rtf residential lighting subcommittee ryan firestone july 28, 2015

RTF Residential Lighting Subcommittee

Ryan FirestoneJuly 28, 2015

2

Recent History• June 16, 2015 RTF Meeting

– RTF CAT presentation on methodology

– Guidance requested on baseline replacement model and other details of methodology

– Sunset date extension for measure to September 30, 2015, with plan to bring measure to RTF at August 2015 meeting

– RTF requested that a subcommittee sub-group meet to discuss the baseline replacement model and provide a recommendation

• July 17, 2015 – Subcommittee Meeting

• Today – Residential Lighting Subcommittee to review outcomes of July 17 meeting and prepare for the August RTF meeting

3

July 17, 2015 Subcommittee Meeting• Participants

– Jennifer Anziano (RTF Manager)

– Mike Baker (SBW)

– Ryan Firestone (RTF CAT)

– Lauren Gage* (BPA)

– Tina Jayaweera (Council)

– Bill Welch* (Independent)

*RTF member

• Reviewed slides on Baseline from June presentation (will be reviewed in this presentation as well)

• Selected a baseline replacement model

• Proposed an approach to simplifying the representation of measures with savings that vary over the lifetime of the measure

http://rtf.nwcouncil.org/subcommittees/reslighting/ResLighting_SubcommitteeMeetingNotes_2015_07_17.docx




4

July 17, 2015 Subcommittee MeetingBaseline Replacement Issue:

• We must model savings over the lifetime of the measure in order to estimate cost-effectiveness.

• In the case of residential lighting, some of the baseline technologies (inc/hal) have a shorter lifetime than the measure (CFL/LED).

• Therefore, our savings model must assume what replaces baseline lamps at the end of their life, but before the end of the measure life.

• Historically, we have assumed like-for-like replacement: e.g., when a halogen lamp burns out, it is replaced with another halogen.– This may conflict with our rationale for using a Current Practice baseline:

that the current market mix of sales is representative of the typical choice of an end-user

5

Current Practice Baseline – GuidelinesApplied to Residential Lighting

• Need to establish rule for how choices are made in the baseline throughout the lifetime of the measure.

– Like-for-like replacement – when lamps in the counterfactual need replacement, they are replaced with the same thing

– Typical choices at time of RTF approval – when lamps in counterfactural need replacement, they are replaced with the same mix of inc/hal/CFL/LED that is assumed at the time of measure implementation

– Something in-between – there is some correlation between what was installed and what gets replaced, but not 100%

• Once this baseline rule is chosen, the baseline and efficient case can be modeled and lifetime savings can be determined.

From June 16 RTF Presentation

6 Current Practice Baseline – GuidelinesApplied to Residential Lighting

Inc/Hal Inc/Hal Inc/Hal Inc/Hal Inc/Hal

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026

CFL CFL

LED

EISA 2020 compliant


2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026

EISA 2020 compliant

CFL CFL

LED

Inc/Hal Inc/Hal Inc/Hal Inc/Hal Inc/Hal EISA 2020 compliant

CFL CFLLED


CFL CFLLED


CFL CFLLED


CFL CFLLED


CFL CFLLED


CFL CFL

LED

EISA 2020 compliant


CFL CFL

LED

EISA 2020 compliant


CFL CFL

LED

EISA 2020 compliant


CFL CFL

LED

EISA 2020 com pliant


CFL CFL

LED

EISA 2020 compliant

Baseline: Like-for-like replacement

Baseline: Typical choices at time of RTF approval

Baseline: Something in-between


2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026

EISA 2020 compliant

CFL CFL

LED


CFL CFL

LED


CFL CFL

LED


CFL CFL

LED


CFL CFL

LED


CFL CFL

LED

Inc/Hal Inc/Hal Inc/Hal Inc/Hal Inc/Hal EIS A 2 0 2 0 c om plia nt

CFL CFL

LED

Inc/Hal Inc/Hal Inc/Hal Inc/Hal Inc/Hal E IS A 2 0 2 0 c o m p lia n t

CFL CFL

LED


CFL CFL

LED

EISA 2020 compliant


CFL CFL

LED

EISA 2020 compliant


CFL CFL

LED

EISA 2020 compliant


CFL CFL

LED

EISA 2020 compliant

Inc/Ha l Inc/Ha l Inc/Ha l Inc/Ha l Inc/Ha l

CFL CFL

LED

EISA 2020 compliant


CFL CFL

LED

E IS A 2 0 2 0 c o m p lia n t


CFL CFL

LED

EISA 2020 compliant

From June 16 RTF Presentation

7

July 17, 2015 Subcommittee MeetingBaseline Replacement Issue:

• The sub-group agreed that the market is likely a mix of “like-for-like” behavior and “typical-choices” behavior– Sometimes consumers are intent on replacing what was in a socket with the

same thing

– Sometimes consumers make a decision about the socket that is independent of what was installed previously

• The sub-group agreed to recommend the “Something In-between” replacement model– Some in sub-group would have preferred the “Typical Choices” model

• Captures some like-for-like replacement

• Does not require arbitrary selection of weights for the models

– Sub-group emphasized the importance of communicating the “Something In-between” method clearly, because of the complexity of the approach

8 Something In-between Replacement Model - Example

Halogen

CFL

LED

Current market mix of sales

50%

40%

10%

LED Measure – What happens when a halogen lamp in the baseline burns out?

