COMMENTS
ENERGY-EFFICIENCY AND DSM RULES FOR
PENNSYLVANIA’S ALTERNATIVE ENERGY PORTFOLIO
STANDARD
SUBMITTED BY
CITIZENS FOR PENNSYLVANIA’S FUTURE
(PennFuture)
April 1, 2005
PENNFUTURE’S COMMENTS ON ENERGY-EFFICIENCY
AND DSM RULES FOR PENNSYLVANIA’S ALTERNATIVE
ENERGY PORTFOLIO STANDARD
Introduction and overview
Citizens for Pennsylvania’s Future (“PennFuture”) submits these comments on rules for
implementing the energy-efficiency provisions of the Commonwealth’s Alternative
Energy Portfolio Standard (“AEPS”). First we present a set of objectives and principles
to guide rules for qualifying and counting energy-efficiency credits. Then we propose a
conceptual framework for establishing and implementing the energy-efficiency rules.
Next we recommend specific categories of efficiency technologies that would qualify
under the rules. We provide a draft Technical Reference Manual to codify the energyefficiency rules in an appendix. In addition to a skeletal format for the entire TRM, the
appendix contains specific quantitative rules for a subset of all the qualifying
technologies we recommend, along with sample calculations. We address rules for loadshifting and other load management and demand-response technologies separately.
Finally, we address Staff’s questions regarding tracking efficiency credits.
Objectives and principles
PennFuture recommends that the DSM rules seek to achieve the following objectives:
 Achieve significant energy savings, since efficiency is the cleanest and
cheapest available resource.
 Maximize the dollar value of economic benefits to the Commonwealth.
 Reduce pollutant emissions.
 Provide for an equitable distribution of benefits across customer classes
Accordingly, we further recommend that the efficiency rules be designed according to the
following principles:
 Only qualify efficiency that is greater than common practice in the
marketplace.
 Stimulate lasting changes in market behavior.
 Be easily understood and straightforward to implement at low transaction
costs.
 Capture untapped efficiency potential.
 .Provide an opportunity for residential, commercial and industrial customers
to benefit directly
Conceptual approach
Based on the forgoing objectives and principles, PennFuture recommends the following
conceptual approach to efficiency rulemaking under the AEPS. The efficiency rules
should be designed to target efficiency technologies newly installed in Pennsylvania in
2
key end uses and markets in all major customer sectors. The highest priority should be for
high-value, low-cost “lost-opportunity” savings potential in new construction, end-of-life
equipment turnover and new purchases. These market applications offer some of the most
cost-effective and durable efficiency savings potential. To minimize administration and
transaction costs, we recommend minimum-size savings blocks of 500 MWh per year.
PennFuture recommends that the rules qualify and track savings based on typical
minimum efficiency requirements and savings protocols used in nearby jurisdictions with
aggressive and successful electric DSM programs. Minimum requirements should be set
high enough above common or “baseline” market practice to ensure that real savings
materialize beyond what would have transpired in the marketplace, but not so high that
they unduly restrict actual savings. We recommend New Jersey as the primary source for
these protocols, since its utilities have been implementing advanced DSM programs in
key “lost-opportunity” markets that we recommend the rules cover in Pennsylvania.
Where appropriate, we recommend that New Jersey protocols be supplemented with
those from initiatives elsewhere in the region (such as those in New York and the
Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships).1 The rules should be tailored for
Pennsylvania to reflect expectations regarding the Commonwealth’s market conditions
(e.g., hours of use), its building efficiency code, as well as federal equipment standards.
The rules should consist of “deemed” savings requirements and protocols to count
savings in targeted end uses and markets. Rules should include measure life-expectancy
and free-ridership rates (to account for savings that would have occurred absent the
AEPS). Savings depreciation would be reflected in measure-life assumptions built into
the rules. These deemed savings rules should be based on prior analysis, evaluation, and
field experience. The Commission should codify and issue the rules in the form of a
Technical Reference Manual (TRM).
PennFuture recommends that the rules be adopted in at least two stages. For the first
phase, the rules should apply only to those technologies that are easy to calculate, simple
to administer and simple for people in the market to adopt. Once this system is in place,
the next phase can allow custom measures which involve calculations that are not so easy
to prescribe, as well as possible expansion to the initial list.
Accordingly, PennFuture recommends that rules in this first stage cover the limited set of
efficiency technologies defined below and partially contained in the draft TRM appendix.
This more limited set of rules allows Pennsylvania to gain experience with the system
without overburdening it. In future stages, the Commission should update and consider
expanding this initial set of rules. The Commission should update the TRM rules
biennially to reflect changes in market conditions such as baseline equipment efficiencies
and minimum efficiency requirements. The next stage of rulemaking could include
customized commercial or industrial projects, which would require an engineering study
New Jersey’s savings protocols are posted at
http://www.bpu.state.nj.us/wwwroot/cleanEnergy/EO04080894_20041223.pdf
1
3
and/or a monitoring and verification protocol to validate claimed savings. The costs of
such additional analysis could be borne by the project proponent by requiring a filing fee.
Qualifying efficiency technologies
The following is a list of technologies recommended for the first phase of the AEPS
rules. The appendix to this document contains a partial set of specific quantitive rules for
calculating credits for each category, along with sample savings calculations for specific
technology efficiency levels.
Residential efficiency technologies
The AEPS rules would cover three categories of “lost opportunity” residential efficiency:
central air-conditioners; compact fluorescent lamps and fixtures; and Energy Star
appliances.
Central AC
Compact fluorescent lamps and fixtures
Energy Star Appliances



Clothes Washers
Energy Star Refrigerators
Energy Star Dish Washers
Commercial/Industrial efficiency technologies
The AEPS rules should cover nonresidential heating, cooling, ventilation and airconditioning (HVAC); lighting; and motors. Below we list the recommended types and
size ranges for the efficiency rules for each category.
