1 / 22

California Residential CFL Market Status

California Residential CFL Market Status. CPUC – Energy Division Hearing Room A June 16, 2009. Overview. Awareness and Use of CFLs in California CFL sales Statewide sales ULP shipments CFL price Residential CFL penetration and market potential Lessons learned in other regions.

Antony
Download Presentation

California Residential CFL Market Status

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. California Residential CFL Market Status CPUC – Energy Division Hearing Room A June 16, 2009

  2. Overview • Awareness and Use of CFLs in California • CFL sales • Statewide sales • ULP shipments • CFL price • Residential CFL penetration and market potential • Lessons learned in other regions

  3. Awareness and Use of CFLs CFL Awareness, 2008 • 96% of residential customers in CA IOU territories are aware of CFLs • 92% in comparison area • 79% of aware consumers in CA report that they currently use CFLs • 66% in comparison area CFL Use, 2008 * Difference from CA results is statistically significant at the 90% level of confidence. Source (both figures): CFL Market Effects Final Interim Report, 2009.

  4. Draft Data DO NOT CITE * CA Total CFL Sales v. ULP Shipments • Total 2007 CFL sales totaled approximately 55.6 million • ULP shipments represented ~75% of total 2007 CFL sales in CA • Greater proportion of ULP shipments through non-big box than total CA sales CA CFL Sales by Retail Channel, 2007 ULP Shipments by Retail Channel, 2007 * * Awaiting final data on shipments within PG&E service territory. Sources: CFL Market Effects Interim Report, 2009 and IOU 2006-2008 ULP tracking data.

  5. Draft Data DO NOT CITE ULP CFL Shipments • 74% of 2006-2008 ULP shipments went to non-big box stores (grocery, discount, drug, small hardware) Upstream Lighting Program CFL Shipments by IOU and Retail Channel, 2006-2008 * Awaiting final data on shipments within PG&E service territory. Source: IOU 2006-2008 ULP tracking data.

  6. Draft Data DO NOT CITE ULP CFL Styles • 11% of 2006-2008 ULP shipments were specialty CFLs • PG&E/SDG&E had greater focus on specialty CFLs than SCE • PG&E provided incentives for the largest volume of specialty CFLs (~6.5M) • Three-way, reflector, and globes comprised the majority of ULP specialty CFL incentives ULP CFL Styles by IOU, 2006-2008 ULP Specialty CFL Styles by IOU, 2006-2008 * Awaiting final data on shipments within PG&E service territory. Source: IOU 2006-2008 ULP tracking data.

  7. Draft Data DO NOT CITE California CFL Price • Incremental cost for non-IOU vs. IOU-discounted lamps • $2.00 for basic bare spirals • Roughly $2.50-$7.50 for specialty lamps • Reflector CFLs among most abundant and most expensive specialty styles Average CA Prices for IOU-Discounted CFLs, Non-IOU CFLs, and All CFLs by Style, 2008 Source : Preliminary Results from the 2008 California Lighting Retailer Shelf Inventory conducted by KEMA, Inc. as part of the Impact Analysis of the CA IOUs’ 2006-2008 Residential Retrofit Programs. DATA IS PRELIMINARY AND UNWEIGHTED AND SHOULD NOT BE CITED IN OTHER CONTEXTS.

  8. Draft Data DO NOT CITE California CFL Price • Average prices for IOU-discounted CFLs are similar to prices for comparable incandescent styles • For basic bare spirals and also for specialty lamps Average CA Prices for Incandescent Lamps, IOU-Discounted CFLs, Non-IOU CFLs, and All CFLs, 2008 * “Basic Bare Spiral” refers to single-wattage non-dimmable bare spiral CFLs. Source : Preliminary Results from the 2008 California Lighting Retailer Shelf Inventory conducted by KEMA, Inc. as part of the Impact Analysis of the CA IOUs’ 2006-2008 Residential Retrofit Programs. DATA IS PRELIMINARY AND UNWEIGHTED AND SHOULD NOT BE CITED IN OTHER CONTEXTS.

  9. California Residential CFL Penetration • 91% of CA homes in IOU territories have 1 or more CFLs installed • Average number of lamps per home is 48.7 • Average number of CFLs per home is • 10.3 among all homes • 11.3 among homes that have 1 or more CFLs installed Percent of California IOU-Territory Homes by Number of CFLs Installed, 2008 Source : Preliminary Results from the CPUC’s Residential Lighting Metering Study (KEMA, 2009).

  10. California Residential CFL Penetration Sockets with CFLs by Lamp Shape, Base Type and Control Type, 2008 • Approximately 21% of sockets are currently using CFLs • 74% of these CFLs are spirals • 90% are MSB • 7% are on controls other than on/off switch • 3% of all CFLs are in dimmable sockets • 4% of all CFLs are in 3-way sockets n = 6,583 sockets. Source: Preliminary Results from the CPUC’s Residential Lighting Metering Study (KEMA, 2009).

  11. CA Residential Lighting Market Potential • Sockets can be characterized by energy savings potential • “Higher potential” sockets are in locations with relatively high hours of use and/or relatively low on/off switch rates • “Lower potential” sockets are in locations with relatively low hours of use and/or relatively high on/off switch rates • Note that for the purposes of this analysis, hours of use are based on 2005 CA CFL Metering Study (metering results not yet available from current study) • Final characterizations will reveal lamp style/control combinations with greatest/least remaining residential market potential

  12. Draft Data DO NOT CITE CA Residential Lighting Market Potential 2008 Remaining CA (non-CFL) MSB A-Lamp Sockets with On/Off Controls by Savings Potential • 53 million MSB “high use sockets” available for CFL installation • Such sockets currently use non-CFL a-lamps with on/off controls • 145M total non-CFL MSB a-lamps in use • 42 million MSB spiral CFLs (“basic CFLs”) are in storage in CA households • If installed in highest use locations, these could theoretically achieve most of the remaining energy savings for a-lamps Source: Preliminary Results from the CPUC’s Residential Lighting Metering Study (KEMA, 2009). Higher/lower characterizations based on HOU from 2005 CFL Metering Study.