Half are replaced with the same type of lamp

Halogen

Halogen

CFLLED

Half are replace with the current market mix of sales

?

50%

25%

20%5%

The portions of replacements that are like-for-like and typical choices is a variable. Sub-group approved of

50%/50%

July 17, 2015 Subcommittee Meeting

Savings (kWh/yr)

First year savings

Measure Life

Time

Savings (kWh/yr)

First year savings

Measure Life

Time

Adjusted Measure Life

Reporting Results

• Majority of sub-group was supportive of determining an “adjusted lifetime” for the measure

• Adjusted Lifetime = the lifetime at which, if first year savings were held constant over the lifetime, would produce the same cost-effectiveness as the time-variable savings.

• Rationale: – Savings after first year don’t meet quality standards of Guidelines.

– Lifetime is not subject to the same quality standards

July 17, 2015 Subcommittee MeetingReporting Results

• RTF CAT disagree– Savings portrayed in this approach are not accurate after the first year

– Sub-group agrees that workbooks should show the time-variable stream of savings, regardless of if/how lifetime and savings are adjusted

– Showing time-varying savings is consistent with how the Grocery Display Case EC Motor measure was handled at the July 21 RTF meeting

– By definition, Adjusted Lifetime would not change the cost effectiveness of the measure

– Determining Adjusted Lifetime would be an extra step at the end of the analysis

– CAT doesn’t think that this approach is consistent with the Guidelines

11

RTF Guidance from June 16, 2015 RTF Meeting

http://rtf.nwcouncil.org/meetings/2015/06/RTF_ResLighting_2015_06_16%20v08.pptx



12

RTF Guidance• EISA 2020 in Baseline replacement model

– Baseline replacement model from 2020 onward should reflect EISA 2020 standard (45 lm/W)

• model as Lowest cost/worst performing compliant technology (CFL – 45 lm/W, ~5,000 hours lifetime, CFL cost)

• Commercial participants in Retail programs– 10% of sales for General Purpose and Reflector and Outdoor categories –

– 0% of sales for other lamp types

– 7.5 hours/day

– Same baseline market mix of technologies as residential participants

– Bonneville Non-residential Lighting metered study may inform Hours of Use, otherwise consider making the Retail Residential Lighting measures Planning until regional data on this is available

• Lumen Bins– Switch to EISA lumen bins

– Extend smallest lumen bin from 310 to 749 lumens to 250 to 749 lumens

– Consider grouping 749 to 1049 lumens with 1049 to 1489 lumens

13

RTF GuidanceHow to model time-varying savings in ProCost

• From present to 2019 – use average savings over that period

• From 2020 onward – use average savings over that period

• Modify measure table to show savings from both time ranges

Risk Mitigation Credit

• Apply only to savings that last beyond 2019

Hours of use data source

• Use RBSA metered sample extrapolated to NW population.

• Include additional regional metered data in analysis if available.

LED Cost and Performance

• Extrapolate LED Cost and Efficacy to 2016, based on PNNL and DOE forecasts

14

Slides from June 16 RTF Meeting Presentation




Residential Lighting

Ryan FirestoneRegional Technical Forum

June 16, 2015

16

Overview• RTF Residential UES measure is due for an update

– Sunset date June 30, 2015

– New ENERGY STAR specification v1.1. (September, 2014) – technology neutral

– Changing market / new market data (NEEA/BPA)

– Estimates of extent and impact of Commercial participants in retail programs (SBW/PSE/NorthWestern Energy)

– Interpretation of current practice baseline in light of very different product lifetimes and an impending federal standard

– RTF judgement and confirmation required on many details of analysis

– Requesting a sunset date extension to September, 2015• Allows time for Bonneville to complete market analysis and Staff/CAT to incorporate in

measure update

• Structure of Bonneville analysis is dependent on today’s RTF judgement/confirmation

17 Presentation OutlineToday’s Objectives: • Get RTF guidance on methodology and data source selection• Extend sunset date

Outline:• Sunset Date Extension

• Current Practice Baseline– How replacements implicit in the baseline during the lifetime of the measure are modeled

• Non-residential Participants in Retail Programs– How to account for this in the baseline– Uncertainty = Planning measure?

• Measure Identifiers– Lumen bin definitions

• ProCost/Measure Workbook Modeling– Modeling savings that vary over the lifetime of the measure

• Residential Hours of Use– What data source to use?

• LED Cost and Performance– Extrapolate data to time of measure implementation?

18

Sunset Date Extension

19

Sunset Date Extension• Current sunset date June 30, 2015

• Numerous points of judgement required in analysis; Staff/CAT would like RTF input before proceeding with analysis

• Bonneville has shelf/sales data – needs some guidance from RTF to structure analysis so that it feeds into measure assessment

• 7th Plan could use updated savings numbers in final plan if available in September

• Propose extending sunset date to September 30, 2015 with plan to bring measure update to RTF in August.

20

Decision“I, __________, move to extend the sunset dates for the following UES measures to September 30, 2015:

• Residential Lighting – LEDs

• Residential Lighting – CFLs

• Residential Lighting – Specialty CFLs”

21

Current Practice Baseline

Key Questions:

• What should be assumed for replacements required in the baseline after the time of the measure installation?

• Should EISA 2020 be factored into the replacement model?

• What replaces incandescent/halogen in the baseline for EISA-covered categories in 2020 and onward?

• Do sales need to be normalized by lamp life to estimate the baseline?