HVAC
1) Unitary/split systems
a) capacity < 5.4 tons
b) 5.4 tons < capacity < 11.25 tons
c) 11.25 tons < capacity < 20 tons
d) 20 tons < capacity < 30 tons
2) Air-to-air heat pump systems
a) capacity < 5.4 tons
b) 5.4 tons < capacity < 11.25 tons
c) 11.25 tons < capacity < 20 tons
d) 20 tons < capacity < 30 tons
3) Water-source heat pumps <= 30 tons
4
4) Chillers
a) Air Cooled Chillers <=150 tons
b) Air Cooled Chillers >150 tons to <300 tons
c) Water Cooled Chillers >=30 tons to <70 tons
d) Water Cooled Chillers >=70 tons to <150 tons
e) Water Cooled Centrifugal Chillers >=150 tons to < 300 tons
f) Water Cooled Screw Chillers >=150 tons to < 300 tons
g) Water Cooled Chillers >=300 tons to <=1000 tons
Lighting
1) New construction: Lighting Power Density at least 20% less than code
2) Existing buildings: Super-T8 technology
a) 4-lamp fixtures
b) 3-lamp fixtures
c) 2-lamp fixtures
d) 1-lamp fixtures
Motors (Three phase induction, 1-200 HP)
1) Totally-enclosed fan-cooled (TEFC)
a) 1200 RPM
b) 1800 RPM
c) 3600 RPM
2) Open drip-proof (ODP)
a) 1200 RPM
b) 1800 RPM
c) 3600 RPM
Load shifting and demand response
DSM from load shifting and demand response needs to be measured in the kWh shifted
from the pre-defined peak period to the off-peak period. Only a net savings of kWh will
likely provide environmental benefits.
There needs to be a determination in advance of the environmental benefits or costs of
kWh shifts from peak to off-peak periods. PennFuture recommends that the Commission
establish marginal emission factors for each period using long-range production
simulation for PJM. On the basis of this analysis, the rules should assign fractional credit
to each kWh shifted based on the ratio of emission factors in the off-peak period to
emission factors in the on-peak period. Project proponents could then determine the net
emissions impacts caused from shifting from one period to another. Environmental
savings could be negative if the shift is from gas-fired combined cycle on-peak to coalbased generation off-peak.
5
Answers to Staff questions
Tracking:
1. Please define, describe, and give examples of the various categories of energy
efficiency, such as core measures, metered measures, and custom measures. Since the
core energy efficiency measures apply to all customer classes, then various energy
savings and peak demand reduction applications will exist. For example, residential
applications may consist of appliance rebates, commercial applications may consist of
lighting controls, and industrial applications may be some form of rates. Please provide a
suggested list of core efficiency measures for each customer class.
Answer: PennFuture’s recommended approach contains eligible measures for each
customer class. We recommend counting kWh of electric energy only. No rebates or
rate adjustments are contemplated to encourage qualifying technologies.
2. Please define cost-effective energy efficiency programs. Does it include avoided
electricity generation costs?
Answer: All the recommended qualifying technologies have been found to be costeffective in neighboring jurisdictions (e.g., New Jersey), based primarily on avoided
generation costs (but also including avoided transmission and distribution capacity costs).
PennFuture expects that the same would be true in Pennsylvania.
3. Should and how can avoided consumption be measured associated with the
implementation of energy efficiency programs? For example, if a small business
implements energy efficiency programs, and subsequently expands its business, then how
is the avoided consumption measured?
Answer: PennFuture’s recommended rules allow calculation of consumption changes
based on adoption of a select group of energy-efficiency technologies. Applicants would
have to calculate savings ex-ante; no ex-post adjustments would be allowed.
4. The Energy Star Program sponsored by DOE was discussed as a possible standard for
appliances and application energy efficiency protocol. How can this standard be used for
our purposes?
Answer: The Energy Star performance standards would be applicable to new appliances
and high-efficiency lighting.
5. How can energy efficiency programs provide equal opportunity for participation by all
customer classes and to be neutral with regard to energy source?
Answer: This can be done by adopting rules for a set of technologies with applicability
across residential, commercial, and industrial classes, as recommended by PennFuture’s
comments.
6
Evaluation:
6. Can other states’ evaluation methodologies be utilized? If so, what states should be
considered? What areas of these state evaluation standards need modification in order to
fit Pennsylvania’s needs? Please explain the modifications.
Answer: Yes. Primarily New Jersey and New York. It may be possible to adopt existing
protocols, only changing them to update market conditions.
7. How should depreciation be incorporated into the net energy savings evaluation?
Answer: PennFuture recommends that depreciation be captured via measure-life
assumptions.
8. Will any of the evaluation techniques require sampling? If so, what is the acceptable
confidence interval and sampling error?
Answer: No.
9. What should be the form of the final net energy savings document that the
Commission drafts? Should it be a manual or evaluation guidelines? Please describe the
pros/cons of each approach. For example, would general net savings evaluation
guidelines serve the same purpose as a manual but provide greater flexibility than a
manual? Also, if you support a manual, then how detailed should it be – i.e. should every
type of savings measure be listed and a protocol for each drafted?
Answer: Evaluation guidelines would indeed provide more flexibility but would be much
more burdensome and costly to administer and implement in the marketplace. We
recommend a manual covering savings from every type of qualifying efficiency
technology.
7
APPENDIX TO COMMENTS
ENERGY-EFFICIENCY AND DSM RULES FOR
PENNSYLVANIA’S ALTERNATIVE ENERGY PORTFOLIO
STANDARD
TECHNICAL REFERENCE MANUAL
April 1, 2005
8
EXAMPLE SAVINGS CALCULATIONS
RESIDENTIAL TECHNOLOGIES
Central Air Conditioner
Current typical central air-conditioner (CAC) market
Federal standard as of January 1, 2006 (EPAct) (baseline)
Recommended threshold for credit – ENERGY STAR
Estimated savings credit for a SEER 15 installation
Estimated savings credit per CAC if SEER 14 plus
documented proper sizing, charge, flow through Manual J
and site measurements1
Estimated incremental cost of upgrade from SEER 13 to
SEER 152
Estimated incremental cost of correct sizing, charge and air
flow2
Recommended change in usage calculation1
SEER 11
SEER 13
SEER 14
250 kWh
510 kWh
$122
$244
kWh = ((tons  12,000)/1000) 
(1/SEERbas - 1/SEEReffi) )  FLH
(300*SEER 13) / (SEER for efficient unit)
Recommended credit for proper sizing, charge and air flow1
0%
3
Free-rider rate
18 years
Measure life3
[1] Based on reduction from 3 tons to 2.5 tons, and reduction from 750 load hours to 600 load hours
[2] Based on the LIPA Cool Homes Program.
