United States
Environmental Protection
.Agency
NEXT GENERATION LIGHTING PROGRAMS:
Opportunities to Advance Efficient
Lighting for a Cleaner Environment
-------
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This report reflects the contributions from multiple individuals. Peter Banwell of EPA served as the
report's day-to-day project manager, with key assistance from Taylor Jantz-Sell. The following
members of Ecos: Luke Mason, Laura Moorefield, Kevin Simonson and Chris Calwell, under contract
to EPA, managed the report's technical development and layout with assistance from ICF International.
EPA would like to thank the following individuals who served as an informal review panel by providing
reviews, inputs and ideas.
REVIEWERS
Arizona Public Service (APS)
Applied Proactive Technologies (APT)
Energy Futures Group
Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA)
Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships (NEEP)
Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E)
Tom Mines
Seth Craigo-Snell
Glenn Reed
Noah Horowitz
Stephanie Fleming
Aaron Ingle
Linda Malik
David Bend
Joey Barr
NEXT GENERATION LIGHTING PROGRAMS
U.S. EPA Report on Opportunities to Advance Efficient Lighting
-------
-------
^^^H
V
I
CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS i
LIST OF TABLES iv
LIST OF FIGURES iv
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
INTRODUCTION 3
Is there still a role for efficiency programs to promote CFLs? 3
Won't the new lighting standards require everyone to use CFLs? 5
What will the CFL market share be after EISA takes effect? 7
What will the program "baseline" be after EISA takes effect? 8
PROGRAM OPTIONS 11
What approaches might be necessary to continue progress in the residential light bulb market? 11
ENERGY STAR "specialty" CFLs 11
ENERGY STAR qualified LED bulbs 13
What types of LED bulbs should programs include? 13
Increasing LED lighting performance 14
Will LED bulb prices come down soon? 15
Next generation incandescent bulbs 16
Will residential lighting programs be cost-effective after federal light bulb standards take effect? 16
PORTFOLIO APPROACH 19
How does the portfolio approach work? 19
When should lighting programs start making changes? 19
With so many new choices, won't consumers be confused? 20
How much more can the portfolio approach save? 21
CONCLUSION 23
APPENDIX 25
END NOTES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ 31
NEXT GENERATION LIGHTING PROGRAMS
U.S. EPA Report on Opportunities to Advance Efficient Lighting
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. EISA requirements for standard spectrum general service bulbs
relative to typical products 5
Table 2. Replacement options for today's 100 W bulbs 6
Table 3. Estimated baseline wattages by year 9
Table 4. Opportunities for energy savings with reflector lamps 13
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. U.S. Screw-based CFL import data, 2000 - 2011 (through Q2) 4
Figure 2. Domestic bulb sales (by technology) in relation to the announcement and
implementation of mandatory efficiency standards 8
Figure 3. Example ENERGY STAR qualified specialty CFLs 11
Figure 4. Number and types of ENERGY STAR qualified LED bulbs (9/10 - 8/11) 12
Figure 5. Non-directional LED lamp performance trends and projections 14
Figure 6. Comparison of LED bulb light distribution in table lamps 15
Figure 7. Sample ENERGY STAR LED bulb light distribution icons 15
Figure 8. Cost per lifetime kWh saved for CFLs and 2x bulbs,
before and after federal standards 17
Figure 9. Cost per lifetime kWh saved for LED bulbs,
before and after federal standards 18
Figure 10. Illustrative concepts for how portfolio approaches may vary
based on program experience 20
Figure 11. Savings potential from a portfolio approach 21
NEXT GENERATION LIGHTING PROGRAMS
U.S. EPA Report on Opportunities to Advance Efficient Lighting
-------
Approximately three out of four light sockets
in the U.S. still contain inefficient light
bulbs. These inefficient light bulbs consume
approximately 200 billion kWh per year,
resulting in over 140 million metric tons of
CC>2 emissions.
Programs promoting compact fluorescent lamps
(CFLs) have made significant strides; cost effective
energy savings from CFLs have been enormous over
the last 20 years. However, more than 70% of screw
base sockets are still occupied with inefficient bulbs.
The implementation of the Energy Independence
and Security Act (EISA) will improve things some,
but it will not cause a dramatic shift to more efficient
lighting. Going forward, CFLs will continue to play
an important role in efficiency program energy sav-
ings, but will need to be steadily joined by a set of
complementary technologies, each suited to particu-
lar applications and situations, to form a portfolio of
lighting solutions to fill the vast number of remaining
sockets.
Residential lighting programs will continue
to offer cost-effective savings well into the
future.
New federal standards will reduce the net energy
savings from rebating a CFL, but incremental costs
(and average rebate amounts) will also drop because
the new baseline halogen incandescent bulbs will be
more expensive than today's inefficient bulbs. Next
generation lighting programs will be more expen-
sive than yesterday's CFL programs, but they will
still offer cost-effective residential energy efficiency
savings well into the future. These new programs
and technologies are essential in order to fill the
remaining, harder to reach, lighting applications and
sockets.
LED reflector bulbs represent a new
opportunity for efficiency programs.
The list of ENERGY STAR® qualified LED light
bulbs is currently dominated by reflector bulbs
because LEDs are inherently directional light
sources. Unlike CFLs, the ability of LEDs to focus
light in a given area makes them an appealing tech-
nology for directional applications. While LED bulbs
cost more than incandescent bulbs, the incremental
cost of replacing an incandescent reflector bulb with
an LED reflector bulb is lower than the incremental
cost of replacing a general purpose incandescent
bulb with a general purpose LED bulb. For example,
a traditional incandescent general purpose bulb
costs $0.50 or less, while today's incandescent
reflector bulbs can cost up to $10 each. Today, both
LED reflector and general purpose bulbs cost $30 or
more. A rebate for an LED reflector bulb will bring the
retail price closer to the comparable incandescent
reflector bulb than it would for a general purpose
bulb. Substantial rebates are needed to help con-
sumers migrate to ENERGY STAR qualified LED
reflector bulbs, at least for the next several years;
however, the long lifetimes of LED bulbs yield large
NEXT GENERATION LIGHTING PROGRAMS
U.S. EPA Report on Opportunities to Advance Efficient Lighting
-------
energy savings and improve the cost-effectiveness
for the measure. After gaining some experience with
LED reflector bulbs, efficiency program managers
may also design programs for general purpose,
omnidirectional LED bulbs as they increase in quality
and availability.
Future lighting programs should use a
portfolio approach to incorporate a variety of
efficient lighting technologies in addition to
CFLs.
Since nearly three out of four sockets, nation-
ally, contain inefficient light bulbs, a comprehensive
approach will be needed to fill these remaining sock-
ets with efficient bulbs. CFL programs have served
us well, but they can only go so far, and now there
are new technologies and program approaches
that are needed to capture the remaining potential.
Specialty CFLs, LED bulbs and advanced incandes-
cent bulbs all represent opportunities going forward.
A single bulb technology should not be promoted
above others; instead, programs should seek to
provide a range of efficient lighting solutions that will
meet a wide variety of consumer needs.
Increased budgets for consumer education
will be needed to mitigate consumer
confusion.
New standards coming into force and new tech-
nologies promoted by efficiency programs mean
that consumer confusion will be high even with new
Federal Trade Commission (FTC) labeling require-
ments, which focus on lumens instead of watts. Effi-
ciency programs can play a critical role in ensuring
consumers get the right bulbs in the right sockets.
Programs can take advantage of existing consumer
education materials, or develop their own. Increased
consumer education and awareness will minimize
consumer frustration when shopping for light bulbs,
and maximize adoption and persistence of new
technologies.
Significant savings remain in the market.
By incorporating new technologies into new
program approaches, efficiency programs can cut
residential lighting energy use in half over the next
decade—saving more energy than CFLs have saved
over the last 20 years. If lighting energy consumption
is cut in half in every household in the United States,
more than $13 billion a year in energy costs could be
saved, more than 80 million metric tons of CO2 emis-
sions would be avoided each year, and the need for
over 30 power plants could be eliminated.
2500 i
2000 -
1500 -
1000
500 -
OTHER
DIRECTIONAL
GENERAL SERVICE
ALLINCANDESCENTS
TODAY'S BASELINE AFTER FEDERAL STANDARDS PORTFOLIO APPROACH
NEXT GENERATION LIGHTING PROGRAMS
U.S. EPA Report on Opportunities to Advance Efficient Lighting
-------
^^^H
V
I
INTRODUCTION
This report was compiled to highlight the
remaining opportunities for energy efficient
light bulbs (lamps)1 in the U.S. The information here
can be useful to inform energy efficiency advocates
including state regulators, efficiency program
managers, utilities, and others about the changing
lighting landscape and the opportunities for
additional efficiency gains. There are several factors
in play now, which make designing and planning
lighting programs both interesting and challenging.
Just a handful of the drivers changing the U.S.
lighting market are: fluctuating CFL annual sales,
minimum efficiency standards for general service
and reflector lamps, emerging lighting technologies
such as LED and advanced incandescent, and
consumer confusion about all the above.
