The Role of Regulation in Improving General Service Incandescent Lamp Efficiency

Transcription

1 The Role of Regulation in Improving General Service Incandescent Lamp Efficiency Presentation to International Energy Agency Workshop on Strategies to Phase-out Incandescent Lamps February 26, 2007 Chris Calwell Policy & Research Director Ecos Consulting

2 Presentation Summary Historical context why focus on general service incandescents? Technical approaches to improving incandescent lamp efficiency California s Title 20 standards process and outcome New regulatory options to overcome market barriers: Mandatory efficiency requirements (two types) Mandatory labeling requirements (three ideas) Impact-based fees (three ideas)

3 DOE Estimates Show Lighting and Other (Plug Loads) Categories Still Growing in Residential Sector Source: DOE Annual Energy Outlook 2006

4 Thought experiment: what is residential lighting s share of global climate stabilization? Scientists tell us that absolute emissions of greenhouse gases must be reduced about 80% by 2050 to stabilize the climate. Suppose growth in the use of cleaner electric generating technologies, daylighting, and lighting controls could offset the expected growth in global demand for lighting services (more annual lumen-hours of lighting per person * more people). We would still need to cut average lamp power consumption by 80% between now and 2050 for lighting to do its share of climate stabilization. That means going from an average of ~15 to 20 lm/watt to an average of ~75 to 100 lm/watt!

5 Why Focus on Incandescents? Roughly 1 billion units/year sold and 3 to 4 billion units in use in the U.S. Even after very successful CFL promotions, incandescents still account for 90 to 95% U.S. market share of screw-based bulbs on a units basis Wide differences in efficiency among different models of a similar type Cost effective opportunities to save large amounts of energy improving incandescent efficiency by 10% via standards could reduce demand by as much as all utility residential CFL promotions currently do Near-term savings opportunity is at least 10% of 15% of all U.S. residential electricity use billion kwh/year or the annual output of 4.5 conventional coal-fired power plants (4.5 Rosenfelds)

6 Attaining and Sustaining a U.S. CFL Market Share of 6 to 8% Has Been Challenging Share (Pct) 14% 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% WI CA US Long term sales share of 6 to 8% equal to a socket share of roughly 30% due to longer CFL lamp lives Hard for CFLs to get much cheaper than $1 to $2 apiece 0% 2000_1 2000_2 2000_3 2000_4 2001_1 2001_2 2001_3 Quarter 2001_4 2002_1 2002_2 2002_3 2002_4 Technical and aesthetic limits of the technology for some customers

7 Putting CFLs and Incandescents in Context 1 Billion+ Annual Unit Sales Inc CFL savings opportunity is larger on an energy basis than a power basis because of longer average lifetimes. But its cost per kwh of acquiring savings is much higher than an incandescent standard roughly 1 to 2 cents/kwh. 100 Million CFL Watts Saved Per Unit

8 Downlights: a very good application for LED technology: directional, dimmable & fairly heat tolerant

9 General Service Applications Don t Favor the Use of Multiple, Discrete, Directional Light Sources Costly and Cumbersome

10 Big Opportunity to Improve Incandescent Efficiency

11 Technologies for Improving Incandescent Efficiency Coiled-coil filaments Tune lamps for greater efficiency but shorter life Increase coating transparency for lamps used in enclosed fixtures Halogen, krypton, or xenon fill gas instead of argon Reduce input voltage more current for a given wattage Dichroic coatings -- Infrared reflective halogen More dramatic technologies in development ceramic filaments, selective emitters, photonic lattices all designed to achieve high filament temperatures with lower input power while maintaining lamp life

12 Krypton Analysis Improves efficiency by 8.5 to 11% in laboratory testing Global production: 50 to 60 million liters/year Price: $0.35 to $0.65/liter Amount of krypton needed in a standard incandescent lamp (90% Kr, 10% N at 0.8 atm): 75 to 108 cubic centimeters Incremental cost of replacing argon with krypton in a typical incandescent lamp: 2.6 to 7.0 cents Assumed markup to final customer: 300% Incremental retail cost: 7.8 to 21.0 cents

13 Impact of Krypton Fill on Estimated Lamp Prices and Profits 60 Retailer profit (50%) Inc. Cost = 21.0 cents 50 Manufacturer profit (100%) Krypton cost Lamp manufacturing cost Cents per Bulb Inc. Cost = 7.8 cents Inc. Cost = 14.4 cents 10 0 Base Low Krypton Low Base Mid Krypton Mid Base High Krypton High Price Scenario

14 Krypton Incandescents Save Electricity for about 2 to 2.5 Cents/Kwh Very Cost Effective Compared to other Options Source: Northwest Power and Conservation Council

15 Sample of typical energy saving incandescent product often dimmer than standard product Halogen technology more promising