[3] from Efficiency Vermont Technical Reference Manual
Compact Fluorescent Lamps
Baseline wattage purchased1
Assumed wattage replaced2
Assumed avg hrs/day use3
Estimated annual kWh savings credit
Estimated incremental cost of upgrade
Recommended savings calculation
15
60
3.2
52.5
$7.50
kWh =
(Wattsbas Wattseffi)/
(1000 
HOURS)
6%
6 years
20
75
3.2
64.2
$9.00
kWh =
(Wattsbas Wattseffi)/
(1000 
HOURS)
6%
6 years
25
75
3.2
58.4
$10.00
kWh =
(Wattsbas Wattseffi)/
(1000 
HOURS)
6%
6 years
30
100
3.2
81.7
$12.50
kWh =
(Wattsbas Wattseffi)/
(1000 
HOURS)
6%
6 years
Free-rider rate3
Measure life4
[1] Based on typical CFL wattages
[2] Based on typical lumen equivalent substitutions
[3] from light logger study update to Impact Evaluation of the Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont
2003 Residential Lighting Programs by Nexus Market Research, Inc. and RLW Analytics, Inc., October 1,
2004
[4] based on presumed 6,000 hour lamp life although many lamps have a rated 10,000 hour life
9
Compact Fluorescent Fixtures
Baseline wattage purchased1
Assumed wattage replaced2
Assumed avg hrs/day use3
Estimated annual kWh savings credit
Estimated incremental cost of upgrade
Recommended savings calculation
15
60
2.0
32.8
$35
kWh =
(Wattsbas Wattseffi)/
(1000 
HOURS)
6%
20 years
20
75
2.0
40.1
$35
kWh =
(Wattsbas Wattseffi)/
(1000 
HOURS)
6%
20 years
25
75
2.0
36.5
$35
kWh =
(Wattsbas Wattseffi)/
(1000 
HOURS)
6%
20 years
30
100
2.0
51.1
$35
kWh =
(Wattsbas Wattseffi)/
(1000 
HOURS)
6%
20 years
Free-rider rate3
Measure life4
[1] Based on typical CFL wattages
[2] Based on typical lumen equivalent substitutions
[3] from light logger study update to Impact Evaluation of the Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont
2003 Residential Lighting Programs by Nexus Market Research, Inc. and RLW Analytics, Inc., October 1,
2004
[4] based on presumed 40,000 hour ballast life adjusted for replacements due to remodeling, etc.
Energy Star Clothes Washers
Baseline1
Recommended threshold for credit – ENERGY STAR2
Estimated savings credit3
Estimated incremental cost of upgrade4
Recommended change in usage calculation5
MEF 1.14
MEF 1.73
329 kWh
$270
kWh = ((volume./MEFbas) x 379) ((volume./MEFeffi) x 379)
5%
14
Free-rider rate4
Measure life4
[1] Minimum 1.04 MEF adjusted for average sales MEF
[2] Minimum 1.42 ENERGY STAR MEF adjusted for average ENERGY STAR MEF
[3] Includes estimated weighted average electric water heating and dryer savings
[4] From Efficiency Vermont Technical Reference Manual
[5] Weighted average volume calculated to be 2.9 cu.ft. from AHAM data; weighted average 379 cycles
per year from December 2000 DOE Technical Support Document for Clothes Washers
Energy Star Refrigerators
Baseline1
Recommended threshold for credit – ENERGY STAR2
Estimated savings credit
Estimated incremental cost of upgrade3
Recommended change in usage calculation4
Free-rider rate3
Measure life3
[1] value varies based on adjusted volume
[2] 15% higher efficiency than minimum federal standard
[3] From Efficiency Vermont Technical Reference Manual
[4] assumed typical 5,000 operating hours per year
10
Minimum federal standard
ENERGY STAR standard
85.5 kWh
$30
kWh = (Wattsbas - Wattseffi)/ (1000 
HOURS)
33%
17
Energy Star Dish Washer
Baseline1
Recommended threshold for credit – ENERGY STAR2
Estimated savings credit
Estimated incremental cost of upgrade3
Recommended change in usage calculation4
Minimum federal standard
ENERGY STAR standard
68.6 kWh
$27
kWh = (113.3 x electric water heating
frequency)
0%
13
Free-rider rate3
Measure life3
[1] 0.46 energy factor
[2] 0.58 energy factor
[3] From Efficiency Vermont Technical Reference Manual
[4] assumes typical 264 cycles per year, 0.5 gal reduced water consumption per cycle and 43.6% electric
water heating frequency as cited in Efficiency Vermont Technical Reference Manual
Energy Star Homes
Baseline
Recommended threshold for credit
Estimated savings credit
Estimated incremental cost of upgrade
Recommended change in usage calculation1
Free-rider rate
Measure life
kWh
$
kWh =
Note: Energy Star Homes has been replaced by Energy Star Appliances. The ratings for
Energy Star Homes focus on fossil fuel savings more than electrical savings, so that there
is not direct correlation between a better rating and electrical consumption. With the
addition of the appliances, along with the central air conditioning and CFL lighting, the
majority of a new home’s electrical usage is addressed.
