Transcript B O N N E V I L L E P O W E R A D M I N I S T R A First Look Presentation to the Regional Technical Forum Residential LED bulbs Elizabeth Daykin, BPA Planning Sarah F.

B
O
N
N
E
V
I
L
L
E
P
O
W
E
R
A
D
M
I
N
I
S
T
R
A
First Look Presentation to the
Regional Technical Forum
Residential LED bulbs
Elizabeth Daykin, BPA Planning
Sarah F. Moore, BPA Residential Sector Lead
John Wilson, BPA Lighting Program Manager
Mark Kendall, Kendall Energy
January 23, 2012
T
I
O
N
O
N
N
E
V
I
L
L
E
P
O
W
E
R
A
D
M
I
N
I
S
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
LED lamps – they’re here!
ENERGYSTAR LED Lamps - As of Oct 2012
1400
1200
R (n = 20)
Candle (n = 40)
1000
# of Qualified Models
B
Globe (n = 51)
A (n = 55)
800
BR (n = 57)
600
PAR20 (n = 90)
Non - Standard (n = 111)
400
MR (n = 130)
PAR30 (n = 313)
200
PAR38 (n = 356)
0
Source: EPA/Energy Star
2
B
O
N
N
E
V
I
L
L
E
P
O
W
E
R
A
D
M
I
N
I
S
T
R
A
T
I
O
LEDs - Overview
 RTF History: CFLs, Specialty CFLs, and LED Downlights
 Measure Definition: LED replacement lamps
 Technical Issues and Programmatic Approaches
 Unit Energy Savings Estimate
 Comparison of primary data sources
• Delta Watts (Baseline – Efficient)
• Hours of Use
• HVAC Interaction, Removal, Storage, and Takeback
 Costs
 Effective useful life
 Next Steps
3
N
B
O
N
N
E
V
I
L
L
E
P
O
W
E
R
A
D
M
I
N
I
S
T
R
A
T
I
Measure History and Decision
 LED Downlight previously RTF approved
• Separated from Specialty CFLs
 New Integral LED Lamp workbook will
include LED downlight
 Measure sponsor: BPA
4
O
N
B
O
N
N
E
V
I
L
L
E
P
O
W
E
R
A
D
M
I
N
I
S
T
R
A
T
I
LED Lamps Measure Definition
 Energy Star Eligibility Criteria - Version 1.4
−Omni-directional (replaces A, BT, P, PS, S, T)
−Directional (replaces BR, ER, K, MR, PAR, R)
−Decorative (replaces B, BA, C, CA, DC, F, G)
 Excludes non-standard lamps
 Delivery Channels
 Retail
 Direct mail (requested / not requested)
 Direct install (by location and all locations)
5
O
N
B
O
N
N
E
V
I
L
L
E
P
O
W
E
R
A
D
M
I
N
I
S
T
R
A
T
I
Lamp Types/Categories
Category
Lamp type
Description (includes)
Omni-directional
A-lamps
A-lamp, 3-way, twister
Omni-directional
Globe
Globe (5 inch or >)
Directional
Reflector
R, PAR, BR, MR, flood
Decorative
Decorative
Candlelabra, globes (< 5”)
n/a
Linear fluor.
T-4, T-5, T-8, T-12
6
O
N
B
O
N
N
E
V
I
L
L
E
P
O
W
E
R
A
D
M
I
N
I
S
T
R
A
T
I
O
Residential LED Subcommittee
Purpose: Divide and conquer research tasks, contribute to
collection of data for UES, collaborate on program design
Subcommittee representation:
• Program, planning and engineering staff representing:
Bonneville Power, Puget Sound Energy, Seattle City Light,
Snohomish PUD, Tacoma Power, Energy Trust of Oregon, Fluid
Market Strategies, Applied Proactive Technologies and PECI.
