Click for next page ( 19


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 018
2 History of Public Policy on Lighting INTRODUCTION reduction of federal energy consumption (Savitz, 1986). When the oil embargo was imposed, President Nixon ordered The development of lighting technology, like all technolo- government buildings (and requested the private sector) to gies, is influenced by the public policy framework in which reduce lighting levels to 50 footcandles (ftc) (approximately the relevant innovation and commercialization occurs. This 500 lux) for office work; 30 fc (approximately 300 lux) policy framework includes legislation and regulation at the for general lighting/hallways; and 10 ftc (approximately federal, state, and local levels, as well as the equivalent laws 100 lux) for parking lots—i.e., “50-30-10.” in other industrialized countries. Yet, the pertinent policy Following the embargo, RD&D energy efficiency pro- framework involves more than just laws and also includes grams were initiated at DOE’s predecessor agencies: the governmental research, development, and demonstration Federal Energy Administration (FEA) and the Energy (RD&D) funding, consensus and industry standards, vol- Research and Development Administration (ERDA). Most untary programs, incentive programs, building codes, and of the programs in the buildings sector were applied product industry programs and initiatives, all operating within the research to develop more energy-efficient heating, cooling, context provided by market forces and consumer expecta- and lighting systems. These programs were done in collabo- tions. All of these factors play a role in the development of ration with industry and some of the national laboratories, solid-state lighting (SSL) and are discussed below. predominantly the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory This chapter begins with a history of federal government (LBNL) and Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL). policy on lighting, then covers federal legislation addressing When DOE was formed in 1977, the lighting program lighting efficiency and the Department of Energy (DOE) covered a wide range of energy-saving opportunities. The lighting RD&D program. It then describes current federal and overall strategy consisted of three major thrusts: (1) light state programs, including federal regulations, federal volun- sources, (2) lighting applications (lighting design, fixtures tary programs, and state laws and regulations. Non-regulatory and controls), and (3) lighting impacts. By 1999, light policy instruments affecting lighting efficiency are discussed sources comprised more than half of the lighting program next, including building codes, state building codes specifica- funding, which was $2 million to $4 million per year (NRC, tions for high-performance building specifications, incentive 2001). programs, and testing and measurement consensus standards. In the 1970s and 1980s, the program mainly consisted of The chapter concludes with a brief summary of international contracts to industry, research and development (R&D) com- regulation of lighting efficiency, followed by a case study on panies, and in-house research at LBNL. In spite of the rela- compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs). tively small amount of funding in the 1970s and 1980s, there were major successes from the DOE programs in conjunction History of Federal Government Lighting Policy with industry and LBNL. Two of these examples—electronic ballasts and CFLs—were case studies in a retrospective study Since the early 1970s the federal government has been by the National Research Council (NRC, 2001). The market involved in RD&D and policy related to more energy-­ share for electronic ballast increased from about 1 percent efficient lighting. Four months prior to the oil embargo in the late 1980s to 47 percent by 2000 and 73 percent by of 1973, President Nixon announced the formation of an 2005 (NRC, 2010). DOE promulgated minimum efficiency Office of Energy Conservation within the Department of the standards in 2000, effective in 2005. The National Research Interior. One of its functions was to coordinate a 7 percent Council (NRC) retrospective study documented at least 18

OCR for page 018
HISTORY OF PUBLIC POLICY ON LIGHTING 19 $15 billion in net economic benefits for electronic ballasts of what would have occurred without the policies. However, as of 2000 (NRC, 2001). there is a large amount of literature on the impact of utility The other case study was CFLs. DOE did not have a demand side management (DSM) and energy efficiency pro- program targeted for CFLs until 1997, at which point it grams, using sophisticated econometric models. A study in decided to sponsor R&D on the technology to reduce the 1996 from Parfomak and Lave (1996) suggested that “utili- cost and size of CFLs and accelerate their deployment. In ties have a clear economic incentive to overstate the impacts” fiscal year (FY) 1999, Congress provided funds specifically of these programs. However, when empirically assessing the for new R&D projects, which were to be competitive solicita- impact of DSM and energy efficiency programs for several tions that were cost-shared with industry. From FY1999 to utilities in the northeast and California, the authors found that FY2001 DOE spent $1.8 million on R&D efforts; industry the reductions claimed by the utilities and the system-level cost-shared $755,000 (NRC, 2001), or roughly 40 percent. sales after accounting for economic and weather effects they Sales increased from about 21 million units in 2000 to almost estimated were in agreement. 400 million units by 2007 (NRC, 2010). It is generally acknowledged that it is methodologically FINDING: While it is difficult to discern the contribu- difficult to estimate the impact of energy efficiency policies tion of public policies on the adoption of energy efficient on demand reductions. Changes in weather, energy prices, products, it is likely that a sizable fraction of the decrease in cultural factors, and so on, all contribute to changes in per capita energy consumption may be attributable to such energy consumption, and disentangling those effects from policies, judging from a study of changes in energy consump- the impact of policies is difficult—but also critical to sup- tion in California. However, the actual impact of any specific port the design of effective policies. policy instrument is difficult to disentangle as is the impact Several studies have shown the impact of specific poli- on any one type of household energy use. cies on energy consumption reductions. For example, Gillingham et al. (2004) recently reviewed literature on the FINDING: Improvements in energy efficiency of light- cost-­ ffectiveness and impacts of a broad range of energy e ing products have been brought about by a combination of efficiency policies. The authors reviewed several studies that legislation, regulation, RD&D funding, consensus standards, estimated the impact of appliance standards, financial incen- industry programs and initiatives, incentive programs, and tives, information and voluntary programs, and government market forces. energy use. They concluded that “these programs are likely to have collectively saved up to 4 quadrillion Btu1 of energy RECOMMENDATION 2-1: The Department of Energy annually, with appliance standards and utility demand-side should develop a study to quantify the relative impact of management likely making up at least half these savings” different policy interventions on the benefits of adopting (abstract, p. i). In their analysis, the authors did not include efficient lighting. building and professional codes, and thus these overall sav- ings are likely to be underestimates. The authors also stated Federal Legislation that “Energy Star,2 Climate Challenge, and 1605b voluntary emissions reductions may also contribute significantly to Over the past quarter century, a series of federal energy aggregate energy savings, but how much of these savings statutes have mandated energy efficiency