11
COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGIES
<5.4 Ton Unitary/Split HVAC Systems (5 ton example)
Current typical unitary HVAC market
Federal standard as of January 1, 2006 (EPAct) (baseline)
Recommended threshold for credit (CoolChoice)
Estimated savings credit per Unitary HVAC if install
SEER 13
Estimated incremental cost of upgrade from EPAct (SEER
12) to CoolChoice (SEER 13)1
Recommended change in usage calculation2
Free-rider rate
SEER 11
SEER 12
SEER 13
385 kWh
$115/ton
kWh = ((tons  12,000)/1000) 
(1/SEERbas - 1/SEEReffi )  FLH
5%
Measure life
15 years
[1] Based on CoolChoice Program costs = 80% of incremental cost
[2] Based on 1000 annual full load operating hours (FLH), from Optimal Energy
≥5.4 to <11.25 Ton Unitary/Split HVAC Systems (10 ton example)
Baseline (Penn. Code, IECC 2003)
EER 10.1
Recommended threshold for credit (CoolChoice)
EER 11
Estimated savings credit per Unitary HVAC if install EER
972 kWh
11
Estimated incremental cost of upgrade from EPAct (EER
$91/ton
1
10.1) to CoolChoice (EER 11)
kWh = ((tons  12,000)/1000)  (1/EERbas
Recommended change in usage calculation2
- 1/EEReffi )  FLH
Free-rider rate
5%
Measure life
15 years
[1] Based on CoolChoice Program costs = 80% of incremental cost
[2] Based on 1000 annual full load operating hours (FLH), from Optimal Energy
≥11.25 to <20 Ton Unitary/Split HVAC Systems (15 ton example)
Baseline (Penn. Code, IECC 2003)
EER 9.3
Recommended threshold for credit (CoolChoice)
EER 10.8
Estimated savings credit per Unitary HVAC if install EER
2,688 kWh
11
Estimated incremental cost of upgrade from (EER 9.3) to
$99/ton
CoolChoice (EER 10.8)1
kWh = ((tons  12,000)/1000)  (1/EERbas
Recommended change in usage calculation2
- 1/EEReffi )  FLH
Free-rider rate
5%
Measure life
15 years
[1] Based on CoolChoice Program costs = 80% of incremental cost
[2] Based on 1000 annual full load operating hours (FLH), from Optimal Energy
12
≥20 to <30 Ton Unitary/Split HVAC Systems (25 ton example)
Baseline (Penn. Code, IECC 2003)
EER 9.0
Recommended threshold for credit (CoolChoice)
EER 10.0
Estimated savings credit per Unitary HVAC if install EER
3,333 kWh
10
Estimated incremental cost of upgrade from (EER 9.0) to
$99/ton
CoolChoice (EER 10.0)1
kWh = ((tons  12,000)/1000)  (1/EERbas
Recommended change in usage calculation2
- 1/EEReffi )  FLH
Free-rider rate
5%
Measure life
15 years
[1] Based on CoolChoice Program costs = 80% of incremental cost
[2] Based on 1000 annual full load operating hours (FLH), from Optimal Energy
<5.4 Ton Air-to-Air Heat Pump Systems (5 ton example)
Current typical unitary HVAC market
Federal standard as of January 1, 2006 (EPAct) (baseline)
Recommended threshold for credit (CoolChoice)
Estimated savings credit per Unitary HVAC if install
SEER 13
Estimated incremental cost of upgrade from EPAct (SEER
12) to CoolChoice (SEER 13)1
Recommended change in usage calculation2
Free-rider rate
Measure life
SEER 11
SEER 12
HSPF 6.8
SEER 13
HSPF 7.8
385 kWh cooling
1,821 kWh heating
$115/ton
kWhcool = ((tons  12,000)/1000) 
(1/SEERbas - 1/SEEReffi )  FLHcool
kWhheat = ((tons  12,000)/1000) 
(1/HSPFbas - 1/HSPFeffi )  FLHheat
5%
15 years
[1] Based on CoolChoice Program costs = 80% of incremental cost
[2] Based on 1000 annual cooling full load operating hours (FLH) and 1610 heating FLH, from Optimal
Energy
≥5.4 to <11.25 Ton Air-to-Air Heat Pump Systems
Baseline (Penn. Code, IECC 2003)
Recommended threshold for credit (CoolChoice)
Estimated savings credit per Unitary HVAC if install EER
11
Estimated incremental cost of upgrade from EPAct (EER
10.1) to CoolChoice (EER 11)1
Recommended change in usage calculation2
(10 ton example)
EER 10.1
EER 11
972 kWh cooling
1,137 kWh heating
$91/ton
kWhcool = ((tons  12,000)/1000) 
(1/EERbas - 1/EEReffi )  FLHcool
kWhheat = ((tons  12,000)/1000) 
(1/EERbas - 1/EEReffi )  FLHheat
Free-rider rate
5%
Measure life
15 years
[1] Based on CoolChoice Program costs = 80% of incremental cost
[2] Based on 1000 annual cooling full load operating hours (FLH) and 1170 heating FLH, from Optimal
Energy
13
≥11.25 to <20 Ton Air-to-Air Heat Pump Systems
Baseline (Penn. Code, IECC 2003)
Recommended threshold for credit (CoolChoice)
Estimated savings credit per Unitary HVAC if install EER
11
Estimated incremental cost of upgrade from (EER 9.3) to
CoolChoice (EER 10.8)1
Recommended change in usage calculation2
(15 ton example)
EER 9.3
EER 10.8
2,688 kWh cooling
3,145 kWh heating
$99/ton
kWhcool = ((tons  12,000)/1000) 
(1/EERbas - 1/EEReffi )  FLHcool
kWhheat = ((tons  12,000)/1000) 
(1/EERbas - 1/EEReffi )  FLHheat
Free-rider rate
5%
Measure life
15 years
[1] Based on CoolChoice Program costs = 80% of incremental cost
[2] Based on 1000 annual cooling full load operating hours (FLH) and 1170 heating FLH, from Optimal
Energy
≥20 to <30 Ton Air-to-Air Heat Pump Systems
Baseline (Penn. Code, IECC 2003)
Recommended threshold for credit (CoolChoice)
Estimated savings credit per Unitary HVAC if install EER
10
Estimated incremental cost of upgrade from (EER 9.0) to
CoolChoice (EER 10.0)1
Recommended change in usage calculation2
(25 ton example)
EER 9.0
EER 10.0
3,333 kWh cooling
3,900 kWh heating
$99/ton
kWhcool = ((tons  12,000)/1000) 
(1/EERbas - 1/EEReffi )  FLHcool
kWhheat = ((tons  12,000)/1000) 
(1/EERbas - 1/EEReffi )  FLHheat
Free-rider rate
5%
Measure life
15 years
[1] Based on CoolChoice Program costs = 80% of incremental cost
[2] Based on 1000 annual cooling full load operating hours (FLH) and 1170 heating FLH, from Optimal
Energy