16 California Title 20 Background Energy Policy Act of 1992 instructed DOE to initiate a general service incandescent lamp efficiency standards rulemaking between 2000 and 2002, with an effectiveness date 3 years later DOE did not meet the Congressional deadlines Ecos Consulting was hired to help analyze efficiency options in for consideration by California Energy Commission s Title 20 appliance standards process Improved incandescent technologies scored highly in initial screening merited further analysis Codes And Standards Evaluation (CASE) report drafted and revised in to assess cost effectiveness, technical and policy approaches, and market impacts. Initial savings forecast of 200 to 300 million kwh/year for CA alone Standards workshops and hearings occurred between 2004 and 2006

17 Initial Standards Proposal to CEC for Clear/Frost Bulbs Proposed Standard Watts = x Lumens % Qualify Average Watts Saved= million lamps million lamps 100 Power (Watts) million lamps 3.2 million l Proposed Standard Watts = x Lumens % Qualify Average Watts Saved= million lamps Initial Lumens

18 Initial Standards Proposal to CEC for Soft White Bulbs 160 Figure 7: Distribution of Watt per Lumen and Proposed Standard Cutoff, Soft White General Service Proposed Standard: Tier 1 Watts = x Lumens % Qualify Average Watts Saved = million lamps 100 Power (Watts) million l 9.3 million lamps million lamps Proposed Standard: Tier 2 Watts = x Lumens % Qualify Average Watts Saved = million lamps Initial Lumens

19 Initial Standards Outcome CEC voted to adopt Tier 1 standards for soft white and clear/frost lamps in December effective January 2006 Deferred decision on modified spectrum lamps and more stringent future standards levels to Tier 2 CEC, industry, and efficiency advocates debated Tier 2 options between January 2005 and spring Key breakthrough stair-stepped power levels resting underneath each of the common wattage bins 40, 60, 75, and 100 watts

20 Product Marketing Messages on Modified Spectrum Lamps Clearly State their Intent to Replace Every Lamp in the House: General Purpose Higher ranking than soft white on Quality of Light Scale Transform every room in your home from ordinary to extraordinary with Reveal bulbs Try Reveal bulbs wherever you want clean, beautiful light

21 Watts ALL PROPOSED TIER II SPEC LINES ENHANCED SPECTRUM PROPOSED SOFT WHITE PROPOSED FROSTED, CLEAR PROPOSED Lumens

22 COMPARISON OF FROST/CLEAR STANDARD PROPOSALS Watts TIER I ADOPTED FROSTED,CLEAR 45-DAY LANG. FROSTED, CLEAR PG&E PROPOSAL FROSTED, CLEAR LAMP DATA Lumens

23 EFFECTS OF KRYPTON FILL GAS IN COMMONLY AVAILABLE SOFT WHITE LAMPS Watts 60 6W, 10% reduction in power with no reduction in light output Current Retail Lamps Potential Dimmed Lamps Potential Krypton-Filled Lamps CEC Tier 2 15-Day Language PG&E Tier 2 Proposal Lumens

24 Assessment of Final Tier 2 CEC Standards Successfully established precedent for state to regulate general service incandescent efficiency Most 100 watt, 75 watt, 60 watt and 40 watt incandescents will disappear from California retail shelves in 2008 Exemption for modified spectrum (Reveal) lamps leaves a big loophole for industry least efficient products have been given a big marketing advantage only products still allowed to be sold at conventional wattages Standard favors wattage reduction over efficiency improvement allows dimmer bulbs to qualify and only captured half (5%) of the cost effective savings potential (10%) Needs utility and market support to ensure bulbs of equivalent brightness prevail. Utility incentives could help consumers distinguish among different levels of incandescent efficiency in Other states and countries could adopt improved version of these standards. Federal standards process now underway rulemaking due by 2009

25 Desired Outcome: Lower Power, Equivalent Performance Today s Standard Incandescent Lamps 40 W 60 W 75 W 100 W CEC Adopted Wattage Plateau 38 W 57 W 71 W 95 W Wattage Savings % Savings % Light Reduction* 2 W 3 W 4 W 5 W 5% 5% 5.3% 5% 0 to 10% 0 to 10% 0 to 11% 0 to 10% Krypton Bulb Equivalent 36 W 54 W 69 W 91 W Wattage Savings % Savings 4 W 6 W 6 W 9 W 11% 9.5% 9% 8.5% % Light Reduction 0% 0% 0% 0% * Note: depends on dimming strategy

26 EFFECTS OF DIMMING IN COMMONLY AVAILABLE SOFT WHITE LAMPS 60 3 W, 5% reduction in power Watts 90 lumen, 10% reduction in light output Current Retail Lamps Potential Dimmed Lamps CEC Tier 2 15-Day Language PG&E Tier 2 Proposal Lumens