standards and would have occurred absent these programs is less clear” labeling for lighting. These congressional enactments have (abstract, p. i). Another study, focusing on energy efficiency been contemporaneous with a steady increase in the energy policies in California, citing reductions in per-capita emis- efficiency of lighting technology over this time period. sions that could not be attributed to other sources finds that, Congress has given DOE the authority to regulate the for 2001, totaled “up to about 23 percent of the overall dif- energy efficiency of some high-volume lighting products at ference between California and the United States could be the federal level. In 1975 the Energy Policy and Conservation due to policy measures, the remainder being explained by Act (EPCA 75), Public Law 94-163, established a program various structural factors” (Sudarshan and Sweeney, 2008, on “energy conservation for consumer products other than p. 1). These values were 545 kilowatt-hour (kWh) per capita automobiles” (Title III), which included major household in the residential sector and 416 kWh and 272 kWh in the appliances, but did not include lighting. In 1987, the National commercial and industrial sectors, respectively. Appliance Energy Conservation Act (NAEPA 87), Public The verification of the impacts of demand-side policies is Law 100-12, included minimum efficiency standards for always complex, given the need to establish a counterfactual fluorescent lamp ballasts and incandescent reflector lamps. In 1992, the Energy Policy Act (EPACT 92), Public Law 102- 1 Btu stands for British thermal unit and is a measure of energy. Burning 486, tightened the minimum energy efficiency standards for 1 gallon of gasoline would release approximately 124,000 Btu. fluorescent lamps and incandescent reflector lamps. Further- 2 ENERGY STAR® is a voluntary program created by DOE and Envi- more, DOE was granted the authority to revise and amend ronmental Protection Agency to encourage energy efficient products and buildings through labeling. these standards as well as to adopt a standard for additional

OCR for page 018
20 ASSESSMENT OF ADVANCED SOLID-STATE LIGHTING general service fluorescent lamps. In addition, EPACT (92) TABLE 2.1  Rated Lumen Ranges, Maximum Rated added standards for some types of fluorescent and incandes- Wattages, and Effective Dates for General Service Lamps cent reflector lamps, provided funding for voluntary testing Goals in EISA 2007, Section 321 and consumer information programs for luminaries, and Maximum Rated Wattage Rated Lumen Ranges Effective Date created an energy efficient commercial building tax deduc- tion program, which includes lighting. The 1992 statute also 72 1490-2600 January 1, 2012 53 1050-1489 January 1, 2013 set July 1994 as the deadline for states to adopt the lighting 43 750-1049 January 1, 2014 standards developed by the American Society of Heating, 29 310-749 January 1, 2014 Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE, 90.1 standards). NOTE: Minimum rated lifetime will be 1,000 hours in all cases. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT 05), Public Law, 109-58, included performance standards for additional light- ing products (e.g., energy saving fluorescent lamp ballasts) requirements from EISA 2007 for lamps shown in Table 2.1, that had not been included in any of the previous legislation. which culminated in a FY2012 appropriations rider prohibit- It also provided for the establishment of labeling require- ing DOE from spending funds to enforce the standards stated ments for these products and preempted state standards for in EISA 2007 for 2012. However, manufacturers plan to the same products. EPACT (05) also officially recognized implement the 2012 standards nevertheless (Howell, 2011). and made more transparent the ENERGY STAR® program. Finally EPACT (05) expanded the tax deduction program for DOE LIGHTING PROGRAM commercial building energy efficiency, originally enacted in EPACT (92). The SSL Multi-Year Program Plan (DOE, 2011a) notes The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 several efforts within DOE on advancing SSL technology, (EISA 2007) further amended EPCA (75) to include new products, and the underlying science. These efforts occur provisions for lighting standards. EISA 2007 includes within the Basic Energy Sciences (BES) program; the performance-based minimum efficiency standards for gen- Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E); and eral service lamps, which will become progressively more the Building Technologies Program (BTP), which is within stringent over time. General service lamps are classified as the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy screw-based incandescent and fluorescent lamps and tubes; (EERE). The BES program supports fundamental research some specialty lamps were excluded from the standard. EISA to provide the foundations for new energy technologies. Such also includes minimum efficiency standards for ballasts and work at the electronic, atomic, and molecular levels in solid- lighting requirements for public buildings. Title III, Sub- state physics can lead to multiple applications, including for title B, establishes definitions, standards, and amendments SSL technologies. One example is the support for the Solid- for lighting efficiency, and Section 321 defines energy effi- State Lighting Science Energy Frontier Research Center at ciency standards for general service lamps. Table 2.1 shows Sandia National Laboratories. ARPA-E funds projects that the performance standards for lamps set by EISA 2007. The are considered high risk but can potentially lead to high- standard sets a maximum number of watts that a specified payoff energy saving results if successful. Some projects lamp (e.g., the so-called “A19 shape”) can use whose lumi- funded by ARPA-E are directly related to SSL, such as the nous output falls within a specified range. General service development of low-cost, bulk gallium nitride substrates and lamps outside this range are exempt from maximum rated the development of advanced, energy efficient power supply wattage limits. technologies (DOE, 2011a). EISA 2007 also sets up standards for federal government The vast majority of the work on SSL technology at buildings that will provide additional incentives for energy DOE takes place within EERE’s BTP. The BTP oversees efficient lighting. The statute directs that total energy use in the Emerging Technologies subprogram, which focuses on federal buildings be reduced 30 percent from a 2005 baseline developing cost-effective advanced technologies in such by 2015. Moreover, the statute directs that every federal facil- areas as lighting, windows, and space heating and cool- ity be subject to a comprehensive energy and water evalua- ing for residential and commercial buildings (DOE, 2010; tion at least once every 4 years. Finally, new federal buildings 2011b). Research across these different areas supports the and major renovations are required to reduce their energy residential and commercial building goal of reducing total use, relative to a 2003 baseline, by 55 percent in 2010 and energy use in buildings by up to 70 percent. One budget by 100 percent (i.e., zero net energy3) by 2030. There were line under Emerging Technologies is Solid-State Lighting. a number of attempts in the 112th Congress to roll back the The funding in recent years for this activity has been about $25 million per year, as delineated in Figure 2.1, of which 3 A “zero net energy” building utilizes no net energy from the electrical roughly $9 million was directed toward R&D in FY2011. grid through a combination of reducing overall use of energy (e.g., highly Most recently, the FY2012 appropriation is $25.83 million efficient lighting and HVAC technologies) and on-site production of renew- able energy (e.g., wind or solar). for lighting R&D, but specifies that $12 million of that total

OCR for page 018
