1 / 32

Savings of Specialty CFLs and LED Downlights

Savings of Specialty CFLs and LED Downlights. April 6, 2010. Ryan Firestone & Wayne Leonard Navigant Consulting. Danielle Gidding Bonneville Power Administration. Purpose.

jaser
Download Presentation

Savings of Specialty CFLs and LED Downlights

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. Savings of Specialty CFLs and LED Downlights April 6, 2010 Ryan Firestone & Wayne LeonardNavigant Consulting Danielle GiddingBonneville Power Administration

  2. Purpose • Address differences between specialty CFLs and standard CFLs that result in different deemed savings, costs, and lifetimes. • Review recent specialty-specific data sources • Reconsider savings derating factors for standard and specialty CFLs • LED downlights in analysis to leverage overlapping data sources • Key issues that impact savings: • Dependence of savings and cost-effectiveness parameters on lamp type • Package size • Impact on storage rate and cost • Usage patterns • Lamp type vs. room type • Prevalence of lamp type by room type • Removal and take-back rates

  3. Lamp types that currently qualify in PTR as a “Specialty” CFL: Reflector (PAR) Globe Candelabras and Torpedoes(>5W) Dimmable 3-Way Outdoor As of April 1st, BPA will not consider the following lamps as Specialty CFLs: A-Lamp Daylight T-2 High Wattage (> 25W) Definition of a Specialty CFL

  4. Background 2009 – MayRTF Meeting • Presentation of PSE/SCL/SnoPUD CFL Saturation Survey • Approved: Retail - Storage rate to 37%, replacing 12% removal rate, 5% take-back • Annual savings reduced from 33 kWh to 24 kWh • No decision on non-retail delivery mechanisms • Measure Life • Review paper by Corina Jump, et al. “The Effect of Switching on CFL Measure Life” • Approved: Reduction in CFL measure life by room type, due to switching patterns. (5.3 year lifetime replaces 7 year lifetime) 2009 – JuneRTF Meeting • Discussion and Decision on energy savings de-ratings for “Direct Installation” CFL’s and CFL’s identified through NEEA socket count studies • Retain 12% removal rate and 5% take-back rate for these delivery mechanisms

  5. Background 2010 – February RTF Meeting • Should savings for specialty bulbs be different than for standard CFLs? • Is standard storage rate (36%) too large? • Are specialties sold in smaller package sizes that standards? • Should storage rate be lower because specialties are a “considered” purchase? • Are specialties going into higher use sockets than standards? • What types/quantities of specialty bulbs are being sold? • Table deemed savings for specialty CFLs until more data is available.

  6. Adjustment Factors Update proposed in February

  7. From Feb. 2010 RTF Presentation… • Potential Reasons “Specialty Bulbs” Might Deserve Different Adjustment Factors • Different pre- and post-wattage assumptions for specialties • Different hours of use for specialties • Different incremental cost for specialty bulbs • Different storage rate • Different removal rate • New reports published with updated data to support analysis on specialty lamps

  8. How Do Specialties Differ From Standard CFLs?

  9. Recent Specialty-Specific Data Sources • PECI Change A Light Retail Sales Data, 2008 and 2009 • Lamp type, wattage, package size, retail price, sale price • CA Statewide Upstream and Downstream Metering Studies (KEMA, The Cadmus Group) • Verification and evaluation of 2006-2008 programs, published February 2010 • Hours of use by lamp-type • Location by lamp-type • Storage and removal rates

  10. Data from PECI Change A Light program sales data, 2008 and 2009 Use to determine sales weighted average: package size wattage retail cost ($/lamp) Baseline (incandescent) costs from 2008 OR and WA field research 1: Characteristics Of Specialty Lamp Sales: Package Size, Wattage, Price

  11. 84% of lamps sold in 4 or 6 packs Reflectors and globe = 94% of lamps currently defined as specialty (as of April 1, 2010) These sales patterns might not be representative of typical drug/grocery/hardware retail programs Change A Light Retail Sales, 2008 and 2009

  12. Comparison of Specialty Bulb Sales to Standard CFL Deemed Values • Specialty CFLs have lower wattage • But most are displacing incandescent reflectors • Specialty CFLs are more expensive than standard CFLs • lower storage rate? • lower cost effectiveness Sources: RTF Deemed Savings file EStarLighting_ExistingFY09v1_2.xls PECI Change A Light sales data, 2008 and 2009

  13. Hours of use and location by lamp type The Cadmus Group, Inc. "Residential Retrofit High Impact Measure Evaluation Report", prepared for the California Public Utilities Commission, February 2010 Metering by lamp type (reflector, globe, a-lamp) for direct hours of use values Reflectors and globes area majority of sales and socket count Location (room) by lamp type Hours of use by room type Navigant Consulting, "U.S. Lighting Market Characterization, Volume I: National Lighting Inventory and Energy Consumption Estimate Final Report", Table 5-9, p 40, Prepared for U.S. Department of Energy Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 2002 KEMA, Inc.,”CFL Metering Study” for Pacific Gas & Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, 2005. Energy Market Innovations, Inc., "Puget Sound Area Residential Compact Fluorescent Lighting Market Saturation Study", November 2007 Reduction in rated lifetime due to switching (current deemed approach for standard CFLs) Jump et al., “Welcome to the Dark Side: The Effect of Switch on CFL Measure Life”, ACEEE Summer Study, 2008 2: Specialty Lamp Hours of Use and Lifetime