≤30 Ton Water Source Heat Pumps (10 ton example)
Baseline (Penn. Code, IECC 2003)
Recommended threshold for credit (CoolChoice)
Estimated savings credit per Unitary HVAC if install EER
Estimated incremental cost of upgrade from (EER 12.0) to
CoolChoice (EER 14.0)1
Recommended change in usage calculation2
EER 12.0
EER 14.0
2,857 kWh cooling
4,700 kWh heating
$101/ton
kWhcool = ((tons  12,000)/1000) 
(1/EERbas - 1/EEReffi )  FLHcool
kWhheat = ((tons  12,000)/1000) 
(1/EERbas - 1/EEReffi )  FLHheat
Free-rider rate
5%
Measure life
15 years
[1] Based on CoolChoice Program costs = 80% of incremental cost
[2] Based on 1000 annual cooling full load operating hours (FLH) and 1645 heating FLH, from Optimal
Energy
14
≤150 Ton Air Cooled Chiller (100 ton example)
Baseline (Penn. Code, IECC 2003)
9.6 EER
Recommended threshold for credit
10.2 EER
Estimated savings credit per chiller for 10.2 EER
8,824 kWh
Estimated incremental cost of upgrade
$40/ton
2
kWh = ((tons  12,000)/1000)  (1/EERbas
Recommended change in usage calculation
- 1/EEReffi )  FLH
Free-rider rate
5%
Measure life
25 years
[1] Optimal Energy estimate from proprietary data
[2] Based on 1200 annual full load operating hours (FLH), from Optimal Energy
>150 to <300 Ton Air Cooled Chiller (200 ton
Baseline (Penn. Code, IECC 2003)
Recommended threshold for credit
Estimated savings credit per chiller for 10.2 EER
Estimated incremental cost of upgrade
Recommended change in usage calculation2
example)
8.5 EER
10.2 EER
55,180 kWh
$27/ton
kWh = ((tons  12,000)/1000)  (1/EERbas
- 1/EEReffi )  FLH
5%
25 years
Free-rider rate
Measure life
[1] Optimal Energy estimate from proprietary data
[2] Based on 1200 annual full load operating hours (FLH), from Optimal Energy
>30 to <70 Ton Water Cooled Chiller (50
Baseline (Penn. Code, IECC 2003)
Recommended threshold for credit
Estimated savings credit per chiller for 0.75 kW/ton
Estimated incremental cost of upgrade
Recommended change in usage calculation2
ton example)
0.79 peak kW/ton
0.75 peak kW/ton
2,407 kWh
$33/ton
kWh = (tons  (kW/tonbas – kW/toneffi) 
FLH
5%
25 years
Free-rider rate
Measure life
[1] Optimal Energy estimate from proprietary data
[2] Based on 1200 annual full load operating hours (FLH), from Optimal Energy
>70 to <150 Ton Water Cooled Positive Displacement Chiller (100 ton example)
Baseline (Penn. Code, IECC 2003)
0.84 peak kW/ton
Recommended threshold for credit
0.74 peak kW/ton
Estimated savings credit per chiller for 0.74 kW/ton
11,657 kWh
Estimated incremental cost of upgrade
$33/ton
kWh = ((tons  (kW/tonbas – kW/toneffi) 
Recommended change in usage calculation2
FLH
Free-rider rate
5%
Measure life
25 years
[1] Optimal Energy estimate from proprietary data
[2] Based on 1200 annual full load operating hours (FLH), from Optimal Energy
15
>70 to <150 Ton Water Cooled Centrifugal
Baseline (Penn. Code, IECC 2003)
Recommended threshold for credit
Estimated savings credit per chiller for 0.65 kW/ton
Estimated incremental cost of upgrade
Recommended change in usage calculation2
Chiller (100 ton example)
0.70 peak kW/ton
0.65 peak kW/ton
6,384 kWh
$33/ton
kWh = ((tons  (kW/tonbas – kW/toneffi) 
FLH
5%
25 years
Free-rider rate
Measure life
[1] Optimal Energy estimate from proprietary data
[2] Based on 1200 annual full load operating hours (FLH), from Optimal Energy
>150 to <300 Ton Water Cooled Centrifugal
Baseline (Penn. Code, IECC 2003)
Recommended threshold for credit
Estimated savings credit per chiller for 0.51 kW/ton
Estimated incremental cost of upgrade
Recommended change in usage calculation2
Chiller (200 ton example)
0.63 IPLV kW/ton
0.51 IPLV kW/ton
29,643 kWh
$27/ton
kWh = ((tons  (kW/tonbas – kW/toneffi) 
FLH
5%
25 years
Free-rider rate
Measure life
[1] Optimal Energy estimate from proprietary data
[2] Based on 1200 annual full load operating hours (FLH), from Optimal Energy
>150 to <300 Ton Water Cooled Screw Chiller
Baseline (Penn. Code, IECC 2003)
Recommended threshold for credit
Estimated savings credit per chiller for 0.51 kW/ton
Estimated incremental cost of upgrade
Recommended change in usage calculation2
(200 ton example)
0.71 IPLV kW/ton
0.51 IPLV kW/ton
48,073 kWh
$27/ton
kWh = ((tons  (kW/tonbas – kW/toneffi) 
FLH
5%
25 years
Free-rider rate
Measure life
[1] Optimal Energy estimate from proprietary data
[2] Based on 1200 annual full load operating hours (FLH), from Optimal Energy
>300 to ≤1000 Ton Water Cooled Chiller (500 ton example)
Baseline (Penn. Code, IECC 2003)
0.58 IPLV kW/ton
Recommended threshold for credit
0.51 IPLV kW/ton
Estimated savings credit per chiller for 0.51 kW/ton
39,836 kWh
Estimated incremental cost of upgrade
$8/ton
kWh = ((tons  (kW/tonbas – kW/toneffi) 
Recommended change in usage calculation2
FLH
Free-rider rate
5%
Measure life
25 years
[1] Optimal Energy estimate from proprietary data
[2] Based on 1200 annual full load operating hours (FLH), from Optimal Energy
16
Motor 1200 RPM, Open Drip Proof (ODP), (1 HP example)
Current typical motor market
Federal standard as of January 1, 2006 (EPAct)
(baseline)1
Recommended threshold for credit
Estimated savings credit per motor if install
MotorUp minimum
Estimated incremental cost of upgrade from EPAct
(80.0%) to MotorUp (82.5%)2
Recommended change in usage calculation3
80.0%
80.0%
82.5%
95 kWh
$69
kWh = (kWbase – kWeffic)  HOURS
kW = HP  0.746  (1/efficiency)  LF
Free-rider rate
10%
Measure life
15 years
[1] See the tables by motor type, speed and HP of baseline efficiencies, minimum qualifying efficiencies,
and incremental costs that follow these examples.