HISTORY OF PUBLIC POLICY ON LIGHTING 21 FIGURE 2.1  Budget authority for the Department of Energy’s lighting research and development within the Building Technologies Program 2.1.eps (millions of dollars). SOURCE: Based on DOE (2010, 2011b) and Brodrick (2012). bitmap must be used for R&D into manufacturing improvements The SSL Manufacturing Initiative was added to the SSL for general illumination SSL. These yearly appropriations R&D portfolio in 2009 and is aimed at reducing costs of received a one-time boost with the American Recovery SSL sources and luminaires, improving product consistency and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), which in 2009 resulted in and maintaining high-quality products, and encouraging a about $50 million in additional funding being injected into significant role for domestic U.S.-based manufacturing. Most SSL R&D activities, much of which went to jumpstart the of the one-time $50 million ARRA appropriation in FY2009 Manufacturing Initiative. went into the manufacturing initiative, a fact reflected in the The goal of the SSL R&D program is the following: total obligations listed in Table 2.2. In its funding opportu- “By 2025, develop advanced solid-state lighting technolo- nity announcements, DOE expressed the goal of 50 percent gies that, compared to conventional lighting technologies, cost-share for manufacturing projects and 20 percent for are much more energy-efficient, longer lasting, and cost-­ core technology and technology development projects. To competitive by targeting a product system efficiency of aid in successful market adoption of SSL technology, DOE 50 percent with lighting that closely reproduces the visible has also developed a 5-year SSL commercialization support portions of the sunlight spectrum” (DOE, 2011a, p. 9). Three plan to help create the conditions, specifications, standards, primary interrelated thrusts are identified in the SSL multi- opportunities, and incentives that can lead to the accelerated year program plan for which roadmaps have been developed: adoption and applications of SSL products that will lead to (1) core technology research and product development, reduced energy consumption in buildings. (2) manufacturing R&D, and (3) commercialization support. The project areas outlined in the Multi-Year Program Plan cover a variety of topics split into core and product develop- TABLE 2.2  Breakdown of Current Department of Energy ment for light-emitting diodes (LEDs) and organic LEDs (DOE) Solid-State Lighting Research and Development (OLEDs) (DOE, 2011a). (R&D) Obligations (from both DOE and Matching Funds) The LED core technology focus areas are emitter mate­ as of December 2011 rials research, down-converters (material systems designed Funding to convert shortwavelength emitted radiation to longer (millions of Percentage of Number of wavelengths in the visible spectrum), novel emitter ­materials R&D Area dollars) Total Funding Projects and architectures, and optical component materials. The Core Technology LED product development focus areas are semiconductor LEDs 18.2 16 10 m ­ aterials, phosphors, emitter thermal control, luminaire OLEDs 8.8 8 7 thermal management techniques, electronic components Product Development research, and off-grid lighting. The core technology focus LEDs 14.6 13 8 areas for OLEDs are novel device architecture, novel mate- OLEDs 5.9 5 4 rials, material degradation, and electrode research. OLED Manufacturing product development areas include practical implementation LEDs 46.2 41 6 of materials and device architectures, substrate materials, OLEDs 20.2 18 3 luminaire mechanical design, luminaire thermal manage- Total 113.9 100 38 ment, large area OLED, and OLED light extraction. SOURCE: Based on DOE (2011b) and Brodrick (2011).

OCR for page 018
22 ASSESSMENT OF ADVANCED SOLID-STATE LIGHTING TABLE 2.3  Fiscal Year 2011 Funding for Research and Development for Solid-State Lighting Program FY2011 DOE Applicant Pathway Technology Appropriationa Cost-Sharea Cost-Share Percentage Core LED $3.7 $0.9 19.6% OLED $0.7 $0.09 11.4% Development LED $1.5 $0.3 16.7% OLED $1.4 $0.3 17.6% Manufacturing LED $1.3 $0.2 13.3% OLED $0.5 $0.2 28.6% TOTAL $9.1 $1.99 17.9% aIn millions of dollars. SOURCE: James Brodrick, DOE. As of December 2011 (DOE, 2011b) the DOE SSL R&D technical, market, economic, and other analyses and provides portfolio (consisting of projects awarded in current and past incentives to the private sector to innovate. years that are currently being funded) included 38 projects addressing both LED and OLED technologies, with a total FINDING: DOE has done an impressive job in leveraging of approximately $114 million in government (including a relatively small level of funding to play a leading role nation- FY2009 ARRA-funded projects that remain ongoing) and ally and internationally in stimulating the development of SSL. industry investment (see Table 2.2). DOE was providing approximately $69 million ($44.6 for LEDs and $23.4 mil- FINDING: In recent years, DOE has expanded its port- lion for OLEDs ), and $45.9 million ($34.4 for LEDs and folio to include R&D into manufacturing projects, largely at $11.5 million for OLEDs ) was provided through cost-shares the direction of Congress in the FY2009 ARRA funding and by project awardees. Twenty-four projects were focused on the FY2012 appropriations bill. LED technology and 14 on OLED technology. The BTP, along with ARRA funding, supported 38 projects, to which FINDING: The percentage of matching funds from R&D may be added 9 projects funded by the Small Business Inno- grant recipients was 18 percent for FY2011 funds. Ten years vation Research (SBIR) program in the Office of Science for ago, for FY1999 to FY2001, it had been roughly 40 percent. an additional total of $4.1 million. It has declined in the past few years, particularly in the Prod- Table 2.3 shows the distribution of FY2011 R&D funding uct Development category. for core technology, product development, and manufactur- ing, as summarized in Table 2.2. Less than half (48.4 percent) RECOMMENDATION 2-2: The Department of of all R&D funding is devoted to the development of core E ­ nergy’s solid-state lighting program should be maintained technologies. Cost-sharing by grantees averages just under and, if possible, increased. 18 percent (17.9 percent) of DOE funding and has declined in the past few years, particularly in the Product Development RECOMMENDATION 2-3a: The Department of program, where one might expect more significant industry Energy should seek to obtain 50 percent cost-sharing for partnership. manufacturing research and development projects, as was The DOE Lighting R&D program also addresses issues done with the projects funded by the American Recovery related to commercialization, such as working with industry and Reinvestment Act. and other partners (e.g., Pacific Northwest National Labora- tory [PNNL]4 and ORNL) to coordinate the development of RECOMMENDATION 2-3b: As part of the next man- standards or reduce barriers to market introduction of tech- dated study of the Department of Energy Solid State Lighting nologies that emerge from its efforts. It supports independent program in 2015, an external review should be conducted testing of SSL products, supports exploratory studies on to provide recommendations on the relative proportions of market trends and helps to identify critical technology issues, funding that should be dedicated to core technology, product supports workshops to foster collaboration on standards and development, and manufacturing projects, and what the tar- test procedures, promotes a number of industry alliances geted level of matching funding should be in each of these and consortia, disseminates information, and supports a three funding categories. number of other initiatives (Brodrick, 2011). It also conducts EPACT (05) directed DOE to establish a Next Gen- 4 In FY2011, $8.5 million was directed toward commercialization work eration Lighting Initiative (NGLI) to support the research, at PNNL (James Brodrick, DOE, personal communication to Martin Offutt, development, demonstration, and commercial application of National Research Council, February 22, 2012).