Biases or disclosed conflicts of interest - none
Residential LED Subcommittee meetings:
• 4 meetings: Oct 12, 2012; Oct 30, 2012; Nov 6, 2012; Jan 7, 2013
• Met with manufacturers and retailers at October 2012 Energy Star
Partner meeting to vet product availability
7
N
B
O
N
N
E
V
I
L
L
E
P
O
W
E
R
A
D
M
I
N
I
S
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
Issues Discussed by Subcommittee
 Technical issues
• Flicker, dimmability compatibility and current lack of testing criteria
• Product specification – elements to assist in predicting quality
− Efficacy (lm/watt), Color Rendering Index (CRI), Power Factor (PF)
 Program issues
• Program design and implementation, regional coordination
• Product availability and price
• California residential LED specification, ENERGY STAR revisions
8
B
O
N
N
E
V
I
L
L
E
P
O
W
E
R
A
D
M
I
N
I
S
T
R
A
T
I
O
More detail: Challenges with Flicker
 Possible inverse relationship between flicker index
and luminous flux.
• Some products with a wide range of luminous flux, such as
MR16s, may be more susceptible to flicker.
 Minimum power requirements for dimmer switch
operation.
• Will programs need to address switch compatibility?
 Are we making too much of this?
• NW RBSA indicates only 5 percent of sockets are controlled
by dimmers.
9
N
B
O
N
N
E
V
I
L
L
E
P
O
W
E
R
A
D
M
I
N
I
S
T
R
A
T
I
O
Addressing these issues
Flicker: Tracking standards under development
 ENERGY STAR - Specification under development (2014)
 NEMA LSD 49-2010, ”Solid state lighting for incandescent
replacement—best practices for dimming”
http://www.nema.org/stds/lsd49.cfm
 IEEE PAR1789 http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/1789/
Dimmability compatibility: program design options
 Product specifications – which elements predict quality (efficacy, CRI
PF): Subcommittee participating with West Coast Lighting Group. Will be
comparing notes with CA utilities’ approach to quality.
 BPA regional promotion will test in-store materials to assist consumer.
 BPA regional lighting promotion will request product return information
from participating retailer (number and reason).
10
N
B
O
N
N
E
V
I
L
L
E
P
O
W
E
R
A
D
M
I
N
I
S
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
Subcommittee recommendations for 2013
 Present Energy Star LED bulbs to Regional Technical Forum
• Expect all measures to pass TRC based on preliminary analysis
 Both Tier 1 (ETSTAR) and Tier 2 have value to programs
• General interest in higher efficacy (65 lm/W)
• Power Factor (PF) had value as possible ‘predictor’ of quality
 Pilot Tier 2 with BPA’s Simple Steps regional lighting promotion
• Provides a defendable way to limit qualified products
• Mitigates risk to budget management
• Provides opportunity to test return rate of this product class
11
B
O
N
N
E
V
I
L
L
E
P
O
W
E
R
A
D
M
I
N
I
S
T
R
A
T
I
Ongoing data tracking
 Regular data collection to track (retail)
•
•
•
•
•
Products available at retail that meet spec
Sales volumes
Changes in stocking practices
Current pricing
Rate/reason for product returns
12
O
N
B
O
N
N
E
V
I
L
L
E
P
O
W
E
R
A
D
M
I
N
I
S
T
R
A
T
I
O
Proposed Sunset Criteria
 Earlier of:
• Effective Date of Energy Star Integral LED
Lamp Update
−Currently on draft 3
−Expected to go into effect early 2014
