Residential Lighting LED and CFL Lamps

1. Residential LightingLED and CFL Lamps Regional Technical Forum April 23, 2014

2. LED Measure Overview • Current Category: Proven • Current Status: Active • Current Sunset Date: April 30, 2014 • Reason for Update/Review: Sunset date

3. CFL and Specialty CFL Measure Overview • Current Category: Proven • Current Status: Active • Current Sunset Date: January 31, 2017 • Reason for Update/Review: Reduce number of measures (broader measure identifiers) Standardize measure identifiers across LED and CFL measures. Standardize data sources across LED and CFL measures.

4. Background • CFLs and Specialty CFLs – Most recent update in October, 2013. Sunset date: January 2017 • LEDs – Most recent updates February 2013 and August 2013 (more delivery mechanisms). Sunset date: April 2014. • RTF Residential Lighting Subcommittee formed in February in preparation for upcoming LED sunset.

5. Staff Highlighted Areas (1) • Baseline is RBSA, not current sales. This assumption may not be accurate given EISA, changes in the market (e.g. there are very few LEDs in RBSA), and large differences in product lifetimes. • Analysis assumes lumen-for-lumen measures. This hypothesis has not been tested. • Retail analysis assumes all lamps are used in residential applications. There is anecdotal evidence that as much as 15% of lamps end up in commercial applications (different HOU) (see October 2013 CFL presentation). • Analysis assumes RBSA incandescent lamps are reduced to EISA standard, NOT to CFLs, as some would assume. Is there an appetite for sales-volume research to address these uncertainties?

6. Staff Highlighted Areas (2) • Data gap filling – Staff have estimated CFL and LED cost and performance for hypothetical products in order to develop measures for all permutations of measure identifiers. (e.g. LED 3-Way). Is this acceptable? In some cases, the savings are extremely high. • Storage rate effects - Savings and lifetime are adjusted to account for storage rate, as per the October 2013 RTF decision regarding CFLs. • Incremental cost is negative for some retail CFLs. Incremental cost is set to $0 for these cases. • Fixtures are not included in this analysis. Staff plan to develop a separate analysis for LED fixtures.

7. Current CFL and LED Measures

8. Residential Lighting Subcommittee • Attendance

9. Residential Lighting Subcommittee • Guidance for RTF Staff: • Reduce the number of measures • Standardize measure identifiers across CFL and LED measures • Use LED cost and performance forecasts (PNNL) for measure update • Update CFL measure ahead of sunset date to reflect new measure identifiers • Do not pursue broader categorization (e.g., “Any LED”) if it would require a provisional measure.

10. Subcommittee - Measure Grouping • After discussion with the Subcommittee, Staff suggested that the following level of granularity: • Existing Technology Type: with EISA standards applied, we’ve seen that Incandescent and Halogen baselines are about the same. It’s OK to group these together. • Space Type: from what we’ve heard from the subcommittee, these three space types capture their programs and differences in hours-of-use within each category are relatively minor. We expect RBSA to be representative of program activity, so it’s OK to group spaces. • Lamp Type: this is the level of granularity that we have good data on. • Lumen Category: each lumen category reflects a distinct product • Subcommittee requested two further reductions to the categorization: • Merge the 6 lumen categories into 3 • Merge “Globe” lamp type with “Decorative and Mini-Base”

11. Subcommittee Lumen Bins – Can we go from 6 to 3? • The following grouping was proposed: • But we know that there are distinct products in each of the six RTF lumen categories. • If we are to group products from two RTF lumen categories into a single lumen category, we need to take weighted average results from two distinct measures. The weighting comes from RBSA, but program weighting may be different. • The RTF does not have a firm policy on how granular measure identifiers should be, but in general we will forego granularity if it does not alter expected claimed savings by more than 10%.