After many years of running successful CFL
rebate programs, efficiency program managers and
their regulators across the country are considering
whether these programs should continue, and if so,
what they should look like. New light bulb standards
will begin to take effect in 2012 that many incorrectly
believe will mandate the use of CFLs. These new
standards, combined with the facts that most U.S.
homes now have at least one CFL and LED bulbs are
increasing in availability, are raising questions about
the future of residential lighting programs.
Residential lighting programs can continue to
generate significant savings well into the future.
To do so, these programs must be redesigned
to accommodate changing efficiency standards
and technologies. CFL-only programs are quickly
becoming a thing of the past. Going forward, next
generation lighting programs should use a portfolio
approach that promotes a wide variety of efficient
light bulbs. A diverse offering will enable programs
to reach sockets that today, even after years of CFL
program efforts, remain filled with inefficient incan-
descent light bulbs.
Preliminary discussions with efficiency program
managers have generated excitement about the
portfolio approach concept and the remaining
potential for lighting programs to save energy. A
number of questions remain. This report provides
basic guidance on specific areas of uncertainty and
a starting point for further research.
Is there still a role for efficiency programs to
promote CFLs?
Yes. Years of energy efficiency program interven-
tion have made nearly all Americans aware of CFLs
and most have at least one in their home. Recent
import data suggests that CFL sales rebounded in
2010 after experiencing a 30% decline during 2008
and 2009 when compared to the record number of
CFLs sold in 2007. However, CFL imports during
the first quarter of 2011 are lower than first quar-
ter imports in 2007, 2008 and 2010. See Figure 1.2
Promotions clearly have had an impact on sales of
CFLs, especially over the past five years. Removal
of those incentives will have a negative impact on
CFL market share. The most recent report from
the National Electrical Manufacturers Association
(NEMA) supports the observation that CFL market
NEXT GENERATION LIGHTING PROGRAMS
U.S. EPA Report on Opportunities to Advance Efficient Lighting
-------
Figure 1. U. S. Screw-based CFL import data, 2000 - 2011 (through Q2)3
(£.
O 200 M
Q.
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
20.7M 69.1M 51.6M 65.8M 93.5M 101.7M 184.7M 397.1M 337.5M 271.7M 357.1M 144.5M
01
share is not increasing. Their most recent data set,
for the first quarter of 2011, indicates that CFL mar-
ket share dropped by 1.1%, while incandescent lamp
sales increased by 1.1%. Incandescent lamp sales
now represent 79% of sales, while CFLs represent
21% of sales.4
Particular regions and utilities that have been
aggressively promoting CFLs for decades have
achieved socket saturations of more than 30%.
Despite the successes of these CFL programs,
nationwide nearly 70% of the sockets capable of
housing a CFL remain filled with inefficient incandes-
cent bulbs.5
A number of factors may explain why CFL sales
are not increasing dramatically to fill those sockets:
• Most consumers prefer incandescent bulbs
in dimmable sockets because many CFLs
do not dim at all and "dimmable" CFLs are
larger, more expensive, and do not always
dim in a way that is pleasing to consumers.
Some consumers dislike the small amount
of mercury in the bulbs because they are
worried about in-home breakage, landfill
impacts, or the effort associated with recy-
cling.6
CFLs have a slow warm-up time compared
to incandescent bulbs.
Some CFLs have a different color appear-
ance than incandescent bulbs.
Some higher wattage CFLs are too large to
fit in fixtures, and the "pig tail" appearance
is not attractive in fixtures with exposed
bulbs.
Incandescent bulbs are cheaper to buy than
CFLs, even though CFLs save money over
the life of the product due to energy savings
and additional incandescent bulb replace-
ment costs.
NEXT GENERATION LIGHTING PROGRAMS
U.S. EPA Report on Opportunities to Advance Efficient Lighting
-------
For these and other reasons, incandescent bulbs
continue to fill the majority of sockets in U.S. homes.
Going forward, while there will be product improve-
ments such as faster run up times, shatter-resistant
coatings, enhanced color, and improved dimming,
most of these barriers will persist, presenting
significant opportunities for promotions designed
to overcome them. CFLs clearly meet the needs of
many users in many applications, but not the needs
of all users in all applications.
Not so fast! As my pal
Mark Twain once said, "The
report of my death was an
exaggeration.
Well old friend, I guess it's
time to say goodbye ...
Won't the new lighting standards require
everyone to use CFLs?
No. Many people think the new federal light bulb
standards will ban incandescent bulbs, leaving only
CFLs and maybe a few LED bulbs available to con-
sumers. This is not true.
In 2007, the U.S. Congress passed the Energy
Independence and Security Act (EISA) which
included efficiency standards for general purpose
light bulbs. It also required the U.S. Department of
Energy (DOE) to set efficiency standards for reflector
bulbs. Neither standard bans incandescent bulbs,
but they both establish minimum efficiency require-
ments that are higher than traditional incandescent
bulbs can meet. Manufacturers have responded
early. Today, many new incandescent bulbs using
halogen technology meet the laws' requirements and
are already available in stores.7
EISA divides household bulbs into four light out-
put (lumen) ranges designed around today's typical
incandescent bulbs—40 W, 60 W, 75 W and 100 W.
Then, the law specifies a maximum wattage limit for
each of the ranges. See Table 1.
All major lighting manufacturers now produce
halogen incandescent bulbs that they advertise as
EISA compliant. These bulbs are available at major
retailers including The Home Depot, Walmart, Lowe's
Home Improvement and Amazon.com. EISA com-
pliant halogen incandescent bulbs look, feel, and
operate just like today's incandescent bulbs; they
just do it slightly more efficiently. EISA compliant7
incandescent bulbs are not as efficient as CFL or
LED bulbs, but they are fully dimmable and work well
with photo sensors and motion detectors. Today,
these EISA complaint bulbs cost between $1 and $4
each; and a wide range of prices are expected given
the differences in light output and efficacies. Prices
are expected to drop further as these bulbs become
more commonplace. See Table 2 for two examples
of EISA compliant halogen incandescent bulbs that
are currently for sale in the U.S compared to today's
typical incandescent 100 W bulbs.
Table 1. EISA requirements for standard spectrum general service bulbs relative to typical products
^^^^^^^H Date^ 'Ve Incandescent Incandescent Incandescent
1/1/12 100 W 16901m 17lm/W
1/1/13 75 W 11701m 16lm/W
1/1/14 60 W 840 Im 14lm/W
1/1/14 40 W 490 Im 12lm/W
EISA
Replacement
72 W
53 W
43 W
29 W
EISA Light
Output Ranges
1490-2600 Im
1050-1489 Im
750-1049 Im
310-749 Im
j^^g
21-36lm/W
20-28lm/W
17-24lm/W
11-26lm/W
NEXT GENERATION LIGHTING PROGRAMS
U.S. EPA Report on Opportunities to Advance Efficient Lighting
&EFK -
-------
Table 2. Replacement options for today's 100 W bulbs
Examples of Non-Compliant
Incandescent Bulbs
1,600-1,710 lumens
Examples of EISA compliant
Incandescent Bulbs
1,490-1,600 lumens
100 W
70-72'
16 lumens/watt
20.7-22.9 lumens/watt
Standard incandescent
Halogen or halogen infrared reflective (HIR)9
].25-$0.50/bulb
-$1.00-$4.00/bulb
Prices based on EPA Bulb Pricing Database, as of August 2011
While EISA's efficiency requirements target the
general service light bulbs most commonly used by
consumers, many types of rarely-used and specialty
bulbs are exempt from the law. Three-way, shatter
resistant, rough service, and vibration service bulbs
are not covered initially, but DOE has the authority to
apply efficiency standards to them at a later date if
their sales increase substantially. Modified spectrum
incandescent bulbs (which use blue/purple tinted
glass to provide a different shade of white light) are
covered by EISA, but they are allowed to meet a less
stringent standard.
Another current exemption from EISA is for higher
light output lamps (greater than 2600 lumens) which
are represented today by 150, 200 and 300 W incan-
descent bulbs. Consumers may migrate to these
higher wattage bulbs if they are seeking more light
than minimally compliant 72 W bulbs provide. Manu-
facturers have recently introduced 150 W standard
incandescent lamps that are just bright enough to
exceed the lumen range currently covered by EISA.
The consequence for energy efficiency program
managers is that these bulbs present opportuni-
ties for consumers to continue to buy traditional
incandescent technology instead of EISA compliant
halogen incandescent bulbs. While the end result is
not known, these bulbs are likely to erode some of
the intended savings from EISA.
Another potential unintended consequence of
EISA is that the introduction of EISA compliant halo-
gen incandescent bulbs may cause some consum-
ers to switch from CFLs to the less efficient EISA
compliant bulbs. EISA compliant halogen incan-
descent bulbs are frequently advertised as "energy
saving," and consumers are likely to be confused
between the small savings these bulbs offer and the
much larger savings that CFLs offer. For people who
want to save energy but dislike CFLs, EISA compli-
ant halogen incandescent bulbs are likely to be very
appealing. For example, see the customer comment
below, taken fromAmazon.com10 regarding an EISA
compliant halogen incandescent light bulb.