  14. For lamp types not metered in CA study Use location* (room type) and hours of use by location** to determine lamp hours of use Calculating Daily Hours of Use *The Cadmus Group, Inc. "Residential Retrofit High Impact Measure Evaluation Report", prepared for the California Public Utilities Commission, February 2010 **Navigant Consulting, "U.S. Lighting Market Characterization, Volume I: National Lighting Inventory and Energy Consumption Estimate Final Report", Table 5-9, p 40, Prepared for U.S. Department of Energy Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 2002 **KEMA, Inc.,”CFL Metering Study” for Pacific Gas & Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, 2005. **Energy Market Innovations, Inc., "Puget Sound Area Residential Compact Fluorescent Lighting Market Saturation Study", November 2007

  15. Daily Hours of Use See references on previous slide

  16. Lamp Distribution per Room Type Type of lamp Where it shows up Source: The Cadmus Group, Inc. "Residential Retrofit High Impact Measure Evaluation Report", prepared for the California Public Utilities Commission, February 2010

  17. 3: Storage Rates, Removal, and Take-back Rates • Use the same removal/take-back/storage rates for standard and specialty CFLs retail delivery mechanisms • Apply current deemed retail storage rate (36%) determined by Puget Sound study by EMI • Removal – reduce direct install rate from 12% to 4% • consistent with recent NEEA findings (2004 to 2006), • Take-back – reduce direct install rate from 5% to 0% • No evidence of CFL take-back effect found

  18. Data on storage rates for specialties not found For retail specialty bulbs, propose using PSE observed 37% storage rate (deemed for retail standard) for all CFLs Reasons for lower storage rates Specialties are higher cost than standard CFLs – less likely to buy excess Less saturation of specialty applications than standard CFLs Specialties are more likely to be purchased for specific sockets than CFLs Storage Rates

  19. Removal Rate • KEMA findings for NEEA- 4% removal rates in 2004, 2005, and 2006 Source: KEMA, Inc., "ENERGY STAR Consumer Products Program - Market Progress Evaluation Report", prepared for the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance, July 2007. Report #07-174

  20. Removal Rate Other regional studies support a 2% to 6% removal rate • CA, 2009 – self-reported 6% removal rate for give-away CFLs after 1-3 years • Top reason was burn-out • KEMA, "Process Evaluation of 2006-2008 PG&E Mass Markets Program Portfolio and CFL, Swimming Pool Market Characterizations, Final Report", for the CA Public Utilities Commission, December 2009 • Earlier study shows difference between program (2.0%) and non-program lamps (12.1%) • Regional Economic Research, Inc., “Northern States Power - Residential Lighting Evaluation: Final Report and Appendices”, 1996 • Skumatz, L. and O. Howlett, “Findings and “Gaps” in CFL Evaluation Research: Review of the Existing Literature”, proceedings of the 2006 International Energy Efficiency in Domestic Appliances and Lighting Conference

  21. Take-back Rate Apply same take-back rate to standard and specialty CFLs: • Direct install: adjust from 5% to 0% • No data to support increased usage of CFLs over incandescents • Retail: keep at 0%

  22. 5. Savings Analysis

  23. Savings Analysis: Wattages *KEMA, Inc. “Final Evaluation Report: Upstream Lighting Program Volume 1” for the California Public Utilities Commission, February 2010, except for candelabra, high wattage, and outdoor. **Change A Light sales data from 2008 and 2009 (PECI 2010) except for CC Candelabra and LED downlights. LED downlight based on GE PAR30LED

  24. Savings Analysis: Savings De-rating • Use same values for standard and specialty CFLs • Retain 36% storage rate • Lower direct install storage rate from 12% to 4% • standard and specialty bulbs • Remove 5% take-back rate for direct install

  25. Measure Life

  26. Cost

  27. Savings and Cost Effectiveness Results

  28. Weighting by Lamp Type for an “Any Specialty Lamp” Option • Allow programs the option of either claiming savings by lamp type or using an “Any Specialty Lamp” • No ideal dataset to determine weighting from • Change A Light 2008/2009 heavy skewed by multi-pack reflector and globe sales • KEMA’s CA socket study only considered globes and reflectors • Four approaches possible • 1. Weight by Change A Light sales volume as is – it’s the best information we have • 2. Weight by Change A Light 1,2 and 3 pack sales – it’s more representative of typical retail programs • 3. [Approach 1], but adjust globe and reflector proportions to match KEMA socket study • 4. [Approach 2], but adjust globe and reflector proportions to match KEMA socket study

  29. Weighting by Lamp Type for an “Any Specialty Lamp” Option CA Globe to Reflector ratio = 1.2

  30. Weighting by Lamp Type for an “Any Specialty Lamp” Option

  31. 7. Proposal • Reduce direct install removal rates for standard and specialty lamps from 12% to 4% • Reduce direct install take-back rates for standard and specialty lamps from 5% to 0% • Accept proposed savings for specialty lamps by specific lamp type • Accept one of four approaches to lamp type weighting • Accept proposed savings for specialty lamp • Measure requirements: • Energy Star lamps, 5W or greater, • Retail: lamp type, package size, retail cost, and wattage • Direct Install: lamp type, wattage, and room installed in • Revise analysis with updated sales and installation data in 24 months (April 2012)

  32. Discussion

More Related