• EISA Halogen baseline update, or
• Rapid changes to technology, costs, standards
13
N
B
O
N
N
E
V
I
L
L
E
P
O
W
E
R
A
D
M
I
N
I
S
T
R
A
T
I
Unit Energy Savings
 Comparison of the primary data sources
 Hours of Use
 Baseline Watts
 Delivery Channels
 Storage, Takeback, and Removal Rates
 Incremental Costs
 Effective Useful Life
14
O
N
B
O
N
N
E
V
I
L
L
E
P
O
W
E
R
A
D
M
I
N
I
S
T
R
A
T
I
O
Primary Data Sources - RBSA
 Residential Building Stock Assessment: SingleFamily Characteristics and Energy Use
• Ecotope report published October 31, 2012
• Data collection conducted in 2011
• Specific to the Northwest (data collected from more
than 1,400 single-family homes)
• Report contains valuable high-level lighting information
• Database not yet published
15
N
B
O
N
N
E
V
I
L
L
E
P
O
W
E
R
A
D
M
I
N
I
S
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
Primary Data Sources – KEMA Study
 Final Evaluation Report: Upstream Lighting
Program
• KEMA, Inc. report published February 8, 2010
• Impact evaluation of the 2006-2008 Upstream Lighting
Program implemented by PG&E, SCE, and SDG&E
• Detailed tables addressing lamp type & lamp shape
distribution and wattages
• Completed and fully reported
• Data source for the Standard CFL and Specialty CFL
analyses
• Not specific to the Northwest
B
O
N
N
E
V
I
L
L
E
P
O
W
E
R
A
D
M
I
N
I
S
T
R
A
T
I
UES Calculation
 Delta Watts (Baseline – Efficient)
 Hours of Use
 HVAC Interaction
 Removal, Storage, and Takeback
17
O
N
B
O
N
N
E
V
I
L
L
E
P
O
W
E
R
A
D
M
I
N
I
S
T
R
A
T
I
O
Baseline Watts: KEMA 2010
Lamp Technology
Incandescent
Halogen
CFL
Total or Weighted
Average
Average Watts
per Lamp
60.1
73.1
13.9
64.4
%
67%
1%
32%
100%
Average Watts
per Lamp
70
73.1
17.3
48.7
%
49%
41%
10%
100%
Average Watts
per Lamp
43.1
7.7
41.2
%
95%
5%
100%
Lamp Shape/Type
Omnidirectional (A-Lamp, Globe)
Directional (Reflector)
Decorative (Candelabra)
18
N
B
O
N
N
E
V
I
L
L
E
P
O
W
E
R
A
D
M
I
N
I
S
T
R
A
T
I
O
Baseline Challenges
 Options:
• KEMA data (lamp shape by lamp type)
• RBSA detailed data (lamp shape by lamp type)
• RBSA high-level summary (lamp type)
−Not specific to lamp type
−Avoids challenges with lamp shape classification
 For efficient watts, we propose using average watts from
Energy Star Qualified Products list
19
N
B
O
N
N
E
V
I
L
L
E
P
O
W
E
R
A
D
M
I
N
I
S
T
R
A
T
I
Direct Install - Locations
 Bathroom
 Bedroom
 Closet
 Dining Room
 Exterior
 Family Room
 Garage
 Hall
 Kitchen
 Laundry Room
 Living Room
 Master Bedroom
 Office
 Other
 Any Interior
 Any Exterior
20
O
N
B
O
N
N
E
V
I
L
L
E
P
O
W
E
R
A
D
M
I
N
I
S
T
R
A
T
I
O
RBSA Location Baseline
2012 RBSA Distribution of Lamps by Type and Room
Table 77, Page 70
Compact
Halogen
Lamp Type
Fluorescent
Bathroom
22.00%
4.10%
Bedroom
29.40%
3.80%
Closet
24.60%
2.60%
Dining Room
18.00%
5.20%
Exterior
24.30%
14.30%
Family Room
28.40%
7.70%
Garage
13.30%
0.70%
Hall
28.60%
4.70%
Kitchen
26.90%
12.00%
Laundry Room
27.90%
5.30%
Living Room
31.00%
7.50%
Master Bedroom
28.80%
5.10%
Office
28.10%
8.00%
Other
18.50%
3.90%
All Room Types
25.00%
6.50%
Percent of Lamps
Linear
Incandescent
Other
n
Fluorescent
71.50%
2.10% 0.30% 12,977
63.60%
2.90% 0.20% 9,847
58.20%
14.30% 0.30% 1,747
74.60%
1.90% 0.30% 4,314
55.20%
4.60% 1.60% 8,174
56.00%
7.00% 0.80% 4,724
33.40%
52.20% 0.30% 5,474
