Subcommittee Objectives Develop proposal(s) for the RTF on how to group granular measures Develop proposal for the RTF on the use of forecasting for LED efficacy and cost Note the RTF also has residential T12 to HP-T8 measures (for kitchens and garages), but we are not addressing those measures in this subcommittee. 3
Subcommittee Timeline March 4 – get initial response/feedback on presented material Today – regroup and provide Staff with guidance necessary to develop measures Early April – [if applicable] review research plan for provisional measures with Research and Evaluation Subcommittee April 23 – Staff present measure assessments to RTF 4
Current CFL and LED Measures 5 Current LEDProposed CFL, CFL Fixture & Specialty CFL Hours of UseKEMA & DOE, by room type Baseline definitionRBSA observed mix of inc/hal/CFL Baseline lamp wattage RBSA, by tech type, lamp type, room typed EISA adjusted EE lamp wattageEnergyStar product listBPA Simple Steps program data Delivery mechanisms Retail Direct Install Mail-by-Request & Give-Away Retail Direct Install Mail-by-Request Unsolicited-Mailing Give-Away NEEA Socket Count (no fixtures) EE costPSE 2013 program dataBPA Simple Steps program data Baseline cost Inc/Hal RTF staff shelf survey CFL - ETO shelf survey Inc/Hal - ETO Shelf Survey CFL - BPA Simple Steps program data LifetimeCeiling at 12 years CFL - [10,000 hours] * [derating for on/off switching] / [hours per year (by room type)] Cold Cathode CFL - [25,000 hours] * [derating for on/off switching] / [hours per year (by room type)] EligibilityMeets Energy Star criteria. Measure combinations Retail/MbR/GA - 18 each = [3 lamp type] x [6 lumen bins] Direct Install = [14 room type] x [3 tech type] x [3 lamp type] x [6 lumen bins] Retail/MbR/GA/Unsolicited Mail - 60 each = [10 lamp type] x [6 lumen bins] Direct Install = [5 room type groups] x [1 blended tech type] x [10 lamp type] x [6 lumen bins]
Current CFL and LED Measures RTF measure documentation pages – LED – CFL – Specialty CFL RTF meeting presentations – CFL and Specialty CFL – LED 6
Measure Grouping Subcommittee requested common categorization across CFL and LED measures Staff is investigating the possibility of these requests based on available data After discussion with the Subcommittee, Staff think that the following level of granularity is appropriate: – 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 has request two further reductions to the categorization: – Merge the 6 lumen categories into 3 – Merge “Globe” lamp type with “Decorative and Mini-Base” 7
Lumen Bins – Can we go from 6 to 3? 8 The following grouping has been 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%.
Lumen Bins – Can we go from 6 to 3? 9 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
Lumen Bin Grouping Sensitivity - Example 10 At 100% 1440 to 2019 lumens, the program savings would be only 6% less than the RBSA average savings. At 100% 2020 to 2600 lumens, the program savings would be 28% greater than the RBSA average savings For program savings to be within 10% of RBSA average savings, 52% to 100% of program lamps need to be 1440 to 2019 lumens Direct Install LED Reflector Lamps, 1440 to 2600 lumens Incandescent/Halogen Baseline, Exterior Space RBSA – 1440 to 2019 lumens: 86 kWh savings, 82% of lamps in this range – 2020 to 2600 lumens: 118 kWh savings, 18% of lamps in this range – Weighted average savings: 92 kWh
Lumen Bin Grouping Sensitivity 11 Test Method 1.Consider all pairs of measures that would be grouped. E.g., – LED Direct Install / Inc&Hal Baseline / Exterior / Decorative and Mini-base / lumens AND lumens – LED Direct Install / Inc&Hal Baseline / Exterior / Decorative and Mini-base / lumens AND lumens – … – LED Direct Install / CFL Baseline / Interior Low Use / Three-Way / 1440 – 2019 lumens AND lumens 2.For each pair, determine the percentage point difference from RBSA representation necessary to effect a 10% change in savings. 3.Categorize each pair by the amount of percentage point difference required – 0 to 25% - the program savings for this pair of measures could easily be more than +/-10% the RBSA estimated savings – 26 to 50% - possible – 51 to 75% - unlikely – 76% to 100% - very unlikely – [results not sensitive] – no possible percentage point difference from the RBSA representation would lead to a difference in savings of 10% or greater. 4.Weight the results for each pair by their presence in RBSA. – Results for very common lamp types are more significant than for uncommon lamp types. 5.Show pie chart of results. Areas in the pie chart represent the proportion of program lamps expected to fall into each sensitivity category.
Lumen Bin Grouping Sensitivity 12 LED DI measures, incandescent/ halogen baseline Inc/Hal to LED DI measures are not very sensitive to differences in RBSA and program proportions
Lumen Bin Grouping Sensitivity 13 LED DI measures, CFL baseline CFL to LED DI measures are very sensitive to differences in RBSA and program proportions
Lumen Bin Grouping Sensitivity 14 CFL DI measures, incandescent/ halogen baseline Very few measures are sensitive to differences in RBSA and program proportions
55% of relevant lamps in RBSA are general purpose lumen. The results for this lamp dominate the charts. Lumen Bin Grouping Sensitivity 15 CFL not-DI measures LED not-DI measures LED measures are less sensitive to RBSA/program differences Many measures are in a “possible” area of sensitivity
Past Programs Test 16 Looking at 2012 and 2013 program data, how different would the savings be using 3 lumen categories (grouped using RBSA weighting) vs. using 6 lumen categories?
Grouping Globes with Decorative and Mini-base 17 LED-DI measures, CFL baseline LED-DI measures, inc/hal baseline
Grouping Globes with Decorative and Mini-base 18 CFL-DI measures, inc/hal baseline
Grouping Globes with Decorative and Mini-base 19 LED not-DI measures CFL not-DI measures
Next Steps 20 Subcommittee recommendations for measure grouping – Lumen categories (6 or 3)? – Globe with Decorative? Other analysis recommendations?