"I love these bulbs! They are so bright. I hate
those twist bulbs but wanted to switch to
something that is energy saving. I love that
they don't have mercury — I really feel like I
am doing something for the environment!"
Customer review of EISA-complaint halogen bulb
NEXT GENERATION LIGHTING PROGRAMS
U.S. EPA Report on Opportunities to Advance Efficient Lighting
-------
Although the customer is clearly excited about
the prospect of saving energy, she does not realize
that the bulb she is reviewing is far less efficient than
a CFL. The product's claim of 25% of energy savings
persuaded this customer that this bulb is a suitable
energy-efficient replacement for a CFL.
While the number of consumers who will choose
the new EISA compliant halogen incandescent bulbs
over CFLs is not known at this point, the sentiment
above suggests that there is still significant customer
concern and misconception with CFLs, and that as
long as some types of incandescent bulbs are avail-
able, CFLs will not be the "new baseline." Here, EISA
regulations are shown to be eroding, not building,
CFL market share. This potential for CFL market
share erosion, or backlash, needs careful study and
consideration when efficiency program managers
develop estimate of future CFL market share and
program baselines.
What will the CFL market share be after EISA
takes effect?
While the future technology mix for residential
lighting will not be known with certainty for a number
of years, market factors do not suggest that EISA will
drive a significant near-term shift to CFLs. According
to NEMA, CFLs have accounted for about 25% of
light bulb sales since early 2007, although the exact
percentage has fluctuated somewhat each quar-
ter.11 As Figure 1 shows, CFL imports alone have
declined for most years after a sharp peak in 2007.
Imports are a good indicator of CFL sales in the
United States. Therefore, in light of these declines
and EISA's potential limitations, a conservative early
assumption would be to use today's market share
for incandescent/CFL sales until market studies are
done. There are several factors that support this
assumption:
• Consumers will have numerous attractive
choices of EISA compliant incandescent
bulbs: standard halogen, IR halogen, modi-
fied spectrum halogen.
• Manufacturers are clearly betting that sales
of EISA compliant halogen incandescent
bulbs will be strong, as shown by their
early introduction of numerous models into
national sales channels.
• Many types of incandescent bulbs are not
covered initially by EISA or DOE Incan-
descent Reflector Lamp (IRL) standards
and will continue to be available on store
shelves: candelabra-base bulbs up to
60 W, intermediate-base bulbs up to 40 W,
rough service, three-way, greater than
2600 lumens (e.g. 150 W), shatter proof,
and vibration service A-lamps and many
common types of reflector lamps (e.g. 65 W
BR30/40, R20andMR16).
• Market factors in China, such as increases
in material costs (e.g. plastic, glass, and
rare earth elements used for fluorescent
phosophor)12 and a declining value of the
dollar to the RMB (Chinese currency) are
pushing CFL prices up.
• According to a July 2011 report by the Inter-
national Energy Agency's (IEA) Mapping
and Benchmarking Annex of the Efficient
End-use Electrical Equipment Implementing
Agreement (4E), in many countries, when
regulations have been adopted that allowed
consumers the choice between halogen
incandescent bulbs and CFLs, consumers
have gravitated towards halogen incandes-
cent bulbs.13
• This same report predicts a similar trend for
the U.S. - "As there are already indications
that the U.S. market is saturated for those
wishing to adopt CFLs voluntarily, consum-
ers may generally switch to halogen incan-
descent bulbs as the regulations come into
force, hence yielding lower savings than
may have initially been anticipated."14
Figure 2 shows three international examples of
the change in distribution of annual domestic sales
of incandescent, halogen and compact fluorescent
NEXT GENERATION LIGHTING PROGRAMS
U.S. EPA Report on Opportunities to Advance Efficient Lighting
-------
Figure 2. Domestic bulb sales (by technology) in
relation to the announcement and implementation of
mandatory efficiency standards15
AUSTRALIA
100%
AUSTRIA
2000 2002
UNITED KINGDOM
Incandescent
Halogen
CFL
Phase-out Announcement
Phase-out in Effect
lamps leading up to and after the announcement of
mandatory efficiency standards. These examples
illustrate the very different outcomes that have
occurred around the world in the period of time after
the standards were announced.
Australia for example, did see a surge in CFL
sales from 2006 to 2008; however, after the
announcement of the mandatory standards, sales of
halogen lamps nearly doubled from 2008 to 2009,
while CFL sales stayed fairly flat. Austria exhibited
an even more dramatic shift in lamp sales leading
up to the announcement of an incandescent phase-
out, with both CFL and halogen lamp sales declin-
ing from 2008 to 2009. There was a corresponding
up-tick in incandescent lamp sales, largely attrib-
uted to consumer hoarding.16 The United Kingdom
(UK) represents a best case scenario, showing a
rapid decline in incandescent lamp sales, strong
CFL sales, and a modest increase in halogen lamp
sales. This was largely due to a voluntary agreement
between the UK government and retailers to remove
incandescent bulbs from the shelves early, in order
to reduce the likelihood of consumers hoarding the
incandescent bulbs. Therefore U.S. regulators and
efficiency program managers should not automati-
cally assume that sales will shift to CFLs following
the implementation of EISA.
An additional example of the market impacts of
regulation can be observed in California, where the
state implemented the first step of the EISA light
bulb guidelines on January 1, 2011, one year ahead
of the rest of the country. In-store surveys seven
months later show that incandescent bulbs still
remain on store shelves; there has not been a signifi-
cant shift to CFLs thus far.17
Given the range of options consumers will have
after EISA goes into effect, and the fact that many
consumers are likely to purchase halogen incan-
descent bulbs that they may mistakenly believe are
as efficient as CFLs, CFL sales in the U.S. could
rise only slightly or may even decline in the coming
years. It is important to note that CFLs purchased
today may simply be replacing old CFLs (and not
incandescent bulbs), which will not contribute to
increased energy savings (or CFL socket saturation)
over today's baseline.
What will the program "baseline" be after
EISA takes effect?
A conservative early assumption would be to
use the wattage limits from EISA, which represent
NEXT GENERATION LIGHTING PROGRAMS
U.S. EPA Report on Opportunities to Advance Efficient Lighting
-------
the minimally compliant halogen incandescent bulb
wattages as a program baseline. In reality, in the
coming years actual average baseline bulb wattages
are likely to be higher than the wattage levels man-
dated by EISA. There are several reasons why:
• There is already evidence from the U.S.
news media and the experience in Europe
that some fraction of consumers will hoard
traditional incandescent bulbs for their own
use or for resale as those bulb types begin
to disappear from store shelves.18
• There is evidence from California19 that
manufacturers and retailers accumulated
substantial inventories of 95 W bulbs20 to
continue selling for perhaps four to eight
months, even though CA state law took
effect for this bulb category at the begin-
ning of 2011. Since the deadline applies to
the date of manufacture, it is anticipated
that non-compliant bulbs will remain on
store shelves well beyond the implemen-
tation date, as retailers work through the
stock of bulbs manufactured before the
deadline.
• Because many bulb types are excluded
from initial coverage under EISA, some
consumers may search out these products
if they wish to continue using traditional
incandescent bulbs indefinitely.21
The lumen ranges allowed by EISA are so
wide, especially with the inclusion of special
standards for modified spectrum bulbs,
that they will yield some degree of "bin
jumping." In this situation, consumers bring
home a bulb that claims to be equivalent
in brightness to the bulb they previously
purchased, but the light output is at the low
end of the lumen range allowed by EISA.
Many minimally complaint bulbs already in
the market have lower light output ratings
than the traditional bulbs they claim to
replace. The consumer finds the bulb isn't
bright enough and jumps up to the next
"bin" of bulbs, negating most of the energy
savings.
Because the standards are being phased
in sequentially, consumers who are accus-
tomed to purchasing light bulbs on the
basis of wattage may be confused to
find 72 W bulbs on the shelf next to 75 W
traditional incandescent bulbs. They may
incorrectly assume that the 75 W bulbs are
brighter and purchase them instead.
As a result, we expect the following approximate baseline incandescent bulb wattages to be typical at the
national level in each of the following lumen bins and years:
Table 3. Estimated baseline wattages by year22
1600 lumens
94-100'
88-93 W
78-83'
74-78 W
1100 lumens
71-75'
70-74'
63-66'
56-59'
800 lumens
57-60 W
57-60'
53-57'
47-50'
450 lumens
38-40 W
38-40 W
36-38'
32-34 W
NEXT GENERATION LIGHTING PROGRAMS
U.S. EPA Report on Opportunities to Advance Efficient Lighting
-------
-------
What approaches might be necessary to
continue progress in the residential light bulb
market?
Nearly 20 years of nationwide efforts by efficiency
programs and advocates have resulted in strong
sales of CFLs—clearly a success story. However,
the fact remains that 70% of residential light bulb
sockets still use inefficient lighting, and EISA will not
reverse that trend on its own. In order to fill those
remaining sockets, efficiency programs may need
to shift from the traditional rebate on bare spiral
CFLs to more of a lighting market segmentation,
or portfolio approach, which results in the promo-
tion of a wider variety of bulbs tailored to specific
consumer needs. A portfolio approach will require
more research to justify various program costs and
benefits, and will result in higher costs for saved
energy, but is still very likely to remain one of the
most cost effective residential energy efficiency
program options.