• What baseline should be used for for post-delivery replacements the Direct Install delivery mechanism?

22

Current Practice Baseline Model• Interpretation of the Current Practice Baseline is required because of the range of lifetimes of light bulbs:

– Incandescent/halogen – 1,000 hours– CFLs (derated for switching) – ~5,000 hours– LEDs – 25,000 – 30,000 hours (capped at 12 years for RTF measures)

• A portion of the Current Practice baseline has a much shorter lifetime than the efficient product– What happens to the incandescent/halogen (and CFL) lamps in the baseline at the end of their lifetime?

Inc/Hal

CFL

LED

LED

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026

Current Sales

Efficient Case

?

?

• Complicated further by EISA 2020 federal standard (45 lumen/Watt)– Unlikely to be compliant incandescent/halogen products

23

Current Practice Baseline - GuidelinesRoadmap• Section 1.3.2, Introduction >> Key Concepts >> Savings

“Savings is defined as the difference in annual energy use between the baseline (see section 3.2) and post (after measure delivery) periods, which is caused by the delivery of a measure…The current practice baseline defines directly the conditions that would prevail in the absence of the program (the counterfactual), as dictated by codes and standards or the current practices of the market.”

• Section 3.2.1 Measure Specification >> Savings Baseline >> Current Practice “For these measures, the baseline is defined by the typical choices of eligible end users in purchasing new equipment and services at the time of RTF approval. The RTF estimates this baseline based on recent choices of eligible end users in purchasing new equipment and services.”

• Section 1.3.3., Introduction >> Key Concepts >> Lifetime Savings “Savings may vary over the lifetime (see Lifetime guideline) of a measure. For measures with a current practice baseline the savings estimate should apply throughout the period between measure delivery and the end of the measure lifetime.”

24

Current Practice Baseline – GuidelinesApplied to a typical appliance measure (Clothes Washers)

Roadmap• Section 1.3.2, Introduction >> Key Concepts >> Savings




Counterfactual Baseline: •Consumer purchases and installs a clothes washer in 2015• It lasts for 15 years

Efficient Case:• Consumer purchases and installs an efficient clothes washer in 2015• It lasts for 15 years

For the lifetime of the measure (15 years):• Baseline clothes washer remains the same• Efficient case clothes washer remains the same• Savings is the difference in energy consumption between the two purchases

Baseline:Market average efficiency of recent sales

25

ENERGY STAR clothes washer

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030

Market average efficiency clothes washerBaseline

EfficientCase

Current Practice Baseline Model – Clothes Washer

The only decision that needs to be modelled for baseline for this measure is what clothes washer gets installed at the time of the efficient case install.

26


Roadmap• Section 1.3.2, Introduction >> Key Concepts >> Savings




Counterfactual Baseline: •Consumer purchases and installs a mix of inc/hal/CFL/LED• They last for 1 to 12 years• Then what?• From 2020 onward, EISA 2020 standard limits some options (inc/hal)

Efficient Case:• Consumer purchases and installs a CFL or LED• It lasts for 5 to 12 years.

For the lifetime of the measure (5 to 12 years):It’s OK for savings to vary over the lifetime of the measure.

Baseline:Unclear what this means for choices made throughout the lifetime of the measure.

27


• Need to establish rule for how choices are made in the baseline throughout the lifetime of the measure.

– Like-for-like replacement – when lamps in the counterfactual need replacement, they are replaced with the same thing

– Typical choices at time of RTF approval – when lamps in counterfactural need replacement, they are replaced with the same mix of inc/hal/CFL/LED that is assumed at the time of measure implementation

– Something in-between – there is some correlation between what was installed and what gets replaced, but not 100%

• Once this baseline rule is chosen, the baseline and efficient case can be modeled and lifetime savings can be determined.

28

Current Practice Baseline – GuidelinesApplied to Residential Lighting (cont’d)• All options would be subject to EISA 2020: For decisions in 2020 and

beyond, inc/hal options would be replaced by a EISA 2020-compliant lamp.

• Concerns raised at Subcommittee: – Uncertainty in EISA 2020 implementation / manufacturer pushback

• Staff/CAT response: RTF typically doesn’t speculate on modifications to existing standards. If it’s on the books, we account for it.

– Lighting controls may dramatically extend the lifetime of halogen lamps

• Staff/CAT response: – 95% of fixtures in RBSA are on manual controls. – No data to support halogen lifetime extension from typical use of lighting

controls.

RTF Confirmation

29 Current Practice Baseline – GuidelinesApplied to Residential Lighting


2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026

CFL CFL

LED

EISA 2020 compliant


2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026

EISA 2020 compliant

CFL CFL

LED


CFL CFLLED


CFL CFLLED


CFL CFLLED


CFL CFLLED


CFL CFLLED


CFL CFL

LED

EISA 2020 compliant


CFL CFL

LED

EISA 2020 compliant


CFL CFL

LED

EISA 2020 compliant


CFL CFL

LED



CFL CFL

LED

EISA 2020 compliant





2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026

EISA 2020 compliant

CFL CFL

LED


CFL CFL

LED


CFL CFL

LED


CFL CFL

LED


CFL CFL

LED


CFL CFL

LED


CFL CFL

LED


CFL CFL

LED


CFL CFL

LED

EISA 2020 compliant


CFL CFL

LED

EISA 2020 compliant


CFL CFL

LED

EISA 2020 compliant


CFL CFL

LED

EISA 2020 compliant


CFL CFL

LED

EISA 2020 compliant


CFL CFL

LED



CFL CFL

LED

EISA 2020 compliant

30

Is there field research to inform this?• Massachusetts panel study of sockets (NMR Group)