[2] Based on MotorUp Program incentive costs = 65% of incremental cost
[3] Based on 4,500 annual operating hours; LF = default load factor of 0.75, from Efficiency Vermont 2004
Technical Reference Manual
Motor 1800 RPM, Open Drip Proof (ODP), (10 HP example)
Current typical motor market
Federal standard as of January 1, 2006 (EPAct)
(baseline)1
Recommended threshold for credit
Estimated savings credit per motor if install
MotorUp minimum
Estimated incremental cost of upgrade from EPAct
(89.5%) to MotorUp (91.7%)2
Recommended change in usage calculation3
89.5%
89.5%
91.7%
675 kWh
$138
kWh = (kWbase – kWeffic)  HOURS
kW = HP  0.746  (1/efficiency)  LF
Free-rider rate
10%
Measure life
15 years
[1] See the tables by motor type, speed and HP of baseline efficiencies, minimum qualifying efficiencies,
and incremental costs that follow these examples.
[2] Based on MotorUp Program incentive costs = 65% of incremental cost
[3] Based on 4,500 annual operating hours; LF = default load factor of 0.75, from Efficiency Vermont 2004
Technical Reference Manual
17
Motor 3600 RPM, Open Drip Proof (ODP), (100 HP example)
Current typical motor market
Federal standard as of January 1, 2006 (EPAct)
(baseline)1
Recommended threshold for credit
Estimated savings credit per motor if install
MotorUp minimum
Estimated incremental cost of upgrade from EPAct
(93.0%) to MotorUp (95.0%)2
Recommended change in usage calculation3
93.0%
93.0%
95.0%
5,699 kWh
$554
kWh = (kWbase – kWeffic)  HOURS
kW = HP  0.746  (1/efficiency)  LF
Free-rider rate
10%
Measure life
15 years
[1] See the tables by motor type, speed and HP of baseline efficiencies, minimum qualifying efficiencies,
and incremental costs that follow these examples.
[2] Based on MotorUp Program incentive costs = 65% of incremental cost
[3] Based on 4,500 annual operating hours; LF = default load factor of 0.75, from Efficiency Vermont 2004
Technical Reference Manual
Motor 1200 RPM, Totally Enclosed Fan Cooled (TEFC), (1 HP example)
Current typical motor market
Federal standard as of January 1, 2006 (EPAct)
(baseline)1
Recommended threshold for credit
Estimated savings credit per motor if install
MotorUp minimum
Estimated incremental cost of upgrade from EPAct
(80.0%) to MotorUp (82.5%)2
Recommended change in usage calculation3
80%
80%
82.5%
95 kWh
$77
kWh = (kWbase – kWeffic)  HOURS
kW = HP  0.746  (1/efficiency)  LF
Free-rider rate
10%
Measure life
15 years
[1] See the tables by motor type, speed and HP of baseline efficiencies, minimum qualifying efficiencies,
and incremental costs that follow these examples.
[2] Based on MotorUp Program incentive costs = 65% of incremental cost
[3] Based on 4,500 annual operating hours; LF = default load factor of 0.75, from Efficiency Vermont 2004
Technical Reference Manual
18
Motor 1800 RPM, Totally Enclosed Fan Cooled (TEFC), (10 HP example)
Current typical motor market
Federal standard as of January 1, 2006 (EPAct)
(baseline)1
Recommended threshold for credit
Estimated savings credit per motor if install
MotorUp minimum
Estimated incremental cost of upgrade from EPAct
(89.5%) to MotorUp (91.7%)2
Recommended change in usage calculation3
89.5%
89.5%
91.7%
675 kWh
$154
kWh = (kWbase – kWeffic)  HOURS
kW = HP  0.746  (1/efficiency)  LF
Free-rider rate
10%
Measure life
15 years
[1] See the tables by motor type, speed and HP of baseline efficiencies, minimum qualifying efficiencies,
and incremental costs that follow these examples.
[2] Based on MotorUp Program incentive costs = 65% of incremental cost
[3] Based on 4,500 annual operating hours; LF = default load factor of 0.75, from Efficiency Vermont 2004
Technical Reference Manual
Motor 3600 RPM, Totally Enclosed Fan Cooled (TEFC), (100 HP example)
Current typical motor market
Federal standard as of January 1, 2006 (EPAct)
(baseline)1
Recommended threshold for credit
Estimated savings credit per motor if install
MotorUp minimum
Estimated incremental cost of upgrade from EPAct
(93.6%) to MotorUp (95.4%)2
Recommended change in usage calculation3
93.6%
93.6%
95.4%
5,075 kWh
$615
kWh = (kWbase – kWeffic)  HOURS
kW = HP  0.746  (1/efficiency)  LF
Free-rider rate
10%
Measure life
15 years
[1] See the tables by motor type, speed and HP of baseline efficiencies, minimum qualifying efficiencies,
and incremental costs that follow these examples.
[2] Based on MotorUp Program incentive costs = 65% of incremental cost
[3] Based on 4,500 annual operating hours; LF = default load factor of 0.75, from Efficiency Vermont 2004
Technical Reference Manual
19
Motor Baseline Efficiencies Table
Open Drip Proof (ODP)
Speed (RPM)
Size HP
1
1.5
2
3
5
7.5
10
15
20
25
30
40
50
60
75
100
125
150
200
Totally Enclosed Fan-Cooled
(TEFC)
Speed (RPM)
1200
1800
3600
1200
1800
3600
80.0%
84.0%
85.5%
86.5%
87.5%
88.5%
90.2%
90.2%
91.0%
91.7%
92.4%
93.0%
93.0%
93.6%
93.6%
94.1%
94.1%
94.5%
94.5%
82.5%
84.0%
84.0%
86.5%
87.5%
88.5%
89.5%
91.0%
91.0%
91.7%
92.4%
93.0%
93.0%
93.6%
94.1%
94.1%
94.5%
95.0%
95.0%
75.5%
82.5%
84.0%
84.0%
85.5%
87.5%
88.5%
89.5%
90.2%
91.0%
91.0%
91.7%
92.4%
93.0%
93.0%
93.0%
93.6%
93.6%
94.5%
80.0%
85.5%
86.5%
87.5%
87.5%
89.5%
89.5%
90.2%
90.2%