ENERGY STAR "specialty" CFLs
Many program implementers are considering
increasing the number of specialty CFL choices in
their programs. Specialty CFLs can include: bare
CFLs with special features, (e.g. dimmable, three-
way, and shatter-resistant), "covered" CFLs that have
a glass or plastic decorative outer shell, (e.g. globe,
candle, pear and reflector shapes) and CFLs with
candelabra (E12) bases, or any combination of the
above (e.g. a candle-shaped dimmable CFL with a
candelabra base). The increasing variety of ENERGY
STAR qualified specialty CFLs presents new savings
opportunities. See Figure 3.
Specialty CFLs can fill sockets where a basic
spiral CFL may not fit, look, or perform well, and
an ENERGY STAR qualified LED bulb may be too
expensive or non-existent. Because many incan-
descent bulbs in the durable and decorative catego-
ries will be exempt or have limited coverage under
EISA's light bulb standards, efficiency programs can
capitalize on comparable energy savings to today's
programs in many of these niche applications.
Manufacturers have developed a wide variety of
specialty CFLs to address many qualities of basic
CFLs that consumers dislike. Shatter-resistant CFLs
Figure 3. Example ENERGY STAR qualified
specialty CFLs
Shatter-Resistant'
Three-Way'
Decorative
Reflector
NEXT GENERATION LIGHTING PROGRAMS
U.S. EPA Report on Opportunities to Advance Efficient Lighting
-------
address customer fears of mercury exposure from
broken bulbs. "Covered" CFLs address complaints
of bare spiral CFL appearance; and new, small CFLs,
(both bare and covered) can fit in any fixture that
typical incandescent bulbs do. Globe-shaped CFLs
are available for multi-socket bath bar fixtures. More
and more dimmable and three-way CFLs, as well
as CFL-specific dimmers, are becoming available
that address performance and compatibility prob-
lems. Reflector CFLs do not perform as well in all
directional applications compared to incandescent,
halogen, and LED reflector bulbs, but can work in
applications where diffuse light is desired.
Many programs in the northeast have already
begun transitioning to a portfolio approach. For
example, Long Island Power Authority (LIRA) has
indicated they are successfully moving a portion of
their lighting programming emphasis from bare
spiral towards specialty bulbs, and are having suc-
cess in doing so.27 Other programs may be able to
follow suit.
Figure 4. Number and types of ENERGY STAR qualified LED bulbs (9/10 - 8/11)
9/1/10 10/1/10 11/1/10 12/1/10 1/1/11 2/1/11 3/1/11 4/1/11 5/1/11 6/1/11 7/1/11 8/1/11
| PAR/R | MR-16 DECORATIVE | OMNIDIRECTIONAL | NON-STANDARD
The Importance of ENERGY STAR as a Mark of Quality for LED Bulbs
LED light bulbs can vary widely; therefore, consumers benefit greatly from a quality
assurance program. ENERGY STAR is known for advancing efficiency, but is equally
strong on overall product quality since the specification includes:
• Verified compliance with 26 separate industry standards and procedures
• Third-party testing of products off the retail shelf (in development for 2012)
• Rapid cycle testing of every product model, thousands of times to
find early failures
• High heat testing to stress the products in operating
environments similar to actual field operation
• Verification of packaging claims
• Minimum 3 year warranties
ENERGY STAR
12 •«•
NEXT GENERATION LIGHTING PROGRAMS
U.S. EPA Report on Opportunities to Advance Efficient Lighting
-------
PROGRAM OPTIONS
ENERGY STAR qualified LED bulbs
When examining the residential lighting market,
it is important to recognize than no single tech-
nology can meet all consumer needs for varying
lighting applications. As a result, program manag-
ers should develop custom program approaches
designed to overcome specific barriers. Many of the
current generation of LED light bulbs are attractive
new options for efficiency programs because they
overcome some of the barriers associated with
consumer adoption of CFLs: instant on, dimmability,
no mercury content and manufacturer promises of
extended lifetimes (up to 50,000 hours). In addition
to these desirable performance characteristics, LED
light bulbs are not yet widely adopted and therefore
net-to-gross ratios should be very high in all regions
of the U.S. since current sales are extremely low and
incremental new sales could be properly attributed
to efficiency program promotions.
As of September 2011, there were more than 250
ENERGY STAR qualified LED bulbs. The majority
of these are directional bulbs for fixtures such as
recessed ceiling cans and track lights. See Figure 4
for a detailed breakdown. As the market continues to
develop more products for a wide variety of applica-
tions will become available.
What types of LED bulbs should programs include?
A popular light fixture in residential homes is the
recessed can, or "downlight." Popular due to its
low profile, ease of installation and acceptance by
homebuilders, approximately 400 million recessed
can fixtures are in U.S. homes; some large homes
contain more than 100.29 LEDs are inherently direc-
tional light sources; therefore, lighting manufacturers
have incorporated them into several popular shapes
and sizes of directional bulbs. CFLs, though avail-
able in reflector models, are not as well suited to
replace the incandescent reflector bulbs found in
these fixtures due to the diffuse nature of their light
output. A recent study in California concluded that
incandescent reflector bulbs represent the largest
share of the remaining energy savings potential of
any bulb type.30
Typical incandescent standard directional bulb
shapes are Parabolic Aluminium Reflector (PAR),
Reflector (R), Bulged Reflector (BR) and Multi-
faceted Reflector (MR). Many LED bulbs are now
available in similar shapes and sizes. Unlike general
purpose bulbs, which shine light in many directions
to illuminate rooms or areas, directional light bulbs
are intended to illuminate specific surfaces like walls,
counters or floors. As of September 2011, more than
200 models of ENERGY STAR qualified directional
LED bulbs are available so there is already sufficient
supply and competition for efficiency programs.
According to the DOE, there are more than 620
million incandescent reflector bulbs in use in the
U.S. in residential and commercial sectors as of
2010. See Table 4. While the DOE has established
minimum efficiency standards that take effect
in mid-2012 for particular reflector lamp shapes,
numerous exemptions currently exist31 that will still
allow standard incandescent (not halogen) lamps
to be sold. The potential for future regulation exists
Table 4. Opportunities for energy savings with reflector lamps2
Number of Lamps (in millions)
Lamp Type
PAR
BR
R
MR16
Total
Residential
133
219
48
42
442
Commercial
68
27
5
78
178
Total
202
245
53
120
621
% of Total
33%
40%
9%
19%
100%
Average W*
66
65
45
37
59
' Weighted averages based on DOE data
NEXT GENERATION LIGHTING PROGRAMS
U.S. EPA Report on Opportunities to Advance Efficient Lighting
-------
Figure 5. Non-directional LED lamp performance trends and projections32
2000 -
1800 -
1600 ^-
75W equivalents likely
between mid-201 land
late-2012
60W equivalents hit
1400 - the market in 2010
1200 -
3 1000 f-
+J
100W equivalents likely
between late-2013 and
mid-2015
75W
(1100 lumens)
60W
(800 lumens)
40W
(450 lumens)
2010
Max
2011
•Avg.
Min
2012 2013
Year
Adjusted DOE MYPP Projection
2014
2015
2016
A
Logarithmic fit to Lighting Facts data
for the currently-exempted reflector lamp types;
however, until that time, this provides an opportu-
nity for efficiency programs to improve the baseline.
ENERGY STAR qualified LED reflector bulbs could fill
many of these sockets. Given this large opportunity
for savings in the directional/reflector bulb category,
multiple California investor-owned utilities (lOUs)
have conducted incentive level tests on a variety of
LED reflector bulbs. Based on their positive results,
Pacific Gas and Electric and other CA lOUs may
begin incentivizing ENERGY STAR qualified LED PAR
and MR16 lamps in their residential programs by
early 2012.33
LED bulbs are also well-suited for decorative
applications such as chandeliers. LED bulbs are
more effective than CFLs at mimicking the "sparkle"
that many people associate with incandescent
bulbs. Considering that some chandeliers contain
six or more sockets that are typically filled with
25 W, 40 W, or even 60 W incandescent light bulbs,
low-wattage LED bulbs can offer significant savings
in these applications. As of September 2011, the
ENERGY STAR qualified product list had fourteen
models of candle-shaped decorative LED bulbs.34
Increasing LED lighting performance
Figure 5 shows performance data by year for
non-directional LED replacement bulbs from the
DOE's Lighting Facts® program.35 Horizontal lines
depict the typical light output and wattage of today's
incandescent lamps. The upward trend of the data
illustrates continuous improvements in light output
and efficiency (also known as luminous efficacy for
lighting). The DOE's performance projections for
solid-state lighting products are depicted by the yel-
low line.