OCR for page 018
HISTORY OF PUBLIC POLICY ON LIGHTING 23 advanced SSL technologies. To that end, DOE was authorized there are projected to be shortages in the global supply of to create an industry alliance (NGLIA) that consists of private, certain raw materials needed to produce such lamps as would for-profit firms that are competitively selected to represent, comply with the 2009 rule (DOE, 2011f). Recently, DOE has as a group, U.S. SSL research, development, infrastructure, issued waivers to manufacturers of T8 fluorescent lamps to and manufacturing expertise. DOE may give preference to ease the problem of these shortages, although a solution for participants in the Industry Alliance in issuing competitive the medium and long term is still being developed by indus- grants awards under the NGLI. DOE signed a memorandum try even as it is developing SSL technology. of agreement (MOA) with NGLIA in February 2005 in which NGLIA will provide a manufacturing and commercializa- Federal Voluntary Programs tion emphasis for the NGLI. In order to facilitate this func- tion, NGLIA members are provided a 1-year non-exclusive Federal voluntary programs have also played a key role license to commercialize patented technologies resulting in the improvement in lighting energy efficiency over the from the Core Technology Program. Most of the participants past two decades. In 1991, Environmental Protection Agency in the Core Technology Program are small businesses and (EPA) created the Green Lights Program, a partnership to universities who would retain the intellectual property rights promote efficient lighting systems in commercial and indus- in their federally funded inventions under the Bayh-Dole trial buildings (EPA, 2009). In this program, EPA partnered Act. Accordingly, DOE sought and obtained a determination with public and private organizations to promote the use of of an exceptional circumstance that exempts DOE-funded more energy-efficient lighting. The program involved devel- SSL discoveries from the Bayh-Dole Act, as provided by oping a plan for organizations to follow, required annual 35 U.S.C. §202(a)(ii) of the statute. This determination will reporting of energy savings, and provided a set of free tech- remain valid for 10 years, to 2015. Some of the leading nical and marketing tools for participating organizations to researchers in the field of LED and OLED lighting have stated help them transition to more efficient lighting. to the Committee that they have declined to apply for DOE In the mid-1990s, EPA merged the Green Lights Program funding because of this Bayh-Dole exemption. into the ENERGY STAR® program. The latter program was started by EPA in 1992 as a voluntary labeling program FINDING: DOE’s waiver of Bayh-Dole for projects designed to promote energy efficient appliances and other funded by the SSL R&D program is discouraging some end-use products (GAO, 2010). Although ENERGY STAR® universities and small companies from participating in the did not initially include lighting, luminaires were added in program. 1997, CFLs in 1999, solid-state luminaires in 2007, and inte- gral LED lamps in 2009 (Baker, 2011). ENERGY STAR® RECOMMENDATION 2-4: The Department of Energy became a collaboration between EPA and DOE in 1996 should consider ending its waiver of Bayh-Dole for SSL (GAO, 2010). EPA plays the primary role and has responsi- funding. bility for setting performance levels, overseeing partnership agreements, product qualification determinations and listing, and monitoring and verification of the ENERGY STAR® CURRENT FEDERAL AND STATE PROGRAMS performance criteria. DOE is responsible for the develop- ment and monitoring of test and measurement procedures, Federal Regulations although in the lighting sector, industry has generally been EPACT (92) gave DOE the authority to amend energy proactive in developing the applicable test procedures. efficiency standards for covered general service fluorescent ENERGY STAR® previously allowed manufacturers lamps and incandescent reflector lamps, and DOE later to self-certify compliance with ENERGY STAR® require- received a court order to complete the rulemaking by 2009. ments, but it is now tightening the standard to require third- In July 2009, DOE published a final rule (DOE, 2009a). party certification of test data prior to ENERGY STAR® Its requirements came into effect starting July 14, 2012. qualification and labeling (Baker, 2011). EPA requires that In September 2011, DOE initiated another rulemaking on a product be tested by an EPA-recognized laboratory, which general service fluorescent lamps and incandescent reflec- then submits the test data to an EPA-recognized, third-party tor lamps with the aim of increasing the minimum efficacy certification body, which certifies that the product meets requirements for these types of lamps by a few percent the ENERGY STAR® specifications. Once the product has (DOE, 2011d). The final rule is projected to be published in been certified and displays the ENERGY STAR® label, the April 2014 and become effective in April 2017. As a result certification body conducts off-the-shelf verification testing of National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) (at manufacturers’ expense). comments to DOE regarding this rulemaking,5 DOE issued The current specifications for lamps receiving an a report in 2011 acknowledging that in the medium term, ENERGY STAR® certification provide approximately a 75 percent savings in energy use versus a standard incandes- 5 Personal communication with Clark Silcox, NEMA General Counsel. cent lamp. While the current ENERGY STAR® approach is

OCR for page 018
24 ASSESSMENT OF ADVANCED SOLID-STATE LIGHTING to specify different qualification criteria for specific lighting and residential applications and generally not to commercial technologies, EPA has stated a goal of moving toward speci- or industrial products. ENERGY STAR® applies to commer- fication integration in which one set of technology-neutral cial and industrial facilities, but the standards are for overall specifications would apply to all lighting technologies. To building energy efficiency (which includes lighting) rather that end, EPA has recently merged the SSL luminaire and than efficiency of individual components such as lighting non-SSL residential luminaire specifications into a single (other than those luminaires in commercial buildings sub- specification (EPA, 2011b) and has also proposed to merge ject to federal procurement). The ENERGY STAR® build- the CFL and SSL lamp specifications. However, the lighting ings program evolved in the 1990s out of the Green Lights industry has expressed concern that recent EPA actions do Program to focus not only on technologies but also on the not fully implement a technology-neutral approach. The cur- interaction of the various building systems. EPA awarded rent specification has different performance requirements for the first ENERGY STAR® to a building in 1999 (EPA, 2009). CFL and LED products with respect to many performance Installation of more energy efficient lighting may help characteristics (life rating, color maintenance requirement, a commercial or industrial facility to meet the ENERGY color angular uniformity requirements, lumen maintenance STAR® criteria, but other energy sources must also be con- requirements, and power factor requirements, to mention a sidered. The Design Lights Consortium, a collaboration of few) and does not appear to support the inclusion of any other utility companies and regional energy efficiency organiza- technologies (such as halogen or metal halide), no matter tions, is attempting to supplement the existing ENERGY how significant any improvements that were made in them, STAR® approach by providing awareness of efficient lighting given that test measurement methods are typically only given products for commercial buildings.6 for fluorescent and SSL technologies. Additionally, the Consortium for Energy Efficiency provides model incentive programs for utilities to adopt, FINDING: A technology-neutral specification for light- and commercial lighting products are already included in ing would “raise the bar” for energy efficiency without put- its programs. Finally, the DOE Municipal SSL Street Light ting the government in the position of picking and choosing Consortium addresses the energy efficiency of street and which technologies should be included in ENERGY STAR®. roadway lighting and assists cities and municipalities in their Rather, those technologies that meet the specified criteria energy efficiency needs. However, this program is primarily (e.g., luminous efficacy, color temperature, color rendering) a listing of