64.00%
1.90% 0.70% 6,270
41.40%
18.40% 1.20% 9,665
40.20%
26.20% 0.50% 2,284
59.20%
1.50% 0.80% 7,662
63.90%
1.40% 0.80% 4,015
49.00%
13.60% 1.30% 2,879
44.20%
32.90% 0.40% 5,477
57.00%
10.80% 0.70% 85,509
21
N
B
O
N
N
E
V
I
L
L
E
P
O
W
E
R
A
D
M
I
N
I
S
T
R
A
T
I
KEMA 2010 Location Baseline
KEMA, 2010 Report to CPUC Vol 2, Table 21
22
O
N
B
O
N
N
E
V
I
L
L
E
P
O
W
E
R
A
D
M
I
N
I
S
T
R
A
T
I
Location - Comparison
Incandescent
CFL
Halogen
KEMA
RBSA
KEMA
RBSA
KEMA
RBSA
Bathroom
61%
72%
24%
22%
4%
4%
Bedroom
59%
64%
27%
29%
6%
4%
Kitchen
33%
41%
19%
27%
11%
12%
Living Room
58%
59%
27%
31%
9%
8%
Hall/Entrance
65%
64%
23%
29%
5%
5%
Dining Room
75%
75%
15%
18%
6%
5%
Garage
14%
33%
9%
13%
1%
1%
Office
49%
49%
27%
28%
11%
8%
Other Living Room
49%
44%
19%
19%
4%
4%
23
O
N
B
O
N
N
E
V
I
L
L
E
P
O
W
E
R
A
D
M
I
N
I
S
T
R
A
T
I
O
Hours of Use (HOU)
 RBSA metering not yet completed/reported
 Will use KEMA study
• Consistent with
−SBW recommendation
−Standard CFLs
−Specialty CFLs
−Except for Direct Install measures, we will use the average 1.9
HOU from the KEMA Study
24
N
B
O
N
N
E
V
I
L
L
E
P
O
W
E
R
A
D
M
I
N
I
S
T
R
A
T
I
HVAC Interaction
 Propose using the RTF Standard CFL Analysis
15.4% HVAC Interaction Factor
25
O
N
B
O
N
N
E
V
I
L
L
E
P
O
W
E
R
A
D
M
I
N
I
S
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
Storage, Takeback, & Removal Rates
 Storage Rate for Delivery Channels
• Direct Mail non-request
−apply 23.7% storage rate from RBSA 2012
• Direct Mail by-request, Direct Install, and Retail
−Due to cost, assume no storage rate
 Takeback
• Program data collection to determine takeback rates for
future analysis
 Removal Rate
• 4% for all delivery channels except retail
26
B
O
N
N
E
V
I
L
L
E
P
O
W
E
R
A
D
M
I
N
I
S
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
Storage, Takeback, & Removal Rates
Removal
Takeback
Storage
0%
0%
0%
Direct Install
4%
0%
0%
Direct Mail - by request
4%
0%
0%
Direct Mail - non request
4%
0%
23.7%
Delivery Channel
Retail
27
B
O
N
N
E
V
I
L
L
E
P
O
W
E
R
A
D
M
I
N
I
S
T
R
A
T
I
O
Review of LED price trends
LED Price Trends
2011 – 2012
$70
PAR38
$60
PAR30
$50
PAR20
$
p $40
er
$30
L
Omnidirectional
Non-standard
MR16
$20
Globe
$10
Candle
$11/2010
2/2011
6/2011
9/2011
12/2011
4/2012
7/2012
10/2012
* Note: Upward price swings largely due to additional products added to
Source: http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/manuf_res/Bulb_Price_Tracking.xls?2b27-d407
28
N
B
O
N
N
E
V
I
L
L
E
P
O
W
E
R
A
D
M
I
N
I
S
T
R
A
T
I
LED Lamp Cost
 LED Lamp Cost
• 2012 NW Costs
• Fluid, PSE, Phillips provided data
• Chained to 2006 dollars
 Replacement Cost
• 2013 NW Retail
• Incandescent EISA Compliant
• CFL 2011- 2012 NEEA Retail Survey
29
O
N
B
O
N
N
E
V
I
L
L
E
P
O
W
E
R
A
D
M
I
N
I
S
T
R
A
T
I
Estimated Costs
Integral LED
Lamp Cost
Incandescent
Halogen
CFL
Omnidirectional
$30.35
$2.51
$2.95
$5.18
Directional
$37.37
$4.86
$7.15
$7.34
Decorative
$15.81
$1.96
$3.60
$8.68
All
$32.74
$3.40
$4.71
$6.51
30
O
N
B
O
N
N
E
V
I
L
L
E
P
O
W
E
R
A
D
M
I
N
I
S
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
Estimated Useful Life (EUL)
 Rated life range of 15,000 – 50,000 hours
 Industry standard lamp failure defined as either inoperable
or 30% lumen depreciation from initial lumens for the mean
lamp.