  13. Draft Data DO NOT CITE CA Residential Lighting Market Potential • Reflector and globe style MSB lamps with on/off controls represent the greatest potential among specialty lamps • Higher/lower savings potential designations below are a placeholder for final data from current metering study 2008 Remaining (non-CFL) MSB Sockets by Lamp Type, Control Type, and Savings Potential Source: Preliminary Results from the CPUC’s Residential Lighting Metering Study (KEMA, 2009).

  14. Draft Data DO NOT CITE CA Residential Lighting Market Potential • Small screw-base (SSB) lamps represent 10% of total residential sockets • Decorative lamps with on/off controls represent greatest remaining SSB potential • Higher/lower savings potential designations below are a placeholder for final data from current metering study 2008 Remaining (non-CFL) SSB Sockets by Lamp Type, Control Type, and Savings Potential Source: Preliminary Results from the CPUC’s Residential Lighting Metering Study (KEMA, 2009).

  15. The Northwest CFL Market • The Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA) began promoting CFLs in 1997 • Began offering strategic/targeted upstream CFL incentives in 2005 • Excluded large home improvement (DIY) stores and wholesale clubs starting in 2006 • NEEA reached its 2009 CFL sales goal at the end of 2007 (10.8M CFLs/year) • Withdrew CFL incentives from the Northwest market in early 2008 • Other Northwest energy-efficiency program sponsors (e.g., BPA) continued CFL incentives in 2008 • Roughly half of 2008 incentives in the Northwest were for specialty lamps

  16. California vs. Northwest • California and the Northwest have had similar CFL promotion strategies • Began market support in big box stores, transitioned focus toward grocery/drug/small hardware • Began market support for basic bare spirals and introduced specialty CFLs later • California and Northwest CFL markets and incentive strategies differ in at least 3 ways • CFL sales volume • CFL retail channels • CFL price

  17. Draft CA Data DO NOT CITE California vs. Northwest CFL Sales • Annual California CFL sales are double Northwest sales • Incentive CFL sales in California comprise a far greater proportion of total sales than in the Northwest • ULP incentive CFLs comprised 73% of total California CFL sales in 2007 • Incentive CFLs comprised 27% of Northwest CFL sales in 2007 • NEEA incentive CFL sales comprised 11% of 2007 Northwest CFL sales EstimatedIncentive and Non-Incentive CFL Sales in California and the Northwest, 2007 * Awaiting final data on shipments within PG&E service territory. California Sources: (1) CFL Market Effects Final Interim Report, 2009; (2) IOU 2006-2008 ULP tracking data. Northwest Source: Fluid Market Strategies, 2009. Q4 2008 “Widget” CFL Sales Data Report. Prepared for NEEA. March 6, 2009.

  18. California vs. Northwest CFL Retail Channels California CFL Sales by Retail Channel, 2007 Northwest CFL Sales by Retail Channel, 2007 • Non big box stores account for a greater proportion of overall CFL sales in California than in the Northwest • 44% in California versus 30% in Northwest • Same applies to incentive CFL sales • 73% non big box in California, 33% in Northwest Northwest Promotional CFL Sales by Retail Channel, 2007 California ULP Shipments by Retail Channel, 2007 CA Source: CFL Market Effects Interim Report, 2009. Northwest Source: Fluid Market Strategies, 2009.

  19. Draft CA Data DO NOT CITE California vs. Northwest CFL Price • CFL prices are lower in California than in the Northwest • Especially given that ULP CFL sales account for majority of total CA CFL sales Average California and Northwest CFL Prices by Style, 2008 CA Source : Preliminary Results from the 2008 California Lighting Retailer Shelf Inventory conducted by KEMA, Inc. as part of the Impact Analysis of the CA IOUs’ 2006-2008 Residential Retrofit Programs. DATA IS PRELIMINARY AND UNWEIGHTED AND SHOULD NOT BE CITED IN OTHER CONTEXTS. NW Source: KEMA, 2009. 2008-2009 CFL Tracking Study Draft Report. Prepared for NEEA.

  20. Summary: California vs. Northwest • Broadly, California and Northwest have utilized similar incentive strategies • However, there are key differences between the California and the Northwest • Incentive sales comprise a much larger proportion of total CFL sales in California than in Northwest • California incentives provide greater support to non big box channels in California than in the Northwest • CFL prices in California are considerably lower than in the Northwest • No noteworthy changes Northwest CFL market after NEEA withdrew incentives in early 2008 • Other entities provided CFL incentives instead • Incentives shifted toward specialty lamps

  21. Connecticut • Department of Public Utility Control (DPUC) has directed CT utilities to: • Scale back incentives for “common” (basic bare spiral) CFLs • Shift incentives toward specialty bulbs • Increase promotion of CFLs in retail outlets where sales trail those of big box retailers • Pay special attention to grocery and drug stores • Eliminate upstream incentives for commonCFLs by 2010 Source: Decision: State of Connecticut Department of Public Utility Control Docket No. 08-10-03.DPUC Review of the Connecticut Light and Power Company’s and the United Illuminating Company’s Conservation and Load Management for the Year 2009. Pages 14-15. May 7, 2009.

  22. Thank you for your attention. Jenna Canseco Senior Consultant KEMA, Inc. 510-891-0446 x44121 jenna.canseco@us.kema.com

More Related