27 65 COMPARISON OF NEW PRODUCTS FROM MAJOR INCANDESCENT LAMP MANUFACTURER Watts lumen, 13% reduction in light output from current standard soft white bulb 8% reduction in luminous efficacy from standard bulb Current Standard Soft White Current Long Life Soft White Current Energy-Saving Soft White New Product Offering CEC Tier 2 15-Day Language PG&E Tier 2 Proposal 3W, 5% reduction in power from current standard soft white bulb Lumens

28 Shift in Product Offerings from a Major Manufacturer to Meet CA Standards Energy-Saving Products Light Watts Output (lumens) Efficacy (lumens/w) Life (hrs) Long Life Products Light Watts Output (lumens) Efficacy (lumens/w) Life (hrs) Standard Soft White Products Light Power (W) Output (lumens) Efficacy (lumens/w) Life (hrs) Energy-Saving Products Light Watts Output (lumens) Efficacy (lumens/w) Life (hrs) New Product to Meet CA Standards Light Watts Output (lumens) Efficacy (lumens/w) Life (hrs)

29 Regulators Could Implement More Stringent Versions of California s Tier 2 Standards Lowering the allowed power level of the steps every few years to increase efficiency requirements Making slight changes to the slope of the lines connecting the steps to prevent dimmer lamps from qualifying Eliminating loopholes for modified spectrum lamps and other niche products whose sales are growing rapidly

30 The U.S. Department of Energy is also evaluating a federal efficiency standard for general service incandescent lamps

31 Is there a Simpler Way to Regulate Light Bulb Efficiency? Maybe CALE Corporate Average Luminous Efficacy (CALE) would mimic the CAFÉ approach currently used to regulate fuel efficiency. Regulators would not require manufacturers to meet any particular power or efficiency limit for any particular bulb. However, the weighted average lumens and watts of all the general service bulbs (incandescents, CFLs, and others) a manufacturer sells would need to be reported each year and meet a steadily rising regulatory minimum. Such a CALE might begin around 20 lumens/watt and rise by perhaps 2 lumens/watt each year, reaching 25 lumens/watt by 2012 and at least 40 lumens/watt by 2020.

32 Mandatory Energy Cost Labeling: Another Sensible Way to Drive Purchase Changes U.S. light bulb labeling currently requires three things: Light output (lumens) Power consumption (watts) Lifetime (hours) Two more items should be required: Yearly electric bill to operate the bulb (dollars) Efficiency (lumens/watt) In addition, one other provision may be worth considering: that product wattage may not be given greater prominence on product packaging or in marketing than light output or efficiency

33

34 Three Upfront Fee Options to Consider (money could supplement systems benefit charge on utility bills to help fund efficiency programs) First Month s Bill (FMB) Charge: Embed a product s average electric bill for the first month into the product s purchase price 1% of Energy Cost Multiplier (ECM) Charge: Divide lifetime electric bill of product by its purchase price and charge 1% of that upfront at the time of sale Upfront Carbon Charge (UCC): Multiply lifetime electric usage of a bulb by average grams of CO 2 /kwh in your region and then multiply by a CO 2 charge of $20 per metric ton

35 Impact of Various Upfront Charges on Light Bulb Purchase Prices Lamp Type Power Range (watts) Annual Electricity Use Range (kwh/year assuming 3 hours/day) CFL 10 to to 44 Policy Option (charge per bulb sold) First Month s Bill (assuming $0.10/kWh) $0.09 to $0.36 1% of ECM (CFL = $3 ^Inc = $2 Inc = $0.25) $0.02 to $0.08 Upfront CO 2 Charge (0.6 kg/kwh; $20/tonne) $0.84 to $ % more efficient incandescent 28 to to 115 $0.25 to $0.96 $0.02 to $0.06 $0.34 to $1.26 conventional incandescent 40 to to 164 $0.36 to $1.44 $0.17 to $0.69 $0.48 to $1.80

36 New Philips Edore Low Voltage Halogen with IR Coating Roughly Double the Efficiency and Triple the Lifetime on European Line Voltage

37 New Filament Technologies (Sonsight) Carbon-based filaments (Ripple Effect International) Photonic Lattice (Sandia Labs)

38 How Might More Efficient Technologies Displace Conventional Incandescent Lamps? LEDs Advanced Incandescents CFLs

39 The beauty of the world, the health of its creatures, the emotion of love, and the thirst for justice are sacrificed every day to the will of power, and it astonishes me that all political systems, no matter how different they appear, end up with the same singular result: that of placing life last among all their preoccupations. --Claudine Herrmann, The Tongue Snatchers Let us all agree not to place life last among all our preoccupations as we contemplate ways to improve global lighting efficiency.