91.7%
91.7%
93.0%
93.0%
93.6%
93.6%
94.1%
94.1%
95.0%
95.0%
82.5%
84.0%
84.0%
87.5%
87.5%
89.5%
89.5%
91.0%
91.0%
92.4%
92.4%
93.0%
93.0%
93.6%
94.1%
94.5%
94.5%
95.0%
95.0%
75.5%
82.5%
84.0%
85.5%
87.5%
88.5%
89.5%
90.2%
90.2%
91.0%
91.0%
91.7%
92.4%
93.0%
93.0%
93.6%
94.5%
94.5%
95.0%
20
Motor Minimum Qualifying Efficiencies Table
Open Drip Proof (ODP)
Totally Enclosed Fan-Cooled
(TEFC)
Speed (RPM)
Speed (RPM)
Size HP
1
1.5
2
3
5
7.5
10
15
20
25
30
40
50
60
75
100
125
150
200
1200
1800
3600
1200
1800
3600
82.5%
86.5%
87.5%
88.5%
89.5%
90.2%
91.7%
91.7%
92.4%
93.0%
93.6%
94.1%
94.1%
94.5%
94.5%
95.0%
95.0%
95.4%
95.4%
85.5
86.5%
86.5%
89.5%
89.5%
91.0%
91.7%
93.0%
93.0%
93.6%
94.1%
94.1%
94.5%
95.0%
95.0%
95.4%
95.4%
95.8%
95.8%
77.0
84.0%
85.5%
88.5%
86.5%
88.5%
89.5%
90.2%
91.0%
91.7%
91.7%
92.4%
93.0%
93.6%
93.6%
93.6%
94.1%
94.1%
95.0%
82.5%
87.5%
88.5%
89.5%
89.5%
91.0%
91.0%
91.7%
91.7%
93.0%
93.0%
94.1%
94.1%
94.5%
95.5%
95.0%
95.0%
95.8%
95.8%
85.5%
86.5%
86.5%
89.5%
89.8%
91.7%
91.7%
92.4%
93.0%
93.6%
93.6%
94.1%
94.5%
95.0%
95.4%
95.4%
95.4%
95.8%
96.2%
77.0%
84.0%
85.5%
86.5%
88.5%
89.5%
90.2%
91.0%
91.0%
91.7%
91.7%
92.4%
93.0%
93.6%
93.6%
94.1%
95.0%
95.0%
95.4%
21
Motor Incremental Cost Table
Open DripTotally Enclosed
Proof (ODP)
Fan-Cooled
Size
(TEFC)
HP
Incremental
Incremental Cost
Cost
1
$69
$77
1.5
$69
$77
2
$83
$92
3
$83
$92
5
$83
$92
7.5
$125
$138
10
$138
$154
15
$160
$177
20
$174
$192
25
$180
$200
30
$208
$231
40
$249
$277
50
$305
$338
60
$360
$400
75
$415
$462
100
$554
$615
125
$831
$923
150
$969
$1,077
200
$1,454
$1,077
22
Commercial Lighting - New Construction 20% Lighting Power Density (LPD)
Reduction (20,000 sq. ft. Office Building example)
Current typical new construction lighting market
LPD – PA Energy Code (baseline)
Assumed PA Energy Code upgrade as of April 1,
2007
Recommended threshold for credit
2003 IECC (ASHRAE/IESNA 90.1-2001)
2006 IECC (ASHRAE/IESNA 90.1-2004)
Estimated savings credit if installed LPD is 20%
less than PA energy code, plus site inspection
documents installed LPD
Estimated incremental cost of upgrade to achieve
LPD 20% < PA Energy Code – 2003 IECC
(ASHRAE/IESNA 90.1-2001)1
Recommended change in usage calculation2
$3,200 @ $0.80/sq. ft. per Watts/sq. ft. reduction
Lighting Power Density (LPD) 20% <
2003 IECC (ASHRAE/IESNA 90.1-2001)
15,828 kWh (1.0 W/sq. ft. baseline)
kWh = ((W/sq. ft.base – W/sq. ft.effic)/1000) 
HOURS  WHF
Free-rider rate
2%
Measure life
20 years
[1] $80/sq. ft. cost from professional judgment and based on review of cost studies.
[2] Based on 3,435 annual operating hours, From Efficiency Vermont 2004 Technical Reference Manual
(see table of default lighting hours by building type below)
WHF = Waste heat factor for energy to account for cooling savings from efficient lighting. For a cooled
space, the value is 1.15 (calculated as 1 + 0.38 / 2.5). Based on 0.29 ASHRAE Lighting waste heat cooling
factor for Pittsburgh and 2.5 C.O.P. typical cooling system efficiency. For an uncooled space, the value is
one. The default for this measure is a cooled space.
Factor from “Calculating lighting and HVAC interactions”, Table 1, ASHRAE Journal November 1993.
Commercial Lighting - New Construction 20% Lighting Power Density (LPD)
Reduction (50,000 sq. ft. Retail example)
Current typical new construction lighting market
LPD – PA Energy Code (baseline)
Assumed PA Energy Code upgrade as of April 1,
2007
Recommended threshold for credit
2003 IECC (ASHRAE/IESNA 90.1-2001)
2006 IECC (ASHRAE/IESNA 90.1-2004)
Estimated savings credit if installed LPD is 20%
less than PA energy code, plus site inspection
documents installed LPD
Estimated incremental cost of upgrade to achieve
LPD 20% < PA Energy Code – 2003 IECC
(ASHRAE/IESNA 90.1-2001)1
Recommended change in usage calculation2
$12,000 @ $0.80/sq. ft. per Watts/sq. ft. reduction
Lighting Power Density (LPD) 20% <
2003 IECC (ASHRAE/IESNA 90.1-2001)
52,923 kWh (1.5 W/sq. ft. baseline)
kWh = ((W/sq. ft.base – W/sq. ft.effic)/1000) 
HOURS  WHF
Free-rider rate
2%
Measure life
20 years
[1] $80/sq. ft. cost from professional judgment and based on review of cost studies.
[2] Based on 3,068 annual operating hours, From Efficiency Vermont 2004 Technical Reference Manual.
(see table of default lighting hours by building type below)
WHF = Waste heat factor for energy to account for cooling savings from efficient lighting. For a cooled
space, the value is 1.15 (calculated as 1 + 0.38 / 2.5). Based on 0.29 ASHRAE Lighting waste heat cooling
factor for Pittsburgh and 2.5 C.O.P. typical cooling system efficiency. For an uncooled space, the value is
one. The default for this measure is a cooled space.
Factor from “Calculating lighting and HVAC interactions”, Table 1, ASHRAE Journal November 1993.
23
Interior Lighting Operating Hours by Building Type
Building Type
Office
Restaurant
Retail
Grocery/Supermarket
Warehouse
Elemen./Second. School
College
Health
Hospital
Hotel/Motel
Manufacturing
Annual Hours
3,435
4,156
3,068
4,612
2,388
2,080
5,010
3,392
4,532
2,697
5,913
Source: From Impact Evaluation of Orange & Rockland’s Small Commercial Lighting Program,
1993.