products without the certification and labeling would qualify for ENERGY STAR® labeling. requirements of ENERGY STAR® and is not as high-profile as ENERGY STAR®. RECOMMENDATION 2-5: The Environmental Protec- tion Agency should develop technology-neutral specifications FINDING: The ENERGY STAR® program provides for lighting that are based on performance rather than the useful information to residential consumers on energy type of lamp to provide the most objective and even-handed efficient lighting products. While the ENERGY STAR® standards for energy efficiency. program also has a commercial and industrial segment, that program focuses on overall building efficiency rather than While ENERGY STAR® applies to more than 70 product the certification and labeling of individual products (with the categories, lighting is one of the few product categories in exception of luminaires in commercial buildings subject to which the ENERGY STAR® qualification is dependent not federal procurement). Many other government and industry only on energy efficiency, but also on lighting quality. The organizations address lighting product standards for the ENERGY STAR® lamp specification contains an extensive commercial sector. list of performance requirements (e.g., requirements relating to color consistency, color rendering, turn-on time, run-up State Laws and Regulations time) unrelated to energy efficiency, which are intended to ensure that ENERGY STAR® lighting products have a States have been active in promoting energy conservation high level of quality and are acceptable to consumers. EPA and efficiency by adopting a variety of regulatory, policy, and recently published a vision document in which it justifies the incentive programs, many of which will directly or indirectly inclusion of non-energy related requirements in ENERGY encourage more energy efficient lighting (DSIRE, 2011). In STAR® specifications (EPA, 2012). For its part, industry addition to these general provisions for energy efficiency, has expressed concerns about the inclusion of non-energy some states have adopted specific regulations for lighting. related factors in the ENERGY STAR® lighting criteria, cit- Although EPCA (75) generally preempts state energy effi- ing the potential for duplicative, inconsistent, or unnecessary ciency regulations for lighting that is regulated by the federal requirements, given that other standards and regulations may government, EISA 2007 provides an exception for California include similar provisions. and Nevada to adopt the EISA energy efficiency standards The ENERGY STAR® labeling program for individual lighting products primarily applies to federal procurement 6 See http://www.designlights.org/.

OCR for page 018
HISTORY OF PUBLIC POLICY ON LIGHTING 25 1 year earlier than required by the federal program. Although or in a space and is expressed in units of watts per square Nevada has declined to exercise this option, the California feet of floor area (W/ft2). In residential buildings, the maxi- Energy Commission adopted regulations implementing the mum LPD is not typically standardized, but the minimum federal standards 1 year earlier, so the standards shown in efficacy of lamps is often given, in addition to prescribing Table 2.1 above are being implemented 1 year earlier in some requirements for lighting controls. California, which started in January 2011. The LPD cannot be arbitrarily low. The Illuminating Engi- Some states, such as Texas and South Carolina, have neering Society (IES) defines recommended illumination adopted or proposed legislation exempting any lamps manu- levels for a large variety of visual tasks, and building codes factured entirely within that state from the federal EISA 2007 for commercial and industrial buildings take these recom- requirements.7 However, it is unlikely that any lamps and all mendations into account. In order to reduce energy use and their components are or will be manufactured entirely in a costs, the trend over the past decade has been for builders to single state, and, thus, these state bills (which have also been lower the LPDs to the point that the International Associa- introduced but not passed in other states) have more symbolic tion of Lighting Designers (IALD) has published a statement than practical effect. indicating that they do not support any further lowering of the In California, which has begun to implement the require- LPDs beyond ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 (IALD, 2011). ments 1 year in advance of the rest of the United States, no Additional lowering of lighting power densities would only significant opposition or problems have been encountered by be acceptable if the illumination levels remain unchanged, the initial implementation of the EISA 2007 requirements. which requires an increase in efficacy of the light source. The position expressed by IALD is based on the performance of FINDING: The EISA 2007 requirements for phasing currently available technology, which is commonly used as out inefficient lighting have sparked significant resistance a criterion for changes in building energy codes. by some legislators, states, and citizens in advance of the implementations of the requirements. FINDING: Given the currently available lighting tech- nologies, LPD allowances for commercial buildings have reached their practical lower limits, according to lighting BUILDING CODES professionals. In the long term, SSL may permit LPD allow- ances in building codes to be reduced further. Model Building Codes In addition to the regulation of the energy efficiency of State Building Codes individual lighting products by federal and state laws (dis- cussed above), lighting energy use in the United States is also Although states are required by federal law (EPACT 92) regulated by state-administered building codes that govern to either adopt the latest version of a model building energy the installed power and/or energy use of lighting installa- code or develop one that is considered equivalent to such an tions in new construction projects and major renovations that energy code, there is no penalty for not complying with this require a building permit. In particular, the American Society requirement. As of late 2011, about half of the states have of Heating, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers adopted a commercial building energy code correspond- (ASHRAE) and the International Code Council (ICC) both ing to ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2007, and nearly the same publish “model energy codes” for states to adopt. ASHRAE number have adopted a residential model building code has two minimum codes applicable to new construction: corresponding to 2009 IECC.8 However, the 2010 version Standard 90.1 for commercial and industrial buildings and of ASHRAE Standard 90.1 offers significant energy savings Standard 90.2 for residential buildings. The ICC develops over its predecessor, as shown in determinations performed the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) that by PNNL. Large architectural engineering firms design covers both residential and non-residential requirements. buildings at least to the requirements of the latest standards. In addition, some states—especially California, Oregon, However many design-build contractors, who provide the and Washington—have a history of developing their own bulk of the smaller buildings, typically minimize the initial codes. At the highest level, all of these codes approach the cost of the building, resulting in lower performance. Further­ issue in a similar way—by setting a maximum allowed more, enforcement of building energy code requirements installed lighting power density (LPD) and prescribing the is sometimes inadequate or inconsistent at the state level. minimum ­ ighting controls that must be used in commercial l Even in California, where the energy code process is among and industrial buildings. LPD refers to the spatial average the best in the nation, the California Energy Commission power consumption of the installed luminaires in a building lacked enforcement authority until 2011, when the California 7 Texas HB 2510, 82(R) Sess. (2011) (signed into law June 17, 2011, 8 However, states are not required to meet ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2007 effective January 1, 2012); H. 3735, South Carolina General Assembly, until July 20, 2013, 2 years after DOE issued a final determination on 90.1- 119th Session, 2011-2012 (introduced February 11, 2011, pending in state 2007 and the 2009 International Energy Conservation Code. They are not senate at end of session). required to comply with 90.1-2010 until October 19, 2013.