12. SubcommitteeLumen Bins – Can we go from 6 to 3? • Staff have devised two tests to see how significant the resolution of our savings estimates is compromised by grouping lumen bins: • 1) How sensitive are the RBSA results to variation in weighting? • For each pair of measures that would be grouped together: • Identify the portion of RBSA lamps in both categories • Identify the percentage point difference in program proportions that would lead to a 10% difference in savings • 2) How different would program claimed savings be under the two categorization schemes? • For each pair of measures that would be grouped together: • Identify the percentage change in savings if the program counted savings using one lumen bin, relative to using two lumen bins

13. SubcommitteeLumen Bin Grouping Sensitivity This is an example. See subcommittee presentation for full set of results. • LED DI measures, incandescent/ halogen baseline Inc/Hal to LED DI measures are not very sensitive to differences in RBSA and program proportions

14. Residential Lighting Subcommittee Conclusions – Measure Identifiers • Moving from 6 lumen categories to 3 looks good. • This wouldn’t work for a CFL to LED direct install measure. Subcommittee was OK not including this measure for the sake of having less measure identifiers. • There is some risk of getting the weights wrong on general purpose CFLs, but program data to date shows similar distributions of lamps as RBSA. • Grouping Globes with Decorative and Mini-base doesn’t look good. • Grouping 75W equivalent lamps with 60W equivalent lamps has less risk than grouping 75W equivalent lamps with 100W equivalent lamps.

15. Residential Lighting Subcommittee Final Measure Identifiers

16. Methodology – Baseline Determination • For each RBSA record, assign: • EISA / IRL adjusted wattage (based on lamp category, wattage) • hours of use, by room type (KEMA, DOE) • lamp lifetime, by lamp category. • CFLs lifetimes are derated as a function of room type. • baseline lamp cost, by lamp category and lumen bin. • Incandescent and halogen costs are from the ETO shelf survey, • CFL and LED costs are from Simple Steps program database (BPA and additional utilities that contract with CLEAResults).

17. Methodology – Baseline Determination • For each combination of categories • Determine the total regional weight of the category. • The is the product of the number of lamps per fixture, number of fixtures per room, and the site survey weight of each record (i.e. how many bulbs each record represents) • Determine the weighted average • Baseline EISA / IRL adjusted wattage • HOU • Lifetime • HVAC interaction applicability (0% for “exterior” and “garage” room types, 100% for all other room types) • Baseline lamp cost

18. Analysis Map RBSA_Lighting_Metatable.xlsx RBSA SF/MF/MH Lighting Compiled RBSA data • Baseline lamp data – efficacy, lifetime, cost • Lifetime adjustments for CFL switching patterns • EISA and IRL Specifications • Hours of use by RBSA room type Residential Lighting Baseline Table 2014_04_07.xlsx Complete baseline dataset • Efficient lamp data • Efficacy (EnergyStar), • Lifetime (EnergyStar) • Cost (programs) • LED efficacy and cost forecasts (PNNL) ResLighting_CFLandLEDLamps_v01.xlsx

19. Data Availability How data gaps are handled: • If RBSA data does not exist – set measure savings to zero. • If Energy Star or Simple Steps data does not exist – extrapolate data from similar product (same lamp type, lower lumens, or different lamp type, same lumens). RTF Decisions: • Should we include measures that we don’t have efficient case data for? • Can we group Three-Way lamps with General Purpose and Dimmable?

20. Measure Analysis and Inputs Details • Go to the following sections in the Summarytab in the proposed measure workbook: • Constant Parameters • Energy Savings Estimation Method, Parameters and Data Sources • Measure Incremental Costs and Benefits • Measure Lifetime

21. Savings, Cost, & Cost Effectiveness Most significant reasons for differences in current and proposed results: • EISA 2014 Standards - Current LED analysis does not include EISA 2014 standards (60W and 40W equivalent lamps).Proposed LED analysis does. • Current and Proposed CFL analyses include 2014 EISA. • Lumen-for-lumen handling - Switch from using average wattage from efficient case datasets, to using average efficacy, and lumen matching to average base case. • IRL Standard - Better handling of Incandescent Reflector Lamp federal standard. • Imperfect mapping for comparison - Current LED omnidirectional lamp results are compared to proposed General Purpose, Globe, and Three-Way; the current Globe and Three-Way results are heavily influenced by the current General Purpose results.