Most non-directional LED bulbs available today
produce less than 600 lumens, (similar amounts of
light to today's 25 W and 40 W incandescent bulbs),
and most of the light falls within a 90 degree cone.
Based on the projections in Figure 5, we can expect
that non-directional LED bulbs that produce 800 or
more lumens, (as much light as today's 60W, 75W
14 •»
NEXT GENERATION LIGHTING PROGRAMS
U.S. EPA Report on Opportunities to Advance Efficient Lighting
-------
PROGRAM OPTIONS
and 100 W bulbs), will become increasingly available
in the near future as manufacturers continue to meet
DOE projected targets.36
When considering which LED bulbs to promote
as replacements for today's typical incandescent
bulbs, programs should take into account not only a
bulb's "brightness," or light output, but also its light
distribution pattern. Typical A-shaped incandescent
household bulbs (A-lamps) provide omnidirectional
light; they shine evenly in all directions, as do CFLs.
LEDs are directional by nature and require sophisti-
cated engineering to produce a more omnidirectional
light distribution, which better mimics that of an
incandescent A-lamp. For this reason, the ENERGY
STAR LED lamp specification has very specific
distribution requirements for LED bulbs claiming to
replace standard A-lamps. The specification also
allows for "non-standard" bulbs. LED bulbs that
don't claim to replace a specific standard shape fall
into this category, and do not have to meet a specific
light distribution requirement. This category was
intended to foster innovation, allowing LED bulbs to
provide light efficiently without having to conform to
existing standards. The first ENERGY STAR qualified
non-standard LED bulb may not claim to replace a
standard A-lamp on the package, but it is shaped
like one.
Figure 6 is a visual comparison between an LED
Figure 6. Comparison of LED bulb light distribution
in table lamps37
bulb that appears to be an A-lamp, but does not
have an omnidirectional light distribution (left), and
an LED bulb that meets the ENERGY STAR omni-
directional light distribution requirements for an
A-lamp (right).
Figure 7. Sample ENERGY STAR LED bulb light
distribution icons
To help consumers understand where to use non-
standard LED bulbs, ENERGY STAR qualified mod-
els must use icons on bulb packages that indicate
the recommended use for the bulb. (See Figure 7 for
a few sample graphics; many other icons are avail-
able to manufacturer partners.38) Icons, like those
shown in Figure 7, must appear on packages of non-
standard LED bulbs. This particular example indi-
cates that this bulb would be appropriate for certain
ceiling light applications, but not for a table lamp.
Non-standard lamps have a role to play; they can
be very good for certain applications, and may cost
less than a truly omnidirectional standard A-lamp,
but caution should be used by program manag-
ers. Those that wish to include non-standard bulbs
should develop educational materials to help prevent
consumers from using non-standard lamps in tradi-
tional table lamps, for example, where non-standard
lamps may not meet consumer expectations.
Will LED bulb prices come down soon?
Program managers might be questioning the fea-
sibility of including LED light bulbs in their programs
due to their relatively high purchase prices when
compared to CFLs. However, this picture is changing
relatively quickly. As an example, the first ENERGY
STAR qualified omnidirectional LED bulb to produce
over 800 lumens (60 W equivalent), the Philips Endura-
LED, was brought to market in late 2010 at a cost of
$40 per bulb. After less than a year this same bulb
NEXT GENERATION LIGHTING PROGRAMS
U.S. EPA Report on Opportunities to Advance Efficient Lighting
-------
now costs less than $30.39 LEDs are expected to drop
steadily in price and improve rapidly in light output
and efficiency over the next few years.40 In addition,
notable features like instant start, dimmability and
excellent color quality are now commonly found in the
best new products.
According to the DOE's most recent Solid-State
Lighting Research and Development Multi-Year
Program Plan (MYPP),41 LED bulb prices are currently
much higher than CFLs, but are trending downward
quickly; they should continue to drop in price and
become more price competitive through 2015. A
market research firm, Canaccord Genuity, reports that
the recent progress in LED manufacturing capacity
"has resulted in a 200%+ increase in capacity com-
pared to a 90% increase in demand, which has led us
to greater than a 50% drop in pricing—much of which
has occurred in the last nine months."42 To highlight
the efficiency and longevity advantages of LED light-
ing products and to help overcome the higher incre-
mental costs, program managers should consider
offering higher rebates for LED bulbs than currently
offered for CFLs, but this may not be the case for
long.
Next generation incandescent light bulbs
While the new EISA compliant halogen incandes-
cent bulbs may be garnering attention
now, a more efficient type of incan-
~i descent bulb, sometimes called
"2x" incandescent, may begin to
appear in stores in early 2012.
These will be the first incandes-
cent bulbs that could be included
in efficiency programs since they
could offer considerable savings
over baseline halogen incandescent
bulbs. The first 2x bulb (50 W= 100 W)
is expected to be available in 2012. The
^f^ name 2x indicates that these bulbs are
twice as efficient as today's incandescent
bulbs. In other words, they use half the power to pro-
vide the same amount of light so that a typical 100 W
bulb could be replaced with a 50 W 2x bulb that is
just as bright. In addition, 2x bulbs are expected to
last twice as long as today's incandescent bulbs.
These significant gains are a result of advanced
halogen infrared reflective (HIR) coatings on the out-
side of the halogen capsule. Unlike LED bulbs, which
are making inroads in low and medium light applica-
tions, these "2x incandescent" bulbs will be capable
of delivering fully dimmable light at high output
levels—specifically output similiar to 150 W, 100 W
and 75 W incandescent A-lamps and high wattage
reflector bulbs. Depending on how this technology
develops, it could fill a consumer need over the next
several years, and could spur a next generation of
high efficiency incandescent bulbs. As efficiency
program planners do more with market segmenta-
tion and design new programs to fill the remaining
light bulb sockets, consumer incentives and educa-
tion about these 2x products may be warranted.
Will residential lighting programs be cost-
effective after federal light bulb standards
take effect?
Yes. Residential lighting programs have delivered
such inexpensive energy savings to states and utili-
ties in recent years, that even if program costs rise
significantly, these programs will still be cost effec-
tive. If declining net-to-gross ratios, declining net
savings, and rising rebate amounts push program
costs up, residential lighting programs may still be
less expensive than non-lighting residential effi-
ciency programs and will offer significant remaining
savings.
• Program costs will almost certainly go up
due to decreasing net-to-gross allowances
in some markets, the addition of LED bulbs
which are more expensive than CFLs, and
increasing needs for consumer education.
• Savings for each promoted bulb will go
down in most cases because the new
baseline halogen incandescent bulbs are
16 M
NEXT GENERATION LIGHTING PROGRAMS
U.S. EPA Report on Opportunities to Advance Efficient Lighting
-------
PROGRAM OPTIONS
TRC =
sum (Benefits) sum (Energy Savings * Avoided Costs)
sum (Costs) sum (Incremental Costs * Program Costs)
a little more efficient than today's standard
incandescent bulbs.
• Incremental costs will also decrease with
purchase prices of baseline bulbs higher
than today's standard incandescent bulbs.
Halogen incandescent bulbs that just meet the
minimum EISA standards will form the new general
purpose baseline. These bulbs are likely to cost
approximately $2-3 each43 instead of $0.20 to $0.30
for today's incandescent bulbs, for example. So, effi-
cient light bulbs will still cost customers more at the
store, but not as much more as they did in the past.
These lower incremental costs help improve overall
program cost-effectiveness in the common Total
Resource Cost (TRC) formula. If all other costs and
benefits are unchanged, a decrease in incremental
costs will improve a TRC level.
Efficiency program managers can work closely
with the EPA and regulators to ensure they accu-
rately and completely consider all of these changes
in the lighting landscape when planning next genera-
tion lighting programs.
To illustrate how program costs are changing,
Figure 8 compares sample program cost (rebate
plus administration costs) per rebated bulb to life-
time energy savings for a variety of bulb types and
net-to-gross ratios. These are modeled scenarios
based on today's typical CFL programs, and future
Figure 8. Costs per lifetime kWh saved for CFLs and 2x bulbs, before and after federal standards
$4
$1
TODAY (PRE-STANDARDS)
YELLOW POST-STANDARDS
1
100 200 300
NET LIFETIME ENERGY SAVINGS PER BULB (kWh)
400
NEXT GENERATION LIGHTING PROGRAMS
U.S. EPA Report on Opportunities to Advance Efficient Lighting
-------
options for next generation residential lighting pro-
grams.44 (Each program should conduct their own
cost effectiveness calculations based on their require-
ments.) Black icons show costs compared to savings
for examples of today's programs, where standard
incandescent bulb wattages are used for the baseline.
Yellow icons illustrate several post-standards sce-
narios, where minimally-compliant halogen incandes-
cent bulb wattages are used for the new baseline.
Figure 9 is expanded to show higher program costs
for an ENERGY STAR qualified LED omnidirectional
bulb (A-lamp) and a PAR38 reflector bulb, both before
and after standards take effect. Note that even with
a $12 program cost for the LED PAR38, and a $9
program cost for the LED omnidirectional bulb, both
rebated bulbs yield lifetime energy savings at less
than 4$/kWh after standards take effect. Prior to EISA
standards, the savings for both LED bulb types are
closer to 1 -2$/kWh. Prices for LED bulbs vary, but
both bulbs used for this exercise retail for about $40
currently. Upstream buy-down rebates of $10 or more
would bring LED bulb pricing down to a level that
many customers would find affordable.