OCR for page 018
26 ASSESSMENT OF ADVANCED SOLID-STATE LIGHTING legislature passed a law (SB 4549) granting the commission residential applications. Moreover, as discussed later in this such authority. chapter, there is broad consumer dissatisfaction with CFLs. An alternative is to follow the California example and FINDING: Minimum building energy standards and give the home owners the option of using either high-efficacy model codes are steadily improving. Nevertheless, their lamps or standard lamps with appropriate lighting controls. adoption, as well as uniform and effective enforcement of adopted energy codes, would result in significant energy FINDING: Model energy codes for residential buildings savings. only address the efficacy of light sources, not their number or their use. The approach taken by the California residential PNNL has historically been tasked by DOE to perform a energy code may be more likely to improve energy efficiency. “determination” of the energy savings effect of a new version of building codes for commercial buildings. PNNL deter- Specifications for High-Performance Buildings mined that a commercial building complying with the 2010 standard is approximately 18.2 percent more energy efficient High-performance buildings are designed to use sustain- than one complying with the same standard from 2007 (DOE, able materials, consume less energy than other buildings, and 2011e). Lighting has played a key role in achieving this result conform to “Green Codes” or High-Performance Building through the reduction of maximum allowed LPDs, as well as Standards.11 High-performance buildings focus on reducing the increased mandatory requirements for lighting controls. or eliminating the waste at the building level. The goal for the 2015-2016 code cycle is to improve com- The new trend is to shift attention from LPDs to actual mercial building energy efficiency by 50 percent over the energy use as well as focusing on controls as a way to elimi- 2004 standard, and the long-term DOE vision is to achieve nate wasted energy. A recent, thorough assessment of the marketable “net zero” energy commercial buildings by the energy savings potential from lighting controls shows that year 2025 (DOE, undated). To achieve this result, buildings the biggest opportunities for savings come from reducing will have to have on site “renewable” energy generation that lighting power use by “tuning,” or setting the illumination on average is greater than or equal to the energy consumption level appropriately for the visual task, occupancy sensing of the building over the course of a year. (which turns off lighting when there are no people present), The model residential building code requires 50 percent of and daylighting (reducing electric lighting power in response the permanently installed luminaires to use “high-efficacy” to available daylight) (Williams et al., 2012). Using all of lamps. High efficacy is defined in IECC10 in a way that, in these lighting control strategies offers an average opportunity practical effect, the residential building must use either CFLs for energy savings in the range of 25 to 40 percent. or SSL products. The 2012 version of IECC increases this Figure 2.2 illustrates the relationship between light output requirement to 75 percent of the permanently installed lumi- and electrical power required to produce that light output. The ­ naires, and Maryland was the first state to adopt that version quantities are shown as relative light output and relative in December 2011. Title 24 of the California Code of Regula- power, and one can see that in each case, as light output tions requires the use of high-efficacy light sources in some is reduced, the electrical power required to produce that rooms while giving the user a choice of high-efficacy light light output also decreases. In the case of incandescent and sources or any light sources operated on lighting controls halogen lamps, the reduction of power is slower than with (other than a manual switch) for other rooms. the other light sources. SSL shows the most linear response The current approach of the model residential energy code between light output and electrical power. When lighting to lighting has some important limitations. First, the codes control strategies are fully employed in a building, the specify the energy efficiency of installed lighting but do not installed LPDs (as represented by the right end point of address the total number of luminaires nor how the lighting the curves) become less relevant. is used. Moreover, the trend in IECC to require an increasing Some industry sources (e.g., NEMA) have concluded that percentage of high-efficacy light sources in residential new regulation at the component level will not achieve net-zero construction may have unintended consequences in terms of energy buildings, so in order to achieve the goal set by DOE the number of lamps installed or how they are used, at least in to get there by 2030, a systems approach is needed. It is note- the short term when LED lamps are not yet appropriate for all worthy, therefore, that some residential “green codes” still express a preference for high-efficacy lighting in general, and sometimes for SSL products in particular. The approach in 9 See http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/sen/sb_0451-0500/ lighting requirements for residential buildings may need to sb_454_bill_20110216_introduced.pdf. change in view of this goal. 10 High-efficacy lamps are compact fluorescent lamps, T-8 or smaller diameter linear fluorescent lamps, or lamps with a minimum efficacy of 11 Such standards include, for example, ASHRAE 189.1: Standards 60 lumens per watt for lamps over 40 watts; 50 lumens per watt for lamps for the Design of High-Performance Green Buildings Except Low-Rise over 15 watts to 40 watts; and 40 lumens per watt for lamps 15 watts or Residential Buildings; and International Green Construction Code™ (IgCC) less (ICC, 2012). published by the International Code Council.