– Same sockets visited in 2013, 2014, 2015– “Households made a dramatic shift from inefficient to efficient bulbs, resulting in a net

decrease in average wattage”– “LEDs as replacement bulbs affected all bulb types (including CFLs)”

Source: NMR Group, Inc., “Seeing The Light: Residential Panel Study Reveals Positive Developments”

http://www.nmrgroupinc.com/seeing-the-light-residential-panel-study-reveals-positive-developments/

31 Current Practice Baseline


2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026

CFL CFL

LED

EISA 2020 compliant


2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026

EISA 2020 compliant

CFL CFL

LED


CFL CFLLED


CFL CFLLED


CFL CFLLED


CFL CFLLED


CFL CFLLED


CFL CFL

LED

EISA 2020 compliant


CFL CFL

LED

EISA 2020 compliant


CFL CFL

LED

EISA 2020 compliant


CFL CFL

LED



CFL CFL

LED

EISA 2020 compliant




Staff/CAT recommend using the “typical choices” option for future replacements.• Like-for-like replacement

• gives an upper-bound on likely baseline wattage• Typical choices

• is consistent with the wording of the Guidelines and the rationale behind using a Current Practice baseline• is consistent with our choice to use sales, rather than socket data for our baseline: each purchase decision is

independent• Something in-between

• requires an arbitrary selection of “where in-between?” • is not likely to be very different than “Typical choices”

RTF Confirmation


2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026

EISA 2020 compliant

CFL CFL

LED


CFL CFL

LED


CFL CFL

LED


CFL CFL

LED


CFL CFL

LED


CFL CFL

LED


CFL CFL

LED


CFL CFL

LED


CFL CFL

LED

EISA 2020 compliant


CFL CFL

LED

EISA 2020 compliant


CFL CFL

LED

EISA 2020 compliant


CFL CFL

LED

EISA 2020 compliant


CFL CFL

LED

EISA 2020 compliant


CFL CFL

LED



CFL CFL

LED

EISA 2020 compliant

32

EISA 2020: 45 lumens/Watt• Phase 2 of the EISA lighting standards effective in 2020

– 45 lm/W for all covered lamps

• What should the baseline be from 2020 onward?– Federal standard (45 lm/W, 1,000 hour lifetime)

• No product exists on the market with these specifications

– Lowest cost/worst performing compliant technology (CFL – 45 lm/W, ~5,000 hours lifetime, CFL cost)• 7th Plan approach

Efficacy

RTF Confirmation

33

Adjust sales data to account for lamp lifetime?

• Typical Choices: If each lamp purchase is independent of what it replaced, then no need to adjust for lifetime; each purchase is an independent choice.

RTF Confirmation

34

Delivery Mechanisms• Delivery Mechanisms

– Current practice baseline• Retail• Mail by Request• Unsolicited Mail• Give away

– Current Practice or Pre-conditions?• Direct Install

– Depends on replacement assumptions earlier in presentation– Staff/CAT recommend Current Practice baseline to be consistent with Typical Choices

lamp replacement model.– First installation (time of measure delivery) would be pre-condition, though

• NEEA Socket Count– No longer needed as a delivery mechanism/ProCost results– Instead, workbook will include a worksheet of inputs for NEEA’s model (template

provided by NEEA)

RTF Confirmation

35 Current Practice BaselineKey Questions: (Staff/CAT recommendations in bold blue) • What should be assumed for replacements required in the baseline after the time of the

measure installation?• Like-for-like replacement• Typical choices at time of RTF approval• Something in-between

• Should EISA 2020 be factored into the replacement model?• Yes• No

• What replaces incandescent/halogen in the baseline for non-EISA-exempt categories in 2020 and onward?

• 45 lm/W, 1,000 hours, ? cost• 45 lm/W, CFL lifetime, CFL cost• Something else

• Do sales need to be normalized by lamp life to estimate the lifetime?• Yes• No

• What baseline should be used for post-delivery replacements in the Direct Install delivery mechanism?

• Current practice• Pre-conditions

36

Non-residential Participants in Retail Programs

Key Questions:

• What portion of upstream retail lamp sales should be assumed to go into non-residential sockets?

• by lamp type, lumen bin

• What should the baseline mix of technologies be for this portion of the market?

• What hours of use should be assumed for this portion of the market?

• Should retail measures be categorized as Planning or Provisional to address these uncertainties?

37

Accounting for Non-residential Participants• Some lamps sold through retail, upstream programs are installed in

commercial spaces (including MF common-space)– Likely between 5 and 20% of all lamps

• Unclear which lamp types/lumen bins

– Unclear what the baseline for these lamps is– Unclear what the hours of use are (could be much higher than residential)

• Significant uncertainty in this aspect of the retail measure = Planning measure?

• The next slides summarize what we know and how significant the uncertainty in savings is.