Figure 9. Cost per lifetime kWh saved for LED bulbs, before and after federal standards
$15
m $10
X
4.0 0 / kWh
2.0 0 / kWh
LED
PAR38
LED
PAR38
1.00/kWh
0.5 0 / kWh [*
TODAY (PRE-STANDARDS)
YELLOW POST-STANDARDS
100 200 300 400 500 600 700
NET LIFETIME ENERGY SAVINGS PER BULB (kWh)
—I
800
900
18 M
NEXT GENERATION LIGHTING PROGRAMS
U.S. EPA Report on Opportunities to Advance Efficient Lighting
-------
How does the portfolio approach work?
Next generation lighting programs have new
opportunities to achieve energy savings by shift-
ing from CFL-only programs to a diverse portfolio
approach that includes specialty CFLs, LED bulbs
and 2x incandescent bulbs, as well as some con-
tinued support for bare spiral CFLs. Bulbs that
achieve the most savings should receive the highest
rebates. Bare spiral CFLs will continue to make up a
significant portion of rebated bulbs in the near term,
but the growing number of ENERGY STAR qualified
LED bulbs means that LED replacement bulbs are
an increasingly viable program option. As other new
efficient technologies, like 2x incandescent bulbs,
become available, they can also be included in the
mix of rebated bulbs, and rebated according to the
savings they provide. Improved CFL technology, with
faster start-up times, improved dimming, and longer
lifetimes, will continue to add to the diversity of avail-
able solutions.
Consumers continue to want more choices to
light their homes efficiently, so the message program
managers need to convey is becoming much more
comprehensive and nuanced than "CFLs good,
incandescents bad." New lighting technologies
promoted by carefully designed programs will help
fill the remaining 70% of screw-based sockets with
efficient bulbs best suited to a very wide variety of
lighting needs.
With its high consumer recognition and empha-
sis on quality, the ENERGY STAR program remains
an effective platform for promoting efficient light-
ing products. The program's recent evolution to a
technology-neutral approach in setting high efficacy
requirements levels the playing field for technologies
across the portfolio and positions the ENERGY STAR
label to remain an effective designator of energy sav-
ing models even as new and different technologies
enter the market.
When should lighting programs start making
changes?
Each efficiency program and region is different.
That said, many new technologies are ready for pro-
motion today. Timing of program re-designs should
take into account customer preferences and aware-
ness levels, regulatory climate, and current adoption
rates of CFLs. Programs should also be tailored to
the adoption of efficient lighting in each region, the
number of years incentives have previously been
offered, and other regionally-specific factors.
• Well-established programs that have been
rebating CFLs for many years are likely to
benefit most by offering a diverse tech-
nological mix (i.e. 2x, dimmable compact
flourescent, and LED bulbs). Net-to-gross
ratios for basic CFLs may be low, whereas
new technologies will likely have higher
net-to-gross ratios. This approach is also
appropriate for regions where consumers
have a high level of energy awareness and
an interest in new technologies.
• Programs that have been rebating CFLs for
a few years can also offer a diverse group
NEXT GENERATION LIGHTING PROGRAMS
U.S. EPA Report on Opportunities to Advance Efficient Lighting
-------
Figure 10. Illustrative concepts for how portfolio approaches may vary based on program experience
Program
Year
2012
Early Stage Program
(0-2 years of res
lighting programs)
Mid Stage Program
(3-6 years of res lighting
programs)
Advanced Stage Program
(>6 years of res lighting
programs)
KEY
2014
oc
2015
2016
ODD]
nnrn-nmn
DDE
nuih
CFLG.S.
CFLSpec.
Inc. 2x
LED Ref.
LEDG.S.
NTG
ratio
% of Program
Budget
of technologies initially, but continue to
rebate some basic CFLs in the near term.
As the program matures, these programs
can shift more and more of their budgets to
alternatives bulbs.
• Programs that have just begun to rebate
CFLs may want to continue to promote
basic CFLs heavily in the near term to
capture savings, but then migrate to a more
diverse portfolio as interest in, and options
for efficient lighting grow.
• ENERGY STAR qualified LED bulbs will
soon become the most efficient residen-
tial lighting option which gives programs
incentives to promote them now, and cost-
effectiveness will continue to improve as
incremental costs come down. Therefore
we expect more programs to incorporate
LED bulbs in the future.
As Figure 10 illustrates, it is reasonable to
assume that some programs will no longer be rebat-
ing basic CFLs after 2015, having made an orderly
transition to more advanced alternatives. While
designed to be very conceptual, the visual suggests
that advanced programs will lead the way with the
introduction of new technologies/applications to
their portfolios, and it can be assumed that younger
programs will follow suit based on the performance
and success of more advanced programs.
With so many new choices, won't customers
be confused?
Yes, there is significant risk that consumers
will be very confused by the numerous new bulb
choices. Programs should include increased bud-
gets for education and outreach efforts to help
customers save energy by getting the right bulbs
in the right sockets. Currently, there is little public
awareness of the pending federal lighting standards,
and many of those who are aware of the standards
believe that incandescent bulbs are being banned.
This could lead to hoarding of inefficient incandes-
20 M
NEXT GENERATION LIGHTING PROGRAMS
U.S. EPA Report on Opportunities to Advance Efficient Lighting
-------
PORTFOLIO APPROACH
cent bulbs prior to the standards effectiveness date.
After EISA begins to take effect, consumers will find
a confusing array of bulbs on store shelves, and
not all of these bulbs will be very efficient. Instead
of the familiar 40 W, 60W, 75 W and 100 W bulbs,
shelves will have a wide variety of wattages due to
EISA's new wattage limits and wide lumen bins. Not
all bulbs that claim to replace a 60 W incandescent
bulb, for example, will be equally bright.
If consumers don't learn how to purchase bulbs
based on light output (in lumens), many could end up
with bulbs that are too bright (and use more energy
than their old bulbs) or too dim. Some consumers
may believe that the new halogen incandescent
bulbs that just barely meet the efficiency in EISA will
save as much energy as CFLs do. Others may be
hesitant to try LED bulbs due to the higher upfront
costs. Worse, if high quality ENERGY STAR LED
bulbs aren't promoted, consumers may gravitate to
the least expensive, and potentially lowest quality,
LED bulbs and incorrectly conclude that LED bulbs
are a poor choice for residential lighting. For con-
sumers who insist on incandescent bulbs in some or
all sockets, the 2x incandescent bulb will be a more
efficient choice than the baseline halogen incandes-
cent bulbs. Well-designed programs can help tailor
solutions to the need.
Efficiency program managers seeking educa-
tional support on the changing lighting market are
encouraged to leverage existing materials, and new
materials in development.45 This way, the chances
of a coordinated national message for consumers
will be strengthened. Efficiency program managers
should also consider joining or following a group
called the LUMEN Coalition46 that is working on a set
of national educational materials for retailers, effi-
ciency programs and energy efficiency advocates.
How much more can the portfolio approach
save?
To date, CFL programs have reduced residential
lighting energy use by about 15% relative to what
would have occurred in their absence. This signifi-
cant success is the result of efficiency program sup-
port of the best and most efficient lighting choices.
But it's not time to stop. While future programs may
cost more than yesterday's programs, a portfolio
approach has the potential to reduce today's resi-
dential lighting energy use by half.
Figure 11 illustrates three scenarios for lighting
Figure 11. Savings potential from a portfolio approach
— 2500 -i
2000
1500
1000
500
OTHER
DIRECTIONAL
GENERAL SERVICE
ALL INCANDESCENTS
80% INCANDESCENTS
20% CFLS
80% FEDERAL COMPLIANT
20% CFLS / LEDS
PORTFOLIO OF CFLS, LEDS
& 2X INCANDESCENTS
NEXT GENERATION LIGHTING PROGRAMS
U.S. EPA Report on Opportunities to Advance Efficient Lighting
-------
energy use from a typical home. The model used
to generate the data presented is based on recent
California residential lighting surveys that collected
information on fixture types, time of use, and light
source technology distribution by room.47 The model
is based off a typical U.S. residence that contained
an average of 50 sockets. The first stacked bar
shows lighting energy use from this home that has
all of its screw-based sockets filled with traditional
incandescent bulbs; this home uses a little more
than 2000 kWh per year for lighting. The second bar
shows the lighting energy use of that same home,
but with 20% of its traditional screw-based incan-
descent bulbs replaced with CFLs. This is what
many CFL programs have achieved by rebating
CFLs for many years—approximately 15% energy
savings, and considered today's baseline. The third
bar shows the lighting energy use when all existing
incandescent bulbs are replaced with bulbs that just
barely comply with upcoming federal regulations,
which results in energy savings of 25% over today's
baseline. The bar on the right shows the savings
potential at that same home by filling sockets with a
mix of CFLs, LED bulbs, and 2x incandescent bulbs.