OCR for page 018
HISTORY OF PUBLIC POLICY ON LIGHTING 27 40 35 LED Fluorescent 30 Incandescent Input power (Watts) 25 20 15 10 5 0 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Light output relative to maximum FIGURE 2.2  Typical power draw as a function of light output for dimmable incandescent, fluorescent, and LED luminaires with maximum rated power of approximately 34 watts. 2.2.eps INCENTIVE PROGRAMS they undertake energy efficiency improvements beyond minimum code requirements. EPACT (05) authorized the Various incentive programs have also played an important Energy Efficient Commercial Building Tax Deduction, creat- role in encouraging the adoption of more energy efficient ing Section 179D of the Internal Revenue Code (26 United lighting. The most prevalent and high-profile incentive pro- States Code, Section 179D). According to this part of the grams have been provided by electric utilities, which have Code, a taxpayer who owns, or is a lessee of, a commercial actively supported the use of more energy efficient lighting building that achieves reductions to 50 percent below the as part of their DSM and energy conservation campaigns. level set by ANSI/ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-2001 is For example, electric utilities across the nation have actively eligible for a tax deduction of up to $1.80 per square foot, and promoted CFLs with consumer incentive programs, includ- $0.60 if lesser reductions are realized (IRS, 2012). Buildings ing giveaways, direct install products, discounted prices, designed to have lighting power density at least 25 percent and rebates (Vestel, 2009). These utility incentive programs below the baseline established by Standard 90.1-2001 are increased consumer awareness of more energy efficient eligible for a tax deduction of $0.30 per square foot of floor products (such as CFLs) (Sandahl et al., 2006). However, the space that is renovated. For public buildings, the tax deduc- programs also encountered some limitations, including the tion is available for the design teams. The original law was frequent reliance on low-quality, low-price CFLs that may extended in 2008 until December 31, 2013 (GSA, 2011). have reinforced negative attitudes toward this technology Finally, DOE has created incentives for the design and by consumers (Sandahl et al., 2006). In addition, providing manufacture of more efficient lamps by offering a prize, consumers with energy efficient lamps for free or at greatly called the Bright Tomorrow Lighting Prize or the “L Prize,” reduced prices might create unrealistic expectations about for the manufacturer that can design an LED lamp that meets lower future costs for such lighting (Sandahl et al., 2006). specified performance criteria.12 As mandated by EISA 2007, Some retailers have also implemented their own incentive DOE is offering this prize initially to manufacturers that programs for efficient lighting. For example, Walmart, the develop and plan to manufacture at a reasonable cost energy nation’s largest retailer, committed to selling 100 million efficient replacement technologies for “two of today’s most CFLs (Barbaro, 2007). It was able to achieve this 3 months widely used and inefficient technologies, 60 W incandescent ahead of schedule because of an aggressive in-store cam- lamps and [parabolic aluminum reflector] (PAR) 38 halogen paign and devoted shelf space as well as partnership with lamps” (DOE, 2009). It was announced in August 2011 that DOE, Environmental Defense, and a number of other orga- Philips Lighting North America had won the L Prize in the nizations to promote energy efficiency. 60 W category. In addition to incentives that are available from electric utilities and retailers, the federal government has made avail- able tax deductions to commercial building owners when 12 See http://www.lightingprize.org/index.stm.

OCR for page 018
28 ASSESSMENT OF ADVANCED SOLID-STATE LIGHTING FINDING: Non-regulatory incentive programs may play converts only 0.2 to 2.6 percent of electricity consumed into an important role in the adoption of energy efficient lighting useful light (the rest is wasted as heat) and has a typical technologies. lifetime between several hundred and a few thousand hours (median of about 1,000 hours). The CFL, on the other hand, RECOMMENDATION 2-6: The Department of Energy, has an efficiency of approximately 13 percent (five-fold in consultation with the Department of the Treasury, should ­better than the incandescent lamp) and has a reported lifetime conduct a study to determine the effectiveness and impacts of ranging from 3,000 to 30,000 hours (median around 10,000 incentive program designs in fostering adoption of efficient hours) (Azevedo et al., 2009). The Congressional Research lighting technologies. Service estimates that a typical 100 W incandescent lamp used $18.30 in energy per year compared to only $4.90 for an equivalent CFL lamp (Logan, 2008). The CFL thus INTERNATIONAL REGULATION provides great potential to save energy, money, and reduce Many nations are in the process of phasing out traditional environmental consequences, such as CO2 emissions, from incandescent lamps in favor of more energy efficient lamps generating the electricity needed to operate the light. (Figure 2.3). Cuba and Australia were the first nations to While fluorescent lights have been widely used in com- phase out incandescent lamps. New Zealand joined its neigh- mercial and industrial applications since the 1950s, they bor Australia in June 2008 by announcing that country’s were not appropriate for most residential applications until intention to phase out incandescent lamps and later joined the advent of the CFL. The first spiral tube CFL was cre- with Australia to develop a common minimum efficacy ated in 1976, but they were not commercially available on standard for these lamps, AS/NZS 4934.2(Int):2008, which a widespread basis until the 1990s—when they were made was later replaced by AS/NZS 4934.2:2011. However, public feasible by technological advances such as the ability to opinion and a change in government in New Zealand led that cost-effectively manufacture lamps consisting of tightly country in March 2011 to repeal the ban announced in 2008. coiled gas-filled fluorescent tubes and the introduction of The European Union began a phase-out of incandescent small electronic ballasts (Sandahl et al., 2006; Logan, 2008). lamps on September 1, 2009. The initial consumer uptake of CFLs in the 1980s and In November 2011, China announced that it will phase 1990s was slow and was much lower in the United States than out incandescent lamps within 5 years. Canada also adopted other industrial nations (LRC, 2003; Sandahl et al., 2006). a phase-out of incandescent lamps starting in January 2012, Various utility energy efficiency programs gave away or sub- but in October 2011 the Canadian government announced stantially discounted CFLs in the 1990s, but these programs that the phase-out in that country will be delayed by 2 years, were generally unsuccessful in building consumer demand expressing concerns about “the availability of compliant for CFLs. Many of the CFLs distributed in these programs technologies and perceived health and mercury issues, were of low quality (e.g., poor CRI, unmet projected lifetime, including safe disposal for compact fluorescent lamps,” and lack of cold temperature operation, delay to full brightness, will now begin in January 2014 (Thompson, 2011). inability to dim, inability to fit in many lamp harps), rein- forcing negative stereotypes of CFLs (Sandahl et al., 2006). FINDING: Other countries are following similar regula- Moreover, the free or near-free distribution of millions of tory pathways as the United States in phasing out incandes- CFLs created an expectation that CFLs were inexpensive, cent lamps, although at different schedules and with some causing consumer backlash when higher quality and more delays. realistically priced lamps were offered for sale once the giveaway programs ended (Sandahl et al., 2006). In contrast to the convergence in lighting product regula- The market share of CFLs grew rapidly in the early tions, building regulations are less uniform around the world, 2000s as utilities and other entities aggressively promoted and thus far there have been no internationally recognized consumer switch-over to CFLs. For example, the EPA and a building standards. Significantly, the International Commis- large number of participating manufacturers, retailers, and sion on Illumination or CIE (Commission Internationale utilities launched a national media campaign in 2001 pro- d’Eclerage) announced in 2011 that it is starting a new moting CFLs (Sandahl et al., 2006). Today, the majority of technical committee to develop recommendations for inter- U.S. households have used or are currently using at least one national building standards. CFL (APT, 2010). The market share for CFLs hit a peak of approximately 20 percent in 2007 but then declined in 2008 and 2009 to approximately 15 percent of the U.S. market, due COMPACT FLUORESCENT LAMP CASE STUDY in part to the recession, but also likely in part due to reduced The U.S. experience with CFLs provides a useful case incentive programs (Swope, 2010). This market penetra- study that offers some pertinent lessons for LED lighting. tion of CFLs has resulted in an expected decline in overall The CFL is much more energy efficient than the incandescent replacement shipments, as the CFL’s longer life has reduced lamp, and it also lasts much longer. The incandescent lamp the frequency in which lamps must be replaced (APT, 2010).

