U.S. and Canadian Efforts
to Phase-out
Inefficient Incandescent Light
Bulbs
Presented at Phase-out 2008 Meeting in Shanghai
By: Noah Horowitz
Senior Scientist
NRDC
[email protected]
Acknowledgements
Thanks to:
• Ecos Consulting
• Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E)
• Natural Resources Canada (NRCan)
Outline
• Background – how/why did it happen?
• Goals
• Scope
• Structure
• Stringency
• Dates
• Lessons Learned
US and Canadian Background
• California Energy Commission adopts first MEPS for general
service lamps (proposed by PG&E) in 2004.
• Philips issues “call to action” to phase-out incandescent light
bulbs in March 2007.
• Lots of interest by US states and Canadian provinces in
setting local regulations ( eg. “ban” incandescents; cut
lighting energy use by x%; or establish minimum
Lumen/Watt levels)
• April 2007- Minister of Natural Resources Canada,
announced that Canada would phase out inefficient
incandescent lamps by the year 2012.
Policy Shift
• Final policies moved from simple “bans” and headlines to
establishing:
–PERFORMANCE-BASED,
TECHNOLOGY NEUTRAL
STANDARDS
• Would allow sale of any technology -- incandescent,
halogen, CFL, LED -- as long as it met the efficiency
requirements
What is really the goal?
• Set an Initial Floor - Remove inexpensive inefficient lamps
from the market Î would lead to greater CFL sales, and
also help pull next generation incandescent/halogen
products to the market.
OR
• Go straight to CFL or better?
Scope/Definitions
• What is being regulated?
– Just screw-based general service lamps?
– What lumen range?
– Reflectors/directional lighting in or out?
• What is initially exempt or handled differently?
– Modified spectrum
– 3-ways
– Vibration resistant, etc.
Scope – how to structure regulations?
• How to structure the regulations:
–All screw based bulbs?
OR
–Create a very specific list of lamp shapes that are
included. Example: All those not on the list would be
exempt. (eg. Only regulate A-15, A-19, A-21, A-23, A-25,
PS-25, PS-30, BT-14.5, BT-15, CP-19, TB-19, CA-22, or
equivalent shape as defined in ANSI C78.20-2003)
Problem with list of lamp shapes
• Creating a limited list of lamp shapes that would be
regulated creates huge opportunities for loopholes.
• To escape regulation, manufacturer would simply need to
create a new slightly different lamp cover/shape.
• This has happened in the past in the US and resulted in lots
of lost energy savings.
Bulged Reflector (BR) Lamps
Exempted from EPAct
1992 because it has a
slightly different
geometry but now
represents more than
50% of residential
reflector lamp sales.
What about “specialty” lamps?
• Create exemptions and/or set less stringent requirements for
lamps that are truly “niche” products or have very unique
performance needs. Examples:
–Appliance lamps, marine lights, bug lights
–One solution is to cap certain niche lamps at 40W to
minimize sales growth/lost savings
–In almost all cases, lamp shape does not prevent moving
towards the more efficient option. Same thing with
“shatter resistant” lamps.
Globe (G) Lamps – not deserving of special
treatment
Globe lamps were initially
not covered by proposed
US standard but can fit in
many general service
fixtures. Also same light
source, just round cover.
Multipack are also much
less expensive than single
packs.
Again beware exemptions
• US industry wanted to exempt “vibration service”, “vibration
resistant” lamps
• Claim was they cost a lot more to make and are a specialty
product.
• If exempted, their sales could quickly increase as they would
be one of the remaining incandescents available for
purchase and likely cost less than the alternatives.
Inefficient “Vibration Service” Lamps –
already on sale for 25 cents in a multi-pack
(Note:
10 LPW, less efficient than today’s regular
incandescent)
Modified/Full Spectrum Lamps
• Glass globes contain neodymium or are coated with
neodymium glass frit to filter out yellow.
• These lamps are sold for perceived aesthetic reasons rather
than health benefits (though some dubious health benefits
are claimed for “full spectrum” lamps)
• No reason to exempt these bulbs from a standard. If you
do, it will become the new “default” incandescent, and worse
yet, they tend to be 10 - >20% less efficient than today’s
incandescents.
Modified Spectrum Products Are Promoted in
US as Replacements for Standard Bulbs
• In recent months, we have
observed lower prices for
modified spectrum
products at the same time
that these lamps are being
displayed more
prominently and in greater
numbers on store shelves.
Structure of the Various Proposed Standards
• Simple lumen per watt level – Nevada set a simple 25
lumen/watt limit for all bulbs
• Create lumen “bins” and establish maximum allowable
power levels
• Establish a curve that sets minimum efficacy requirements
(LPW) as a function of light output (Lumens)
What Did the US Do?
• After extensive negotiations and politics, light bulb efficiency
standards were set for general service light bulbs as part of
Dec 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA)
• Standards regulate screw based lamps and provides
exemptions for certain specialty lamps.
• Reflectors to be regulated separately.