Comprehensive use of lighting controls, such as
dimmers and vacancy sensors to reduce unwanted
operating hours can yield further savings. In total,
the potential remains to cut today's lighting energy
use by more than half. Some of those savings will
come from growing market acceptance of LED bulbs
and the gradual effect of federal standards, but
most of that will not happen without active program
involvement.
On a national level, if every household in the U.S.
followed the portfolio approach to illuminate their
homes, this would result in over $13 billion in annual
energy savings, reduce CO2 emissions by at least 80
million metric tons a year, and eliminate the need for
over 30 power plants.
22 •«•
NEXT GENERATION LIGHTING PROGRAMS
U.S. EPA Report on Opportunities to Advance Efficient Lighting
-------
^^^H
V
I
CONCLUSION
With baselines shifting to align with new federal light bulb requirements, savings from residential lighting
programs will achieve smaller per unit savings than they have in the past. With the promotion of newer,
more expensive technologies like LED lamps, lighting programs will also cost more than they had previously.
However, if strategically re-designed, residential lighting programs can continue to be among the most cost-
effective energy efficiency programs.
The challenges faced by efficiency programs developing lighting programs today are reminiscent of the
introduction of CFLs. An emerging technology promised substantial energy savings and long product life-
times; however, initial CFL products were large, bulky, and expensive, with poor light quality—all factors that
attributed to early consumer dissatisfaction that has been difficult to overcome. High quality ENERGY STAR
qualified LED products are now available that can be used in a number of applications, and although they are
expensive, they are technically ready for promotion.48 At the same time, incandescent technology is undergoing
rapid improvements in efficiency and lifetime. While LED bulbs are excelling in medium to low light applications,
advanced incandescent bulbs will soon be available for the brightest residential applications. These two new
technologies are complimentary to each other, and provide consumers efficient lighting choices in addition to
CFLs (which remain both cost effective and widely available). Efficiency programs can and should play a critical
role into the future, steering consumers to the best products for every application through promotional, educa-
tion, and rebate programs that accelerate market adoption and safeguard against early adopter dissatisfaction.
NEXT GENERATION LIGHTING PROGRAMS
U.S. EPA Report on Opportunities to Advance Efficient Lighting
-------
-------
^^^H
V
I
APPENDIX
Appendix A: Program Baseline Assumptions
Assumptions used to generate the estimated baseline wattage by year, as shown in Table 3.
The effort to forecast a baseline for incandescent lamps begins with an understanding of what EISA
requires. The law establishes wattage caps across broad lumen ranges. The law depends for its energy savings
on consumers moving to the "right" new wattage level, which may prove to be difficult or confusing for custom-
ers accustomed to purchasing on the basis of wattage, rather than lumens. If they do try to purchase the same
number of lumens they are accustomed to, they may find themselves buying in the next higher wattage bin,
because of the overlap in light output between the standard spectrum products of one wattage bin with the
modified spectrum products of the next higher bin:
Baseline data
Lumen Bin
1118-2600 Im
788-1489 Im
563-1049 Im
232-749 Im
Current Lamps (W)
100
75
60
40
EISA Target (W)
72
53
43
29
Next Higher Bin
(W)
>150b
72
53
43
EISA Cut-off Date3
1/1/12
1/1/13
1/1/14
1/1/14
% Energy Savings
from EISA
28%
29%
28%
28%
The cut-off dates apply to the date of manufacture or import, rather than the date of sale. As a result,
manufacturers and retailers can both accumulate substantial inventories of products manufactured before the
deadline but sold significantly afterwards. This phenomenon has been evident in national chain retail stores in
California, which is implementing EISA one year early. Even six months into the law's implementation, non-
compliant products were still routinely available at promotional pricing in many of the largest retail chains.
As a result, the market share for compliant products is not expected to be 100% during the first year of
implementation.
Share of incandescent bulbs on shelves at EISA target due to manufacturer and retailer inventory buildup
Lumen Bin
1118-2600 Im
788-1489 Im
563-1049 Im
232-749 Im
201 1C
10%
7%
7%
7%
2012
60%
15%
10%
10%
2013
100%
70%
30%
30%
2014
100%
100%
80%
80%
NEXT GENERATION LIGHTING PROGRAMS
U.S. EPA Report on Opportunities to Advance Efficient Lighting
-------
Nine months into the law's implementation, EISA compliant 72 W bulbs were being offered by some
California retailers at far higher prices than the other EISA compliant wattages, presumably due to the
declining availability of conventional, and much less expensive, substitutes. This encourages consumers
to look for substitutes online or via other means, or to hoard non-compliant lamps, or to switch to some
of the niche lamp types that are currently exempted, but could be regulated in the future if their sales
increase significantly. This hoarding and switching should decline over time as customers become more
familiar with, and accepting of, efficient alternatives:
Fraction of consumers that hoard non-compliant incandescent light bulbs at standard wattages
Lumen Bin
1118-2600 lmd
788-1489 Im
563-1049 Im
232-749 Im
Fraction of possible
Lumen Bin
1118-2600 Im
788-1489 Im
563-1049 Im
232-749 Im
2011 I 2012
0%
0%
0%
0%
buyers that switch to exempted
15%
0%
0%
0%
lamp types
2011 | 2012
0%
0%
0%
0%
5%
0%
0%
0%
2013
10%
12%
0%
0%
2013
10%e
4%
0%
0%
2014
5%
8%
7%
7%
2014
5%
8%
3%
3%
^^H Lumen Bin
1118-2600 Im
788-1489 Im
563-1049 Im
232-749 Im
Typical wattage of
exempted lamp
125 Wf
75 W
60 W
40 W
I
EISA's lumen ranges within a particular wattage bin are very different from the minimum lumen output levels
ENERGY STAR requires to claim a particular wattage equivalency to conventional incandescent lamps.
ENERGY STAR minimum light output (for equivalency claims) compared to EISA lumen bins
Today's Wattage
100
75
60
40
ENERGY STAR Minimum Light
Output to Claim Wattage
Equivalency (Lumens)
1600
1100
800
450
EISA Standard Spectrum
Lumen Range (Lumens)
1490-2600
1050-1489
750-1049
310-749
EISA Modified Spectrum
Lumen Range (Lumens)
1118-1950
788-1117
563-787
232-562
NEXT GENERATION LIGHTING PROGRAMS
U.S. EPA Report on Opportunities to Advance Efficient Lighting
-------
The Federal Trade Commission's new labeling guidelines do not stipulate similar minimum light output levels
to claim a particular wattage equivalency. As a result, a number of EISA compliant lamps have already been
introduced that claim equivalent light output to one wattage of incandescent lamps, but are really much closer
in light output to the next lower wattage bin. Thus, we expect to see some "bin-jumping" as buyers struggle
initially to buy the amount of light output they need, and learn to shop on the basis of lumens rather than
watts. We expect this to be the most likely in the first 12 to 18 months after a particular standards level takes
effect, and then to tail off over time as consumers' understanding of labeling information improves and manu-
facturers' wattage equivalency claims are evaluated by FTC and the courts.
Fraction of possible buyers that bin-jump
Lumen Bin
1118-2600 Im
788-1489 Im
563-1049 Im
232-749 Im
2011
0%
0%
0%
0%
2012
5%
0%
0%
0%
2013
10%
4%
0%
0%
2014
5%
8%
3%
3%
A smaller degree of short-term bin-jumping can occur when consumers seek wattages that are closest to
what they are familiar with during the sequential phase-out of different lumen ranges. In 2012, for example,
100 W bulbs will start to disappear from retail shelves in favor of 72 W replacements. But conventional 75 W
lamps will still be on the shelves. Some consumers will incorrectly believe the old 75 W bulbs are brighter than
the new 72 W bulbs, leading to some lost energy savings. Both effects are addressed here:
Wattage bought after bin-jumping occurs
1118-2600 Im
75g
75
75
788-1489 Im
66r
72'
563-1049 Im
53
232-749 Im
43
Combining all of the above effects yields the following baseline. Note that baseline wattages are lower
than today's standard wattages, in part because sales of EISA compliant lamps have begun prior to the regula-
tory deadlines.
Estimated traditional incandescent wattage purchased without program involvement (baseline)
1118-2600 Im
97
90
76
788-1489 Im
73
72
64
58
563-1049 Im
59
55
49
232-749 Im
39
39
37
33
see following page for table notes
NEXT GENERATION LIGHTING PROGRAMS
U.S. EPA Report on Opportunities to Advance Efficient Lighting
-------
Table Notes
a This refers to date of manufacture or import, rather than date of sale.
b There is no 150 W bin in EISA, perse, but the upper end of the lumen range addressed by EISA still allows many 150 W
incandescent light bulbs to continue being sold without improvements to their efficiency. In-store visits to California in mid-2011
suggests inventory of non-compliant lamps could last 4-6 months.
c Estimate for current stocking practices for EISA compliant halogen lamps; no public sales data are available regarding the market
share these products have achieved to date of incandescent sales.
d We estimate that hoarding will occur in this lumen bin predominately, due to difficulty in matching lamp brightness.
e The fraction of consumers who switch to an exempted lamp type is expected to increase slightly in 2013 because a traditional
lamp that was installed in 2012 is expected to last approximately one year.
f Assumes that half are brighter 150 W bulbs and half are other 100 W bulb types.