38

Non-residential Participants – Volume of Sales• Regional Data:

– PSE/SBW/RIA• Phone survey of 46 high-volume participating retailers in upstream program (74% of program

volume)• 22% of CFLs, 20% of LEDs sold to commercial customers• Adjust for less commercial sales at lower volume retailers: 17% CFLs, 20% LEDs• http://www.wutc.wa.gov/rms2.nsf/177d98baa5918c7388256a550064a61e/

4d5df7ff36cccbf288257ce8005c84f6!OpenDocument

– NorthWestern Energy/SBW/RIA• Phone survey of 8 CFL buy-down participants• 19% commercial sales• http://puc.sd.gov/commission/dockets/gaselectric/2012/ge12-001/vol1.pdf

– Some commercial sales may have been to contractors who installed them in residential spaces

• New construction, remodel, direct install program

– Ongoing research (lamp type-specific)• Bonneville – surveys of building owners, property managers, and retailers

– RTF measure categorization could inform survey instruments– Results expected ~January 2016

• PSE – customer intercept studies at big box stores– Data collection almost complete

39

Non-residential Participants – Volume of Sales• Non-NW Data: Literature review of non-res lamp installs

Source: Memorandum To: Massachusetts Program Administrators and Energy Efficiency Advisory Council, From: Michael Strom, Chris Russell, Lisa Wilson Wright, and Lynn Hoefgen, NMR ‐Group, Inc., Doug Bruchs, and Bryan Ward, CadmusSubject: Massachusetts Residential Lighting Cross Sector Sales Research ‐Date: March 24, 2015

http://ma-eeac.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/Residential-Lighting-Cross-Sector-Sales-Research-Memo.pdf

40

Non-residential Participants – Volume of Sales• RTF needs to choose an estimate of the relative volume of non-

residential installation • Research done in the NW suggests ~15%

– This discounts observed self-report data to account for commercial sales installed in residential spaces

• Customer intercept surveys in other regions suggest 6%– This is likely the most accurate methodology– But every region is unique: current practice, incentive levels, participating

retailers vary.

• Staff/CAT recommendation: – 10% for General Purpose and Reflector and Outdoor categories –

• It’s in the middle of our two most reasonable estimates• These are the typical commercial screw-base lamps

– 0% for other lamp types

RTF Confirmation

41 Non-residential Participants – Hours of Use

• Hours of Use– DOE EERE, “2010 U.S. Lighting Market Characterization”

• 10-11 hours per day for screw-base lamps in commercial spaces– Meta-study of self-reported hours of use by building operators

– EMI 2014, “Michigan Statewide Commercial and Industrial Lighting Hours-of-Use Study” (metered study)

• 7.5 hours per day for all lamp types

– BPA and other Lighting Calculators• Self-reported hours of use by space-type, not specific to screw-based lamps in those space

types.

– BPA/SBW Commercial Lighting• Research Plan for Commercial: Lighting - Non-Residential Lighting Retrofits UES measure• Includes metering of some screw-based lamps• Results expected ~August 2015• http://rtf.nwcouncil.org/protocols/com/NonResLightingRetrofitsResearchPlan_V1.docx

• Staff/CAT recommendation: – 7.5 hours per day – prefer metered data to self-reported data

RTF Confirmation

http://rtf.nwcouncil.org/protocols/com/NonResLightingRetrofitsResearchPlan_V1.docx

http://rtf.nwcouncil.org/protocols/com/NonResLightingRetrofitsResearchPlan_V1.docx

42 Non-residential Participants – Baseline

• Baseline lamp types, types of lamps sold to commercial customers– DOE EERE, “2010 U.S. Lighting Market Characterization”

• CFL-to-Incandescent ratio twice as high for Commercial than for Residential

– NEEA – CBSA• 580 observations of screw-based fixtures in buildings, count of fixtures in subspace, weighting

up to site and region– Could examine the types of screw-base lamps small businesses install– Without a good estimate of hours of use, can’t map sockets to sales, though

• Staff/CAT recommendation– Assume sales baseline for both residential and non-residential installations is

the same• Analytical simplicity• More efficient than average baseline for commercial implies less efficient than average baseline

for residential – effects would counteract• With non-residential installations 10% of all sales, the impact on savings of a simplifications

here would be less than 10%.

RTF Confirmation

43

Accounting for Non-residential Participants• Consider weighted average hours of use for General Purpose lamp, 750-1049 lumens.

– Residential hours of use: 2.0 hrs/day (analysis based on RBSA socket count and metered study)

– Commercial hours of use: vary from 0 to 10 hrs/day

– Commercial share of participation: vary from 0 to 20%Likely range of resulting hours of use is between 2.0 and 3.2.

This is 2.6 +/- 23%.

Savings are directly proportional to HOU

44

Upstream Retail ≠ Proven Measure?– Likely effect is large, but uncertain

– Without quantifying this effect, we don’t have the certainty needed for a Proven retail measure

– However, research originating from a research plan may not be useful for very long (EISA 2020)

– Is ongoing research likely to narrow the range of uncertainty?• % of commercial installs

– Bonneville – surveys of building owners, property managers, and retailers

– PSE – store intercepts

– These studies will give us more regional data points, and at a level of granularity not available in other studies

• Commercial Hours of Use– Research Plan for Commercial: Lighting - Non-Residential Lighting Retrofits UES measure

– Lighting Calculators – Bonneville and other

– Staff/CAT recommend: • setting the category for the retail delivery mechanism to Provisional

• limit the Research Plan to research on the region that is already underway

• Update measure in time for Bonneville Implementation Manual (update needed in January, 2016)

RTF Confirmation

45

Research Needs• Estimate where lamps purchased from residential-facing retailers end up

(residential, MF common space, commercial), by technology type, lamp type, lumen bin

– Develop estimate based on results of ongoing research being conducted by Bonneville and PSE

• Estimate hours of use for these applications– Residential – RBSA and Avista metered studies

– MF Common Space - ?

