RTF Residential Lighting Subcommittee Tuesday, March 4, 11am – 12:30pm 1

Agenda Introductions [11:00 – 11:10am] Subcommittee objectives [11:10 – 11:15am] Review current measures (CFL, LED) [11:15 – 11:35am] Measure grouping [11:35am – 12:05pm] LED cost and performance forecasting [12:05 – 12:15pm] Next steps [12:15 – 12:30pm] 2

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 Today – get initial response/feedback on presented material Mid-March – 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 The large numbers of specific measures are a burden to programs. Can we group measures to reduce the number of measures? Program perspective: – Would like a small set of measures to make implementation and administration simple – In some cases, would like to tailor programs to specific, high-potential applications (e.g., high hours-of-use room types) RTF perspective: – If the savings or cost vary significantly across granular measures, then we need to know how to weight the values of each granular measure to come up with an average for a group. – These weights are the relative volume of lamps going through the programs. E.g., An All-Lumens CFL measure might be comprise of: 5% Lumens 20% Lumens (490 Lumen Midpoint) 40% Lumens (840 Lumen Midpoint) 20% Lumens (1190 Lumen Midpoint) 10% Lumens (1690 Lumen Midpoint) 5% Lumens (2600 Lumen Midpoint) – These are not necessarily the RBSA weights 7

Measure Grouping – DI CFLs 8 This 300 DI measures Can we do some program-agnostic grouping? – Lamp types: Can we group some? (see next slide) – Lumens: probably not, because savings are proportional to this – Room types: use an RBSA weighted average of all (assume DI programs don’t discriminate by room type)? exclude low-use space-types from measure description?

Measure Grouping – DI CFLs 9 10 lamp types is actually more granular than we can observe. Could we use the 5 type groups shown here?

Measure Grouping – CFLs Staff Proposal DI measures Use same grouping for other delivery mechanisms – Retail – Mail-by-Request – Unsolicited Mailing – Give-Away (or remove some of these delivery mechanisms)

Measure Grouping – CFLs Options 1) Leave existing measures as they are (sunset: January 31, 2017) – 1A) No additional measures – 1B) Develop grouped measures based on 2013 program volumes This assumes that programs for the next few years will look like programs in 2013 Programs would need to provide their data (for each delivery mechanism) to RTF staff Subcommittee would need to define the desired groupings Programs would need to use either the grouped or granular measure sets – they couldn’t cherry pick. 2) Do the groupings proposed on the previous slide, which would not require program data for weighting – 2A) No additional measures – 2B) Develop grouped measures based on 2013 program volumes (same as Option 1B) 11

Measure Grouping – DI LEDs 12 This 300 DI measures This is 756 measures Can we do some program-agnostic grouping? – Tech Type: Combine Inc and Hal. Remove CFL? – Lamp types: probably not, because these are already broad groups – Lumens: probably not, because savings are proportional to this – Room types: Use the five room-type groups currently used for CFLs?

Measure Grouping – LEDs Staff Proposal DI measures For other delivery mechanisms, [3 lamp types] x [6 lumen categories] = 18 measures – Retail – Mail-by-Request – Unsolicited Mailing (we don’t currently have this one) – Give-Away (or remove some of these delivery mechanisms)

Measure Grouping – LEDs Options 1) Leave existing measure granularity, update values (current sunset: April 30, 2014) – 1A) No additional measures – 1B) Provisional grouped measures Because LEDs are a relatively new and changing program measure, we can’t assume that future programs will look like past programs Utilities would track which lamps are going through program, which would be used to revise the weighting assumptions in the provisional measure. Additional research could be done to see what types of light bulbs LEDs are replacing for non-DI delivery mechanisms. Will LEDs and LED programs be mature enough during research period to inform measures beyond the research period? 2) Do the groupings proposed on the previous slide – 2A) No additional measures – 2B) Provisional grouped measures (same as Option 1B) 14

LED Cost and Performance Forecasting RTF prefers to use observable data only, unless forecasting can significantly improve the reliability of the estimate. RTF LED measures to date have been out-dated by the time they reached programs because of rapidly changing cost and efficacy. PNNL has developed cost and performance improvement factor forecasts. These could be used to adjust cost and performance data that we observe to the measure sunset period. ssl_trend-analysis_2013.pdf ssl_trend-analysis_2013.pdf Staff propose to use these forecasts. 15

Summary of Decisions Needed CFLs – 1) Leave existing measures as they are (sunset: January 31, 2017) 1A) No additional measures 1B) Develop grouped measures based on 2013 program volumes – 2) Do the groupings proposed on the previous slide, which would not require program data for weighting 2A) No additional measures 2B) Develop grouped measures based on 2013 program volumes LEDs – 1) Leave existing measure granularity, update values (current sunset: April 30, 2014) 1A) No additional measures 1B) Provisional grouped measures – 2) Do the groupings proposed on the previous slide 2A) No additional measures 2B) Provisional grouped measures (same as Option 1B) LED Cost and Performance Forecasting – 1) Use observed data, no forecasting – 2) Use observed data and PNNL forecasts 16

Next Steps Discuss today’s presentation with your colleagues and constituents Meet in ~two weeks to select a path forward for RTF staff Inform and review a provisional research plan for LED grouped measures, if applicable. Meet with Research and Evaluation Subcommittee to review research plan, if applicable. 17