic ballasts could fare in such a harsh environment in sign lighting however. Maybe it means more job security for electricians, I need a job lol.

-The regulations here may mean the end of halogen PAR-20, PAR-30, and PAR-38 lamps by 2017. These lamps are in sharp decline due to LED replacements. In the past three years, I've watched a sharp decline in the use of the halogen lamps used in retail lighting, especially in department stores. I'm surprised the factories in the USA and Mexico making these lamps don't have any announced closures as I type this, yet the HID manufacturing industry is being axed in the USA. The declining demand for halogen PARs means manufacturers may not want to invest anymore into them, rather they may just close factories or lay off some employees and stop making these lamps.

Did any of you read their section on ballast and lamp life for the residential market?  I think they are making some flawed assumptions.

As stated above, DOE is using 15 years as the estimated fixture and ballast
lifetime in the residential sector for purposes of its analyses. In the preliminary analysis,
the lifetime of the baseline GSFL in the residential sector was calculated by dividing the
life in hours by the average operating hours of a GSFL in the residential sector (648 hours
per year), which resulted in a lifetime of 37 years for the baseline lamp. Because this
lifetime of the baseline lamp was longer than the average lifetime of a fixture and ballast,
for the lamp failure scenario, DOE assumed that residential sector GSFL consumers were
able to realize the full rated lifetime of their lamps. Therefore, at the average operating
hours of 648 hours per year, DOE utilized the full lifetime of the baseline lamp (37 years)
as the analysis period. DOE assumed that when a ballast is removed in the middle of the
analysis period, these consumers preserve their lamps, purchase a new ballast of the same
type as the initial ballast, and then have the new ballast installed with the preserved lamps
(incurring a lamp-and-ballast system installation cost). In contrast, for the ballast failure
and new construction and renovation events, DOE assumed that the ballast or fixture
lifetime limits the lifetime of an average lamp in the residential sector. Under average
operating hours of 648 hours per year, DOE assumed that lamp lifetime of the baseline case
and standards-case lamps is limited to 9,723 hours or 15 years, due to a ballast or
fixture failure.

NEMA disagreed with the assumption that lamps will be retained upon ballast
failure. NEMA stated that the most likely thing that occurs when a light fixture in the
residential sector fails to provide light is that new lamps are purchased. The next step if
the fixture still does not work is to replace the whole fixture, not just the ballast. As a
result, NEMA contended that a failed ballast will result in the lamps (new and old) being
scrapped (or returned) when the entire fixture is replaced. (NEMA, No. 36 at p. 16) GE
explained that when a ballast fails, it can operate in such a way that damages the lamp,
especially the cathodes. When a lamp goes out, a residential consumer will likely assume
that the problem is the lamp itself; very rarely would a consumer understand that only the
ballast needs to be replaced and instead replace the entire fixture.

I agree with NEMA's response that old lamps will typically not be re-used when a ballast or fixture is replaced, but nobody ever questions the original premise.  They are reaching their conclusion by calculating lamp life based on hours while using a fixed 15 year life for the ballast/fixture.  In my opinion, both the ballast and lamp life should be based on hours of operation.  If you figure it that way, then the rest is irrelevant.  In the residential sector, ballasts and fixtures typically outlast lamps.  Of course, ballasts sometimes do fail first, but that's true in commercial use as well.

I agree with NEMA's response that old lamps will typically not be re-used when a ballast or fixture is replaced, but nobody ever questions the original premise.  They are reaching their conclusion by calculating lamp life based on hours while using a fixed 15 year life for the ballast/fixture.  In my opinion, both the ballast and lamp life should be based on hours of operation.  If you figure it that way, then the rest is irrelevant.  In the residential sector, ballasts and fixtures typically outlast lamps.  Of course, ballasts sometimes do fail first, but that's true in commercial use as well.

Here I do not agree. The problem is, all components involved, so fixture, ballast, lamp age due to different reasons and by different mechanisms.
Some are related to juts how long the light operates, some to just plain number of starts, but there are many of those, which are related to just the time, regardless if the fixture is used or not. So after 15 years, the fixture will be full of greasy dust and with many corroded metal parts and similar things making the fixture not operating properly. The fact it light up the lamp is by far not sufficient to call the fixture working. Ff the light e.g. can not pass through dirty refractor or get absorbed on a corroded reflector or when the clogged vents make the thing overheating, or when the fixture breaks apart after just attempting to open it for cleaning and/or inspection, I can not call that differently as just not working, period.).

In a commercial environment the operation is so intense, just the burning hours make the things to fail in the matter of few years, so rather early. SO during that time the other mechanisms do not have chance to progress so much. Moreover the heavy use effectively suppress many of the aging mechanisms (the heat from the system keep it dry, so the metal corrosion can not progress, the need to service it after few years usually mean it gets cleaned as well,...)

But with home installation, where the light is used for just very brief periods, long time passes and the fixture has just few hours on it. Then the 15 years pass without the lamps even making any significant burning time on it, but there is dirt accumulated over the 15 years, hinges and bolts corroded and stuck, so an attempt to even open it frequently ends up breaking it, clogged lamp holders cause the lamp gets damaged with an attempt to remove it (hence new lamp with new ballast and sockets) and so on.

So really just the rating of burning hours is by far insufficient information to even compare two products, mainly when the technology differs a lot, so they wear mechanisms contribute differently. So it is very common one type of light outlast (and I'm speaking about factor of 5, not 10%) the second one in one installation, but it get completely opposite in another installation.
The thing is, maintenance person, has the main experience with cases, where the things do fail (because he is called in to fix it), but has nearly no experience with things working without any failure till they are torn down because of remodeling or so (why would anyone call the service on thing, which works well), so of course, he simply can not have any overview of that.

I have found quite a few newer fluorescent lighting at garage sales of late with new bulbs, but don't work.
All I have found like this have (dead) electronic ballasts.
I do think what seems to be happening is that for many home owners, when a fluorescent light fixture quits working the normal response is to replace the bulbs and if that don't work, replace the fixture.

Most home owners are not into ballast replacement or would even care to know how, so the whole fixture gets tossed with the new bulbs or the new bulbs returned to the store.
I do think most home owners just want to get the lights back on ASAP, so its just easier  just get a whole new fixture from a home improvement center and be done with it.

With the advent of the electronic ballast and the real possibility now that the bulbs could outlast the ballast, I do think that fixtures will be made with a simple plug in ballast that just as easy to replace as the bulbs are.
In a such a fixture, the  money savings I think would be great as the quick and simple ballast replacement would speed up the trouble shooting of the fixture and not be wasteful replacing bulbs that may not need replacement.
The electronic plug in ballasts could be recycled and the bulbs be properly disposed of if found defective.

Based on my own work in lighting maintenance back in the 1970s, when replacing a ballast, I always installed new bulbs as since you are already inside the fixture replacing the ballasts, you might as well install new bulbs and save a trip back to the fixture.
When there are several thousand fixtures to maintain, you really don't want to go back to the fixture if you don't have to.
Bulb replacement is not always based on the life of the bulb.

I do think this is a common practice for most maintenance departments.
Also I think bulb life is relative anyway as some bulbs seem to go on and on for many years and others have short lives. I am not sure why this is, but I actually have seen this situation in a large office building I worked in in the 1970s.
 
It is my personal opinion that the DoE needs to get out of the office and go see what actually goes on in the real world for a while before making any decisions.