– Commercial – Non-residential Retrofit Lighting research, regional lighting calculators

46

Non-residential Participants in Retail Programs

Key Questions: (Staff/CAT recommendations in bold blue)

• What portion of upstream retail lamp sales should be assumed to go into non-residential sockets? by lamp type, lumen bin

• 10% for General Purpose and Reflector/Outdoor and 0% for other lamp types• Something else

• What should the baseline mix of technologies be for this portion of the market?• Assume shelf/sales baseline is representative of all sectors• Something else

• What hours of use should be assumed for this portion of the market?• 7.5 hours/day• Something else

• Should retail measures be categorized as Planning or Provisional to address these uncertainties?

• Yes• No

47

Measure Identifiers

Key Questions:

• Lumen Bins• Switch to EISA lumen bins?

• Extend smallest lumen bin from 310 to 749 lumens to 250 to 749 lumens?

• Consider grouping 749 to 1049 lumens with 1049 to 1489 lumens

48

Lumen Bins• The RTF’s current measure uses the following lumen bins

– 250 to 664 lumens– 665 to 1439 lumens– 1440 to 2600 lumens

• However, the EISA standard uses the following lumen bins– less than 310 lumens– 310 to 749 lumens– 750 to 1049 lumens– 1050 to 1489 lumens– 1490 to 2600 lumens

• Program concerns – – changing lumen categories requires program infrastructure retooling– Increased number of categories is problematic– Very few lamps in market under 310 lm or above 2600 lm

• RTF Staff/CAT proposal– 250 to 749 lumens

• Extend EISA range on the low end to be consistent with existing programs• ENERGY STAR qualified products exist at this lower bound

– 750 to 1049 lumens– 1050 to 1489 lumens

• Consider grouping with 749 to 1049, based on sales/shelf results– 1490 to 2600 lumens

RTF Judgement

49

Lamp Types• As part of the April 2014 Residential Lighting measure update, Staff/CAT consider lamp type

categorization and developed the following:– Decorative and Mini-Base– General Purpose and Dimmable– Globe– Reflectors and Outdoor– Three-Way

• Staff/CAT demonstrated that further aggregation could lead to significant variation in actual savings depending on the program mix of lamp types

– E.g., number of globe vs. decorative lamps• Bonneville considered alternate groupings that mirror EISA coverage/exemptions, but this

resulted in an impractically large number of lamp type categories

• Staff/CAT will prepare the measure update using the same lamp type categories

• RTF presentation April 23, 2014 http://rtf.nwcouncil.org/meetings/2014/04/Residential_Lighting_CFLandLED_2014_04_23%20v18.pptx

• Subcommittee presentations from March 2014http://rtf.nwcouncil.org/subcommittees/reslighting/meetings.htm

http://rtf.nwcouncil.org/meetings/2014/04/Residential_Lighting_CFLandLED_2014_04_23%20v18.pptx



http://rtf.nwcouncil.org/subcommittees/reslighting/meetings.htm

http://rtf.nwcouncil.org/subcommittees/reslighting/meetings.htm

50

Other Measure Identifiers

• Delivery mechanism– Addressed earlier in the presentation

• Room type group– Direct Install only– This measure identifier is addressed later in presentation

51

Measure Identifiers

Key Questions: (Staff/CAT recommendations in bold blue)

• Lumen Bins• Switch to EISA lumen bins?

• Yes• No

• Extend smallest lumen bin from 310 to 749 lumens to 250 to 749 lumens?• Yes• No

• Consider grouping 749 to 1049 lumens with 1049 to 1489 lumens?• Yes• No

52

ProCost/Measure Workbook Modeling

Key Questions:

• How to model varying lifetime savings in ProCost?• From present to 2019• From 2020 onward

• Should Risk Mitigation Credit be applied to near-term savings or just persistent savings?

• Which results should be shown in the measure table?

53

EISA 2020: Modelling in measure workbook

• RTF CAT/Staff proposed approach– Do two ProCost runs:

• One for savings that persist throughout measure life

• One for incremental savings that go away after 2019

– Compute overall cost effectiveness from total TRC Costs and total TRC Benefits

– In the measure table, • Have two columns for savings: 2016 to 2019, 2020 onward

– Add an explanation sheet at the beginning of the workbook to explain the stepped shape of savings

– In this way, the RTF provides programs with first year savings, out-year savings, and cost-effectiveness assuming stepped-savings. Programs can determine which savings values are appropriate for them.

– Staff/CAT considered also showing average annual savings over the measure life, but don’t think it’s a meaningful, or necessary number.

RTF Confirmation

54

Risk Mitigation Credit• ProCost applies credit to each kWh of savings

• Savings that only last a few years do not mitigate longer-term risks

– 7th Plan only applies risk mitigation credit to savings exceeding 45 lm/W

RTF Confirmation

LED Wattage

Short-term savings – don’t apply Risk Mitigation Credit

Persistent savings – apply Risk Mitigation Credit

55

ProCost/Measure Workbook ModelingKey Questions: (Staff/CAT recommendations in bold blue)

• How to model varying lifetime savings in ProCost?• From present to 2019

• Average savings over that period• Something else

• From 2020 onward• Average savings over that period• Something else

• Should Risk Mitigation Credit be applied to near-term savings or just persistent savings?