The US Standard
Set in Two Phases:
Tier 1
– Established “lumen bins” and requires 25%-30% power savings
from today’s incandescents
– Staggered effective dates 1/2012-1/2014
Tier 2
– At least 45 lumens/watt
– Effective date 1/1/2020
– Final levels to be determined by DOE rulemaking to be
completed by 1/1/2017
Tier I
Rated
Lumens
Maximum
Wattage
Effective Date
1490-2600
72
1/1/2012
1050-1489
53
1/1/2013
750-1049
43
1/1/2014
310-749
29
1/1/2014
In Simple Words
Today’s Bulbs
Î
After the
Standard
100 W
≤ 72 W
75 W
≤ 53 W
60 W
≤ 43 W
40 W
≤ 29 W
Also Lamps must have:
a) Minimum rated life 1,000
hours
b) CRI ≥ 80
Tier I – Modified Spectrum Bulbs
Much Weaker standard -lumen bins are 25% lower
Rated
Lumens
Maximum
Wattage
Effective Date
1118 -1950
72
1/1/2012
788 -1117
53
1/1/2013
563 - 787
43
1/1/2014
232 -562
29
1/1/2014
The Plan
1.
2.
3.
4.
Remove low cost, inefficient bulbs from the market
(today’s 25 cent incandescent)
With the very inexpensive lamp gone due to Tier 1, CFL
sales should increase
New “improved” incandescent and halogen lamps
expected to enter the market
Tier 2 – CFL or better. LEDs expected to be ready.
Would also allow future “super incandescents” to qualify
Quality Issues
• With exception of minimum life and CRI, other quality related
issues not addressed, like:
– Start time
– Lumen Depreciation/Maintenance
– Color temperature
– Mercury
– Power factor
Estimated Impacts
• Roughly 4 billion US screw based sockets
• If all bulbs shifted to CFL or better due to standard :
– Prevent >100 million tons of CO2/yr
– Save more than $10 billion/yr
– Eliminate the need for > 30 large (500 MW) power plants
Canada Update
• Canada in the process of finalizing its light bulb
standard
• Canada’s proposal awaiting final approval for
pre-publication (75 days) in the Canada
Gazette Part I (www.canadagazette.gc.ca)
• Proposed Effective Dates:
–701-3000 lumens : 1/1/2012
–200-700 Lumens : 12/31/2012
• Stated intent for follow-on rule making to create
Tier 2 standard
Proposed Efficacy Equations
• Establishes two minimum efficacy equations:
– All bulbs: lamp efficacy ≥ 4.0357 × ln(lumen) – 7.1345
– Modified spectrum bulbs: lamp efficacy ≥ 4.0357 × ln(lumen) –
8.3345
• All bulbs must be:
Rated life >1,000 hrs; CRI >0.80
Estimated Impacts of Proposed Canadian
Standard
Approximately 310 million residential sockets in Canada
Comparison of US and Proposed Canadian
Standards – Many similarities/a few key
differences
•
•
•
Approach – Canada sets minimum efficacy reqts. via
performance curve (LPW vs. L); US creates lumen bins
and sets wattage caps
Modified spectrum – Canada sets tougher standard than
US. Roughly 10% weaker as opposed to 25% in US
Tier 2 - US includes Tier 2 standard (min 45 LPW),
translates to 60% energy savings. Canada states intent
to set future Tier 2
US/Canada Comparison
• Scope – Canada 200- 3000 Lumens; US 310 – 2600
Lumens
• Dates – Canada is faster. Two years earlier for 60W
replacements, which is roughly 50% of the market
Canadian Minimum Energy Performance Standards
General Service Lamps
MEPS
Canada
US EISA
Efficacy
Curve:
Lumen
GSL
>=4.0357 x ln(lumen output) – 7.1345
1490-2600
72
1/1/2012
1050-1489
53
1/1/2013
750-1049
43
1/1/2014
310-749
29
1/1/2014
Max Watt Eff.Date
Modified
Curve:
Lumen
Spectrum
>=4.0357 x ln(lumen output) – 8.3345
1118-1950
72
1/1/2012
788-1117
53
1/1/2013
563-787
43
1/1/2014
232-562
29
1/1/2014
Effective
701-3000 lumens: Jan.1st, 2012
Dates
(60, 75 and 100 watts included)
Max Watt Eff.Date
See rows above
200-700 lumens: Dec.31st, 2012 (40 watt
included)
Integrally ballasted CFL, LEDs, rough service
<40 watts, shatter resistant, etc.
Several. Uses a sales tracking mechanism
for some. If sales increase by x, then ____
happens.
Testing & Verification
Not yet determined (next 2 years with
stakeholders)
No requirements (FTC) unless requested
Test stds
IESNA LM-45 and LM-49 and CIE 13.2 (CRI)
Same as Canada
Exemptions
(Specialty lamps)
ANSI C81.61, ANSI C78.20, C79.1,
Conclusions/Lessons Learned
• Set performance-based, technology neutral standards
• Be thoughtful in defining scope/coverage. A good starting
point is all screw based lamps and then add exemptions only
where truly warranted.
More Lessons
• Avoid exempting or providing generous treatment to
modified/enhanced/full spectrum lamps. This unnecessarily
gives away a lot of the energy savings.
• Lumen bin approach likely to result in dimmer bulbs.
• Staggered effective dates likely to cause market confusion.
E.g. buy the new 72W (the 100W replacement) or the old
75W, etc.