 Energy Star requires
• 6,000 hours of lumen maintenance testing (in conformance with IES
LM-79-08)
• 3-year manufacturer warranty
 Proposal: cap lifetime at 12 years for LED's
• DEER emerging technologies assumption
• Accounts for new (unproven) technology
• Accounts for next generation technology adoption
31
B
O
N
N
E
V
I
L
L
E
P
O
W
E
R
A
D
M
I
N
I
S
T
R
A
T
I
Next Steps
 Questions / Research Tasks
• EUL
• Cost
• Baseline Watts
• Other
32
O
N
B
O
N
N
E
V
I
L
L
E
P
O
W
E
R
A
D
M
I
N
I
S
T
R
A
T
I
O
N
Total Resulting Measures
 Measure Permutations by Delivery Channel
 Delivery Channels
 Retail (by lamp shape): 4 measures
 Direct mail – Requested (by lamp shape): 4 measures
 Direct mail - Non-requested (by lamp shape): 4 measures
 Direct install (by lamp shape, location, & baseline): 256
measures
 Recommend rolling direct install by location measures into
single measure by baseline and lamp shape (4)
 Total possible measures: 272
 Total proposed measures: 16
33
B
O
N
N
E
V
I
L
L
E
P
O
W
E
R
A
D
M
I
N
I
S
T
R
A
T
I
O
Research Reviewed
Baseline for lamp type, technology, location
2011 Residential Building Stock Assessment: Single-Family Characteristics
and Energy Use (September 2012) NEEA, by Ecotope, Inc.
http://neea.org/docs/reports/residential-building-stock-assessment-single-family-characteristicsand-energy-use.pdf?sfvrsn=8
2010 Final Evaluation Report: Upstream Lighting Program, Volume 1
(February 8, 2010) CPUC, KEMA, Inc.
http://www.energydataweb.com/cpucFiles/18/FinalUpstreamLightingEvaluationReport_2.pdf
2010 Final Evaluation Report: Upstream Lighting Program, Volume 2
(February 8, 2010) CPUC, KEMA, Inc
http://www.calmac.org/publications/FinalUpstreamLightingEvaluationReport_Vol2_CALMAC.pdf
34
N
B
O
N
N
E
V
I
L
L
E
P
O
W
E
R
A
D
M
I
N
I
S
T
R
A
T
I
O
Research reviewed
Energy Star specifications:
https://www.energystar.gov/products/specs/node/273
http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/manuf_res/Bulb_Price_Tracking.xls?2b27-d407
Flicker/Dimmability Compatibility:
Exploring Flicker in Solid State Lighting, Michael Poplawski & Naomi J.
Miller, PNNL, 2011
http://www.e3tnw.org/Documents/2011%20IES%20flicker%20paper%20poplawski-millerFINAL.pdf
Energy Star Stakeholder Discussion on Dimming
http://www.energystar.gov/products/specs/sites/products/files/Dimming%20Work%20for%20Lamp
s%201%200.pdf
Lifetime:
Lifetime of white LEDs, US DOE
http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/publications/pdfs/ssl/lifetime_white_leds.pdf
LED Luminaire Lifetime, June 2011, NGLIA, US DOE
http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/publications/pdfs/ssl/led_luminaire-lifetimeguide_june2011.pdf
35
N
B
O
N
N
E
V
I
L
L
E
P
O
W
E
R
A
D
M
I
N
I
S
T
R
A
T
I
O
Research Reviewed
Cost, replacement CFL
2011-2012 Northwest Residential Lighting Tracking and Monitoring Study
(September 2012) NEEA, DNV KEMA, Inc. http://neea.org/docs/reports/2011-2012northwest-residential-lighting-tracking-and-monitoring-study.pdf?sfvrsn=5
Energy Trust of Oregon Lighting Retail Store Shelf Survey Report, (July
2012), Energy Trust of Oregon, KEMA, Inc
Fall 2011 California Lighting Retail Store Shelf Survey Report (May 2012)
KEMA, Inc.
http://www.calmac.org/publications/2011_CALIFORNIA_LIGHTING_RETAIL_STORE_SHELF_SU
RVEY_FINAL_REPORT_CALMAC.pdf
36
N
B
O
N
N
E
V
I
L
L
E
P
O
W
E
R
A
D
M
I
N
I
S
T
R
A
T
I
Impact of Possible Specifications
Number Of Energy Star Qualified LED Lamps
Eficacy
Power Factor Any
≥50 L/W
≥60 L/W
Any
1,386
≥ 0.7
1,265
1,008
454
≥ 0.8
796
668
337
≥65 L/W
225
184
37
O
N