• Apply to all savings• Apply only to savings that last beyond 2019

• Which results should be shown in the measure table?• Modify measure table to show savings from both time ranges• Average annual savings over lifetime• Something else

56

Residential Hours of UseKey Questions:

• What study should be used for hours of use?

57

Hours of Use (Residential)

• Current RTF measures use hours of use (HOU) measured in California in 2008/2009– 8452 fixtures at 1233 sites

– “Final Evaluation Report: Upstream Lighting Program Volume 1” CALMAC Study ID: CPU0015.01

– http://www.calmac.org/publications/FinalUpstreamLightingEvaluationReport_Vol1_CALMAC_3.pdf

• Hours of use, by room type, are applied to each lighting record in RBSA to determine average hours of use by lamp type/lumen bin

http://www.calmac.org/publications/FinalUpstreamLightingEvaluationReport_Vol1_CALMAC_3.pdf




58

Hours of Use (Residential)• RBSA study included lighting hours of use metering

– http://neea.org/docs/default-source/reports/residential-building-stock-assessment--metering-study.pdf?sfvrsn=6

– NEEA, April 28, 2014 REPORT #E14-283 Residential Building Stock Assessment: Metering Study

– 874 fixtures, 104 sites

• Staff/CAT propose using this more recent data, from the region, rather than the California data.– Avista has offered metered data from an additional 70

homes to bolster our regional sample

http://neea.org/docs/default-source/reports/residential-building-stock-assessment--metering-study.pdf?sfvrsn=6



59

Room Type Groups (Direct Install and NEEA Socket Count only)

• Hours of Use (HOU) and Room Type Groups– Current measure uses KEMA data from CA, supplemented by DOE data– Propose using RBSA metered data– Significantly Higher HOU for Family/Kitchen/Living Room suggests separating

High and Moderate Use room type groups.

Daily HOURoom Type Group

Daily HOURoom Type Group

Exterior 3.7 Exterior 3.8 Exterior

Family Room 3.3 2.3Kitchen 3.6 2.4Living Room 2.8 2.3Basement/Utility Room 0.8 1.6Bedroom 1.4 1.5Dining Room 1.9 1.7Garage 1.1 1.8Laundry Room 1.5 1.5Master Bedroom 1.1 1.5Bathroom 1.2 1.3Hall 2 1.3Office 1.8 1.3Closet 0.08 1.4Other 0.21 1.5

Current - KEMA (CA) 2010 and DOE 2010

Moderate and High Use

Low Use

Low Use

Moderate Use

High Use

Proposed - RBSA

Room Type

60

Residential Hours of UseKey Questions: (Staff/CAT recommendations in bold blue)

• What study should be used for hours of use?• California metered sample• RBSA metered sample / Avista metered sample (if available)• RBSA metered sample extrapolated to NW population / Avista

metered sample (if available)

61

Extrapolating LED Cost and Performance Data to Time of

ImplementationKey Questions:

• Should LED Cost and Efficacy be extrapolated to 2016?

62

LED Cost and Performance Extrapolation• Current measure (RTF approved in April 2014) includes extrapolation of

existing LED cost and performance data to time of measure implementation to reflect the rapidly changing market

• Staff/CAT propose to use same approach this time– Use data collected in 2014

Sources:Efficacy: “SSL Pricing and Efficacy Trend Analysis for Utility Program Planning” PNNL 2013

Cost: "Energy Savings Forecast of Solid-State Lighting in General Illumination Applications” Navigant Consulting for US DOE, August 2014

RTF Lamp Type

2014 to 2016

adjustment

2015 to 2016

adjustment

2014 to 2016

adjustment

2015 to 2016

adjustmentReflectors and Outdoor 1.14 1.06 0.70 0.84General Purpose and Dimmable 1.08 1.04 0.67 0.82Three-way 1.08 1.04 0.67 0.82Decorative and Mini-Base 1.25 1.07 0.62 0.79Globe 1.08 1.04 0.67 0.82

Efficacy Cost

63

Extrapolating LED Cost and Performance Data to Time of

ImplementationKey Questions: (Staff/CAT recommendations in bold blue)

• Should LED Cost and Efficacy be extrapolated to 2016?• Yes• No

64

Backup Slides

65

Adjust sales data to account for lamp lifetime?

• Typical Choices: If each lamp purchase is independent of what it replaced, than no need to adjust for lifetime; each purchase is an independent choice.

• Like-for-like: If each lamp purchase is correlated to what it replaced, than multiple lamp purchases are part of the same consumer choice (e.g., to be a halogen socket) and sales data should be normalized to account for lamp life.– Analogy: Internet subscription:

• If DSL internet subscribers paid for service monthly• And cable internet subscribers paid for three months at a time• We’d determine market share by a count of subscribers, not a count of payments

66

BPA/NEEA Sales-based Baseline

67

BPA/NEEA Sales-based Baseline• Data

– Sales data of major retailers from Neilsen in 2014– NEEA Shelf survey (December 2014)– Estimates of market share by store category (analysis based on data from 2014 ENERGY

STAR Partners meeting)– Estimates of market share by retailer based on NW store count and number of lamps

displayed per store– Sales data use for retailers where available ( ~30% of market ) – Supplemented with shelf survey data– Analysis by Cadeo Group for Bonneville, on going