22. Sample of Savings Results • Direct Install, LED

23. Sample of Savings Results • Retail, LED

24. Sample of Savings Results • Direct Install, CFL

25. Sample of Savings Results • Retail, CFL

26. Sample of TRC BC Results • Direct Install, LED

27. Sample of TRC BC Results • Retail, LED

28. Sample of TRC BC Results • Direct Install, CFL Y-axis capped at 10

29. Sample of TRC BC Results • Retail, CFL Y-axis capped at 10

30. Savings, Cost, & Cost Effectiveness • Pivot charts are included in the Measure Assessment Workbook to view Savings, Cost, and Cost-effectiveness for all Delivery Mechanisms and Efficient Technologies (CFL, LED). • Go to the following sections in the Presentation tab in the proposed measure workbook: • Comparison-Savings • Comparison-Cost • Comparison-TRC BC

31. RTF Staff Recommendation • Regional commitment to research the questions on Slide 5 in time for measure update next year. • Group Three-Way with General Purpose and Dimmable. Three-way has relatively small volume in RBSA, programs, and Energy Star and there may be cross-shopping between these lamp types. • Approve LED and CFL lamp measures as presented • Using the proposed measure identification categories (3 room types, 5 4 lamp types, 3 lumen categories) • Allow data-gap filling for efficient lamp datasets • Set the measure category to “Proven” • Set the measure status to “Active” • Set the sunset date to June 2015 (allows one year for new data plus two months for Staff analysis). • Develop a Residential LED Fixtures measure set for presentation to the RTF in summer 2014.

32. Proposed Decision “I _______________ move that the RTF: • Approve LED and CFL lamp measures as presented • Using the proposed measure identification categories (3 room types, [5] or [4] lamp types, 3 lumen categories) • Set the measure category to “Proven” • Set the measure status to “Active” • Set the sunset date to June 2015

33. Appendix: Storage Rate Slides from October 2013 CFL Presentation

34. Accounting for Storage Rate • To date, the RTF has not counted savings for energy efficient equipment that is installed later on. • But there is evidence that most CFLs eventually get installed, probably within a few years of purchase or receipt. • How should the RTF account for stored-but-eventually-used products?

35. Storage Rate – Lifetime Guidelines 1.2.2. Measure Lifetime • Measure lifetime is defined as the median number of years during which at least half the deliveries of a measure are in place and operable, i.e., produce savings. Measure lifetime should not be confused with a measure’s sunset date, which is the period during which a measure’s savings estimation method is RTF-approved. 2.3.1. Factors Affecting Lifetime • Many factors may have a substantial impact on measure lifetime. All substantial factors should be considered in the estimation. A factor is substantial if it would increase or decrease the measure lifetime by at least 20%. • Factors that may be relevant to measure lifetime include, but are not limited to, the following. • Program delivery method. Measures directly installed may last longer than measures delivered via mail for self-install, because self-installers may be less skilled and may not install according to manufacturer expectations, such as appropriate placement.

36. Storage Rate – CFL Failure • Lamps installed right away (e.g., direct install) Source: Review of Massachusetts tracking data. Lynn Hoefgen et al., 2013, “Study It ‘til You’re Sick of It: CFL Research as an Example of Other Efficiency Markets”, 2013 International Energy Program Evaluation Conference.

37. Storage Rate – CFL Failure • But not all retail lamps get installed right away Assumes that 24% of lamps are installed at time of receipt, and 8% of lamps are installed in each of the subsequent 3 years.

38. Storage Rate – CFL Failure • But not all retail lamps get installed right away Note: Installation rate increases in first few years But some lamps installed in the first couple of years are already failing The lifetime of the retail measure (6.1) is longer than that of the direct install measure (5.5).

39. Storage Rate – Savings Guidelines Roadmap 1.3.2. Savings • “Savings is defined as the difference in energy use between the baseline (see section 3.2) and post (after measure delivery) periods, which is caused by the delivery of a measure.” • Not clear on how to specify savings with unusual decay functions. • Historically, RTF has used first year savings, except for Last Measure In (LMI) measures.

40. Storage Rate – Questions • What should the savings value represent? • First year savings? • Maximum savings before end of EUL? • Average savings from measure start until death of last unit? • Something else? • The answer to this should inform how to handle storage rates for CFLs, where we • know the patterns of failure overtime, and • think we know when stored bulbs eventually get used • Staff proposal: • Use first year savings • Use failure and installation patterns to estimate median time to 50% installation. This complies with the Guidelines. • Guidelines Issue: This does not lead to the correct lifetime savings (savings x EUL). [RTF approved this proposal at the October 2013 RTF meeting] • Staff also received a proposal to disregard storage rate because the stored lamps tend to get installed within a few years. This has been discussed at previous RTF meetings.