9 The possibility of jumping to 150 W bulbs is already accounted for in the previous table, since the brighter-than 1950 to 2600
lumen bulbs are technically exempted rather than being inthe next higher regulated bin.
n Assumes half of buyers move to next higher bin and half buy the higher wattage (but dimmer) 60 W lamps still available.
' 60 W lamps largely disappear by 2014, so buyers just jump up to the next bin.
28 M
NEXT GENERATION LIGHTING PROGRAMS
U.S. EPA Report on Opportunities to Advance Efficient Lighting
-------
Appendix B: Program Cost Assumptions
Supporting calculations for Figure 8 and Figure 9, program costs per lifetime kWh saved, are below. Note that
each rebated bulb produces approximately the same amount of light as the baseline bulb to which it is com-
pared.
Bulb Type
CFL
Pre or Post
standards
Pre
Baseline Rebated
bulb power bulb power
(W) (W)
60
13
Rebated
bulb
lifetime
(hours)
,000
NTG
assumed
0.8
Lifetime
energy
saved
(kWh)1
301
Modeled
program
cost/bulb
Cost/
lifetime
(admin + kWh saved
rebate)
$1.90
$0.006
CFL
Pre
60
13
,000
0.6
225
$1.90
$0.008
CFL
Post
43
13
,000
0.8
194
$1.90
$0.011
CFL
Post
43
13
,000
0.6
146
$1.90
$0.013
2x
Pre
100
50
2,000
100
$1.65
$0.017
2x
1
Post
72
50
2,000
70
$1.65
$0.023
LED
A-lamp
LED
A-lamp
LED PAR
38
LED PAR
38
Pre
Post
Pre
Post
60
43
75
57
12
12
18
18
8,8003 1
8,8003 1
25,000 1
25,000 1
422
281
855
585
$8.65
$8.65
$12.00
$12.00
$0.021
$0.031
$0.014
$0.021
(baseline bulb power - rebated bulb power) * rebated bulb lifetime/1000 * NTG assumption
modeled program cost per bulb/lifetime kWh saved
LED A-lamp assumed lifetime capped at 8,800 hrs due to baseline uncertainty after 2020 (EISA Tier 2)
8,800 hrs = 8 years of use (2012 - 2020) at 3 hrs/day
NEXT GENERATION LIGHTING PROGRAMS
U.S. EPA Report on Opportunities to Advance Efficient Lighting
-------
-------
End Notes
1 The technical term for light bulbs, "lamps," will be used interchangeably with "light bulbs" and "bulbs"
throughout this report.
2 CFL import data can be used as a proxy for sales since almost all CFLs sold in the U.S. are imported,
however, the lag time between import and sale varies depending on market conditions.
3 NEMA Electroindustry, Aug 2011, Vol. 16 No.8. p 31.
4 Ecos analysis of U.S.A Trade online data.
5 CFL Market Profile 2010, http://www.energystar.gov/ia/products/downloads/CFL_Market_Profile_2010.
pdf
6 While these concerns may be based on technical misunderstandings, they remain barriers to
purchasing CFLs.
7 This type of halogen bulb is substantially different from halogen torchieres which years ago were
subject to recall by the Consumer Product Safety Commission.
8 More specific information about EISA compliant halogen lamps can be found at the following websites:
www.gelighting.com/na/home_lighting/products/2012_energy_legislation/
www.lighting.philips.com/us_en/products/halogena_energy_saver/
www.sylvania.com/ConsumerProducts/New+Products/HALOGENSuperSaver/
www.bulbrite.com/products_en_7_64_453_0_0-ECO-Friendly-Halogen-A19.php
9 HIR bulbs utilize specialized coatings on the surface of the halogen capsule that reflect infrared
radiation back to the filament. This results in less power to produce the same amount of light, making
HIR lamps more efficient than standard halogen incandescent bulbs.
10 Consumer review of an EISA compliant modified spectrum halogen lamp, retrieved from www.amazon.
com on July 12, 2011.
11 http://www.nema.org/media/pr/20101202a.cfm
12 http://www.sylvania.com/Phosphors/; http://blog.nema.org/blogs/currents/archive/2011/07/15/china-
reduces-quotas-for-rare-earth-exports-again.aspx; http://www.fsgi.com/images/ltgtoolbox/fluorescent_
lamp_volatility/TCP.pdf
13 IEA 4E Benchmarking Document: Draft Benchmarking Impact of "Phase-Out" Regulations on Lighting
Markets, July 2011 (p. 5).
14 Ibid, (p.5).
15 Ibid.
16 http://spectrum.ieee.org/consumer-electronics/standards/deutschland-devours-the-last-of-its-100watt-
incandescent-bulbs
17 Findings from Ecos visits to multiple California big box and grocery stores, July 2011.
18 IEA 4E Benchmarking Document: Draft Benchmarking Impact of "Phase-Out" Regulations on Lighting
Markets, July 2011 (p. 40).
See also:
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/environment/2011 -02-07-lightbulbs_N .htm
http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/08/31/us-germany-bulbs-idU.STRE57U4WT20090831
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1212514/Pensioner-hoards-1-000-incandescent-lightbulbs-
read-rest-life-following-EU-ban.html
19 Findings from Ecos visits to multiple California big box and grocery stores, July 2011.
20 Note that a previous regulation in California required many common household bulbs use 5% less
power than traditional bulbs, so a 95 W bulb in California is similar to 100 W bulbs found in the rest of
the country.
NEXT GENERATION LIGHTING PROGRAMS
U.S. EPA Report on Opportunities to Advance Efficient Lighting
-------
21 Provisions in EISA allow for future rulemaking on fhese lamp fypes if sales reach a pre-defermined
threshold.
22 See Appendix A for more detail on these baseline calculations.
23 www.clearlite.com
24 http://www.amazon.com/47448-29-Watt-150-Watt-equivalent-Energy/dp/BOOOWUEP9U
25 http://www.attictrunk.com/feec7w40w12f.html
26 www.homedepot.com
27 Presentation by Lisanne Altmann, LIPA, February 10, 2011, AESP Brown Bag webinar.
28 Navigant Consulting, Energy Savings Estimates of Light Emitting Diodes in Niche Lighting Applications,
January 2011, prepared for U.S. Department of Energy.
29 http://www.pnl.gov/main/publications/external/technicaLreports/PNNL-17456.pdf
SOGaffney, Mahone and Johnson. 2011. KEMA Inc. Residential Lighting: Shedding light on the Remaining
Savings Potential in California, (p. 7).
31 Current exemptions from DOE IRL standard include BR30/BR40 (65 W and < 50 W), R20 (< 45 W) and
all MR16s.
32 DOE Lighting Facts Program. Product Snapshot: LED Replacement Lamps, April 2011. Prepared by
D&R International.
33 Statewide Lighting Market Transformation Program Report, June 2010.
34 Four of the currently-qualified ENERGY STAR candelabra LED bulbs are listed as dimmable, which is
considered an important attribute for this product category.
35 http://www.lightingfacts.com/
36 http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/publications/pdfs/ssl/ssLmypp2010_web.pdf
37 Source: GE Lighting. All rights reserved, ©GE 2011.
38 See "icons for non-standard lamps" at http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=products_for_
partners.showlLEDL
39 EPA now tracks online pricing of ENERGY STAR qualified LED bulbs, selected CFLs, and EISA
compliant halogen incandescent bulbs in the EPA Bulb Pricing Database to help efficiency programs
monitor changes to retail prices and scale rebates appropriately.
40http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ssl/sslbasics_randd.html
41 http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/publications/pdfs/ssl/ssLmypp2011_web.pdf
42 Canaccord Genuity, Update to the Third Cycle - Revised Forecasts of the LED Lighting Market and
Global Supply-Demand Analysis, May 2011.
43 Range of EISA compliant halogen lamp prices currently on the market.
44 Note that this analysis is illustrative only, and does not use a standard cost effectiveness test due to
the number of utility-specific variables necessary as inputs. See Appendix for the assumptions used in
these calculations.
45 For example, see: http://www.nrdc.org/energy/lightbulbs/files/lightbulbguide.pdf
46 http://lumennow.org/
47http://www.calmac.org/publications/FinalUpstreamLightingEvaluationReport_Vol2_CALMAC.pdf
48 Statewide Lighting Market Transformation Program Report, June 2011.
NEXT GENERATION LIGHTING PROGRAMS
U.S. EPA Report on Opportunities to Advance Efficient Lighting
-------
-------
United States
Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. (6207J)
Washington, DC 20460
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
EPA430-R-11-015
October 2011
www.energysta r.gov/lig hti ng resou rces
Recycled/Recyclable—Printed with vegetable oil based inks on 100% postconsumer process chlorine-free recycled paper.
------- |