Store CategoryCategory Share of Market

RetailerRetailer share

within Category

Retailer share of Market

A 58% 30%B 32% 16%C 10% 5%D 57% 10%E 18% 3%F 10% 2%G 15% 3%H 84% 14%I 16% 3%

Drug, Grocery and Small Hardware

15% Other 100% 15%

Home Center

Mass Merchandise

Club Stores

51%

17%

17%

68

Lamp Costs

69

Lamp Costs• Baseline lamps costs: Bonneville/NEEA shelf/sales

data (2014), data not yet available

• Measure Cost: Idaho Power program data (Q1 2015)

Lamp Type 310-749750-1049

1050-1489

1490-2600

250 to 664

lumens

665 to 1439

lumens

1440 to 2600

lumens

Three-Way (based on highest lumen level) $21.50 $18.19 $33.00Decorative and Mini-Base $15.99 $10.10 $18.08 $44.00General Purpose and Dimmable $10.17 $11.17 $17.24 $19.50 $5.05 $9.04 $22.00Globe $10.11 $6.68 $9.04 $22.00Reflectors and Outdoors $16.67 $22.90 $27.13 $26.96 $21.50 $18.19 $33.00

Three-Way (based on highest lumen level) $10.47 $13.45 $12.55 $10.78 $12.55Decorative and Mini-Base $3.46 $5.49 $3.46 $2.42 $3.46General Purpose and Dimmable $2.96 $3.15 $3.88 $3.78 $2.19 $1.47 $1.92Globe $5.80 $5.99 $1.71 $5.08 $5.08Reflectors and Outdoors $5.11 $6.86 $8.43 $4.67 $3.16 $9.99

LED

CFL

Lumen RangeIdaho Power Current RTF Measure

70

Derating CFL and LED Lifetime

71


• Switching effects on CFL lifetime• “Welcome to the Dark Side: The Effect of Switching on CFL Measure Life”

Corina Jump, James J. Hirsch, Jane Peters, and Dulane Moran, 2008 ACEEE Summer Study

Room TypeN Loggers Low (E) Middle (C1,E)High (C1) N Loggers Low (E) Middle (C1,E)High (C1)

All Room Types 585 0.491 0.526 0.561 447 0.486 0.521 0.556 Bathroom 89 0.210 0.257 0.304 71 0.220 0.266 0.312 Bedroom 138 0.430 0.467 0.505 102 0.418 0.456 0.494 Family Room 59 0.664 0.692 0.720 52 0.670 0.698 0.725 Garage 12 0.434 0.472 0.510 11 0.440 0.478 0.515 Hall 42 0.387 0.426 0.465 31 0.387 0.426 0.465 Kitchen 82 0.547 0.580 0.612 53 0.492 0.527 0.562 Laundry Room 20 0.299 0.343 0.386 17 0.285 0.329 0.373 Living Room 128 0.708 0.734 0.760 96 0.724 0.749 0.774 Other 15 0.472 0.508 0.543 14 0.476 0.511 0.547

Table 4: Average Normalized CFL Lamp Life for Monitored Lamps, by LocationAll Homes Single Family Detached

72


• Switching effects on CFL lifetime• “Welcome to the Dark Side: The Effect of Switching on CFL Measure Life”

Corina Jump, James J. Hirsch, Jane Peters, and Dulane Moran, 2008 ACEEE Summer Study

Room TypeN Loggers Low (E) Middle (C1,E)High (C1) N Loggers Low (E) Middle (C1,E)High (C1)

All Room Types 585 0.491 0.526 0.561 447 0.486 0.521 0.556 Bathroom 89 0.210 0.257 0.304 71 0.220 0.266 0.312 Bedroom 138 0.430 0.467 0.505 102 0.418 0.456 0.494 Family Room 59 0.664 0.692 0.720 52 0.670 0.698 0.725 Garage 12 0.434 0.472 0.510 11 0.440 0.478 0.515 Hall 42 0.387 0.426 0.465 31 0.387 0.426 0.465 Kitchen 82 0.547 0.580 0.612 53 0.492 0.527 0.562 Laundry Room 20 0.299 0.343 0.386 17 0.285 0.329 0.373 Living Room 128 0.708 0.734 0.760 96 0.724 0.749 0.774 Other 15 0.472 0.508 0.543 14 0.476 0.511 0.547

Table 4: Average Normalized CFL Lamp Life for Monitored Lamps, by LocationAll Homes Single Family Detached

73


• LEDs– Switching does not appear to be an issue

– Lumen depreciation is the mode of failure that lifetime ratings are based on

– Rapidly evolving products make long test periods impractical

– RTF has historically capped the lifetime of LEDs to 12 years to address uncertainty in actual product performance and real-world factors (break, remodel)

– Staff/CAT recommend no change

74

Storage Rate Slides from October 2013 CFL Presentation

http://rtf.nwcouncil.org/meetings/2013/10/CFLs_RTF_2013_10%20v20.pptx

http://rtf.nwcouncil.org/meetings/2013/10/CFLs_RTF_2013_10%20v20.pptx

75

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?

76

Storage Rate – Lifetime Guidelines1.2.2. 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.

77

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.

78


• 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.

79


• But not all retail lamps get installed right awayNote:1) Installation rate

increases in first few years

2) But some lamps installed in the first couple of years are already failing

3) The lifetime of the retail measure (6.1) is longer than that of the direct install measure (5.5).

80

Storage Rate – Savings GuidelinesRoadmap 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.

81

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.

rtf residential lighting subcommittee ryan firestone july 28, 2015

Documents