Commercial Lighting – Existing Buildings 4-Lamp Fluorescent Lighting Fixture
(Office Building example)
Current typical existing lighting market (baseline)
Federal standard as of January 1, 2006
Recommended threshold for credit
Estimated savings credit for installing High
Performance (Super) T8 Lamp/Low Power Ballast
System
Estimated incremental cost of upgrade from
Standard T8 System to High Performance (Super)
T8 System1
Recommended change in usage calculation2
Standard T8 Lamp/Ballast System
Energy Savings T12 (34 Watt) Lamps and
Energy Efficient Magnetic Ballast
High Performance (Super) T8 Lamp/Low Power
Ballast System
79 kWh (per fixture)
$28 (per fixture)
kWh = ((Wattsbase – Wattseffic)/1000)  HOURS
 WHF
Free-rider rate
0%
Measure life
15 years
[1] From Efficiency Vermont 2004 Technical Reference Manual
[2] Based on 3,435 annual operating hours, Efficiency Vermont 2004 Technical Reference Manual. (see
table of default lighting hours by building type above)
WHF= Waste heat factor for energy to account for cooling savings from efficient lighting. For indoors, the
value is 1.15 (calculated as 1 + 0.38 / 2.5). Based on 0.38 ASHRAE Lighting waste heat cooling factor for
Pittsburgh and 2.5 C.O.P. typical cooling system efficiency. For outdoors, the value is one.
Factor from “Calculating lighting and HVAC interactions”, Table 1, ASHRAE Journal November 1993
24
Commercial Lighting – Existing Buildings 3-Lamp Fluorescent Lighting Fixture
(Office Building example)
Current typical existing lighting market (baseline)
Federal standard as of January 1, 2006
Recommended threshold for credit
Estimated savings credit for installing High
Performance (Super) T8 Lamp/Low Power Ballast
System
Estimated incremental cost of upgrade from
Standard T8 System to High Performance (Super)
T8 System1
Recommended change in usage calculation2
Standard T8 Lamp/Ballast System
Energy Savings T12 (34 Watt) Lamps and
Energy Efficient Magnetic Ballast
High Performance (Super) T8 Lamp/Low Power
Ballast System
63 kWh (per fixture)
$25 (per fixture)
kWh = ((Wattsbase – Wattseffic)/1000)  HOURS
 WHF
Free-rider rate
0%
Measure life
15 years
[1] From Efficiency Vermont 2004 Technical Reference Manual
[2] Based on 3,435 annual operating hours, Efficiency Vermont 2004 Technical Reference Manual. (see
table of default lighting hours by building type above)
WHF= Waste heat factor for energy to account for cooling savings from efficient lighting. For indoors, the
value is 1.15 (calculated as 1 + 0.38 / 2.5). Based on 0.38 ASHRAE Lighting waste heat cooling factor for
Pittsburgh and 2.5 C.O.P. typical cooling system efficiency. For outdoors, the value is one.
Factor from “Calculating lighting and HVAC interactions”, Table 1, ASHRAE Journal November 1993
Commercial Lighting – Existing Buildings 2-Lamp Fluorescent Lighting Fixture
(Office Building example)
Current typical existing lighting market (baseline)
Federal standard as of January 1, 2006
Recommended threshold for credit
Estimated savings credit for installing High
Performance (Super) T8 Lamp/Low Power Ballast
System
Estimated incremental cost of upgrade from
Standard T8 System to High Performance (Super)
T8 System1
Recommended change in usage calculation2
Standard T8 Lamp/Ballast System
Energy Savings T12 (34 Watt) Lamps and
Energy Efficient Magnetic Ballast
High Performance (Super) T8 Lamp/Low Power
Ballast System
40 kWh (per fixture)
$23 (per fixture)
kWh = ((Wattsbase – Wattseffic)/1000)  HOURS
 WHF
Free-rider rate
0%
Measure life
15 years
[1] From Efficiency Vermont 2004 Technical Reference Manual
[2] Based on 3,435 annual operating hours, Efficiency Vermont 2004 Technical Reference Manual. (see
table of default lighting hours by building type above)
WHF= Waste heat factor for energy to account for cooling savings from efficient lighting. For indoors, the
value is 1.15 (calculated as 1 + 0.38 / 2.5). Based on 0.38 ASHRAE Lighting waste heat cooling factor for
Pittsburgh and 2.5 C.O.P. typical cooling system efficiency. For outdoors, the value is one.
Factor from “Calculating lighting and HVAC interactions”, Table 1, ASHRAE Journal November 1993
Note: This is an example of one fixture. Additional examples will be developed for 1, 2, and 3-lamp
fixtures.
25
Commercial Lighting – Existing Buildings 1-Lamp Fluorescent Lighting Fixture
(Office Building example)
Current typical existing lighting market (baseline)
Federal standard as of January 1, 2006
Recommended threshold for credit
Estimated savings credit for installing High
Performance (Super) T8 Lamp/Low Power Ballast
System
Estimated incremental cost of upgrade from
Standard T8 System to High Performance (Super)
T8 System1
Recommended change in usage calculation2
Standard T8 Lamp/Ballast System
Energy Savings T12 (34 Watt) Lamps and
Energy Efficient Magnetic Ballast
High Performance (Super) T8 Lamp/Low Power
Ballast System
28 kWh (per fixture)
$20 (per fixture)
kWh = ((Wattsbase – Wattseffic)/1000)  HOURS
 WHF
Free-rider rate
0%
Measure life
15 years
[1] From Efficiency Vermont 2004 Technical Reference Manual
[2] Based on 3,435 annual operating hours, Efficiency Vermont 2004 Technical Reference Manual. (see
table of default lighting hours by building type above)
WHF= Waste heat factor for energy to account for cooling savings from efficient lighting. For indoors, the
value is 1.15 (calculated as 1 + 0.38 / 2.5). Based on 0.38 ASHRAE Lighting waste heat cooling factor for
Pittsburgh and 2.5 C.O.P. typical cooling system efficiency. For outdoors, the value is one.
Factor from “Calculating lighting and HVAC interactions”, Table 1, ASHRAE Journal November 1993
Note: This is an example of one fixture. Additional examples will be developed for 1, 2, and 3-lamp
fixtures.
26