The following cost and benefits are not included in financial calculations: benefits to the consumer, due to reduced heat load on air conditioning systems benefits to society, from reduced GHG emissions (applies to Australia only - are included in New Zealand modelling). Note that rebound is treated as zero in relation to energy use this phenomena (increased — usage due to lower energy costs or increased comfort) does not typically apply to lighting. In terms of an approach for the cost-benefit analysis, this could be done from a consumer or societal perspective. The societal approach is the preferred method for a RIS, however the consumer approach can be used where it approximates the results that would be obtained from the societal perspective. A societal perspective would include health benefits from reducing energy costs and benefits from reduced greenhouse gas emissions. Since these benefits are difficult to quantify and will increase the overall benefit from the regulation, not considering them and using the consumer approach is a reasonable and conservative proxy for the societal analysis. An analysis from a consumer perspective involves the use of retail product prices and marginal retail energy prices. Since the objective is to assess whether product buyers (consumers) as a group would be better off, transfer payments such as taxes are included. The analysis includes retail mark-ups and taxes that will be passed onto the consumer and including these in the costs will simplify the analysis process, while still remaining appropriate. The consumer approach is also recommended for the development of RISs associated with the E3 Program (NAEEEP 2005). The alternative analysis approach, of assessing from a resource perspective, would require a new set of factors and assumptions to be introduced to the analysis, particularly regarding manufacturing costs, and would also mean the impact of varying discount rates would be very much more difficult to assess. The following options were modelled: Option A - MEPS for LED lamps Option B - MEPS for LED lamps and phase out of halogen lamps. The above MEPS are described in detail in the main body of this RIS. For each policy, a BAU and a Policy Scenario have been modelled, for both Australia and New Zealand (where required). Key assumptions and parameters for each scenario are detailed in later in this Attachment. Greenhouse gas emissions and energy consumption GHG emissions due to lighting are calculated by multiplying energy consumed (by lighting products at end-use) and GHG emissions intensity factors (as determined by the electricity generation mix). The GHG emissions factors used in this RIS are given in .
The following cost and benefits are not included in financial calculations: benefits to the consumer, due to reduced heat load on air conditioning systems benefits to society, from reduced GHG emissions (applies to Australia only - are included in New Zealand modelling). Note that rebound is treated as zero in relation to energy use — this phenomena (increased usage due to lower energy costs or increased comfort) does not typically apply to lighting. In terms of an approach for the cost-benefit analysis, this could be done from a consumer or societal perspective. The societal approach is the preferred method for a RIS, however the consumer approach can be used where it approximates the results that would be obtained from the societal perspective. A societal perspective would include health benefits from reducing energy costs and benefits from reduced greenhouse gas emissions. Since these benefits are difficult to quantify and will increase the overall benefit from the regulation, not considering them and using the consumer approach is a reasonable and conservative proxy for the societal analysis. An analysis from a consumer perspective involves the use of retail product prices and marginal retail energy prices. Since the objective is to assess whether product buyers (consumers) as a group would be better off, transfer payments such as taxes are included. The analysis includes retail mark-ups and taxes that will be passed onto the consumer and including these in the costs will simplify the analysis process, while still remaining appropriate. The consumer approach is also recommended for the development of RISs associated with the E3 Program (NAEEEP 2005). The alternative analysis approach, of assessing from a resource perspective, would require a new set of factors and assumptions to be introduced to the analysis, particularly regarding manufacturing costs, and would also mean the impact of varying discount rates would be very much more difficult to assess. The following options were modelled: Option A - MEPS for LED lamps Option B - MEPS for LED lamps and phase out of halogen lamps. The above MEPS are described in detail in the main body of this RIS. For each policy, a BAU and a Policy Scenario have been modelled, for both Australia and New Zealand (where required). Key assumptions and parameters for each scenario are detailed in later in this Attachment. Greenhouse gas emissions and energy consumption GHG emissions due to lighting are calculated by multiplying energy consumed (by lighting products at end-use) and GHG emissions intensity factors (as determined by the electricity generation mix). The GHG emissions factors used in this RIS are given in .
Decision%20RIS%20lightingFINAL260418.docx