OCR for page 018
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Europe European Union 100W 75W 60W 40W-15W halogen available efficiency level B Switzerland 100W 75W 60W 40W-15W halogen available efficiency level B Turkey Aligned with EU halogen available efficiency level B North America British Columbia 75W, 100W 40W,60W halogen available California 100W 75W 40W,60W halogen available USA (except CA) 100W 75W 40W,60W halogen available Canada (except BC) 75W, 100W 40W, 60W halogen available Latin America Cuba banned all incandescent filament lamps including halogen in 2005 Argentina ban of all incandescent lamps ≥ 25W but not including halogen Columbia ≥150W ≥75W ≥60W halogen available Mexico 100W 75W 40W,60W halogen available Brazil ≥100W ≥60W ≥40W ≥25W halogen av. Asia Malaysia ≥100W all other wattages ban of all filament lamps in favor of CFLs and LEDs Russia ≥100W halogen available Israel ≥60W halogen available ROK 150W - 70W 70W-25W minimum standard 20 lm/W Taiwan Min. requirements for consumer lamps: 22lm/W for ≥100W, 20lm/W for ≥60W, 18lm/W for ≥40W, 15lm/W for ≥25W China ≥100W ≥60W ≥15W Japan gradual voluntary transition by major lamp companies to high efficacy lighting - no mandatory regulations in place Philippines no government mandated ban at this time, Bill to require a minimum of 15 lm/W efficacy introduced in the Philippines Senate India Some voluntary programs, but no mandatory standards for lamps rated at 100W or below Oceania Australia Traditional incandescent phased out in 2009, halogen available New Zealand Intention was to phase out traditional incandescent lamps the same way as Australia, but government elected in 2008 did not proceed Color code: Phase out event or period Higher efficacy filament lamps allowed No filament lamps allowed FIGURE 2.3  Schedule for phase-out of incandescent lamps worldwide as of December 2011. 2.3.eps 29

OCR for page 018
30 ASSESSMENT OF ADVANCED SOLID-STATE LIGHTING The ENERGY STAR ® program has also helped to used in recessed lighting had dimmed by at least 25 percent enhance the quality and environmental benefit perceptions of by halfway through their rated lifetime (Angelle, 2010). CFLs. ENERGY STAR® launched a CFL program in 1999 Another study performed for the California Public Utilities that set design specifications for lamps that would qualify for Commission found that the average useful life of a CFL ENERGY STAR® labeling, which had a beneficial effect in in California was 6.3 years, considerably shorter than the promoting the production and sale of high-quality, energy projected useful life of 9.4 years (Smith, 2011). Moreover, efficient CFLs (Sandahl et al., 2006). These specifications factors such as frequently turning the light on and off can for program-compliant CFLs have been strengthened several substantially degrade the longevity of a fluorescent lamp times since the launch of the program in 1999. Nearly 300 (DOE, 2011c). Given that the extended useful life of CFLs million ENERGY STAR®-certified CFLs were sold in the is one of their primary selling points, the early burnout of United States in 2007 (Logan, 2008). many lamps was “especially vexing” (Broderick, 2007). EISA 2007 has the potential to significantly increase While substantial improvements have been made in the qual- m ­ arket demand for CFLs as the traditional incandescent ity and reliability of CFLs, by engineering improvements in lamp is gradually phased out for general service applications both the lamp and ballast design (Sandahl et al., 2006), there by the legislation. Virtually every other industrial nation has remains significant variation in product quality that continues adopted similar measures to phase out incandescent lamps to hamper consumer confidence (Logan, 2008). (see Figure 2.3; Waide, 2010). Amendments to California’s Some consumers have expressed dissatisfaction with the Title 24 energy code requirements in October 2005 required quality of light from CFLs. These consumer concerns include dedicated non-screw-based, energy efficient luminaires in the following: CFLs have a slower ramp-up to full luminous most new residential applications, which again provided a output compared to the standard incandescent lamp; most regulatory boost to CFLs, although in this case for the linear CFLs are not dimmable; and, most significantly, some con- pin-based CFLs with a separate ballast rather than the screw- sumers perceive the quality of light from CFLs as inferior in spiral CFLs being developed to substitute for traditional to traditional lighting sources, with frequent complaints that incandescent lamps. the light is “too dim,” “harsh and unflattering,” “too blue,” or Despite this progress, the CFL has encountered a number otherwise “not right” (APT, 2010; Logan, 2008; Rice, 2011; of problems that have presented a significant obstacle to its Sandahl et al., 2006; LRC, 2003; Scelfo, 2008). Although market growth and adoption. One problem is that consumers manufacturers of CFLs have invested considerable R&D associate negative connotations with the word “fluorescent,” effort to improve the performance of CFLs, adverse con- likely a residue of the “unfriendly” and flickering fluorescent sumer perceptions can be long-lasting and hard to reverse. tube lighting used in many commercial establishments (LRC, Environmental and health concerns have also been an 2003; Brodrick, 2007). Another problem, noted in the above important factor in the uptake of CFLs. Each CFL contains discussion on DSM, has been the poor or inconsistent quality, a small amount of mercury (generally 3-5 mg per lamp), reliability, and durability of some CFL lamps. For example, which, if accumulated in landfills or other inappropriate many of these cheaper lamps had inconsistent performance disposal routes, could total a significant amount of mercury and produced low-quality light (Sandahl et al., 2006; Logan, released to the environment, creating both an environmental 2008). Exaggerated product claims had a lasting detrimen- and occupational exposure risk (Aucott et al., 2003). Only tal impact on consumer interest and confidence in CFLs 2 percent of residential users and just under 30 percent of (Sandahl et al., 2006). Some cheaper CFLs even had to be businesses properly recycle their CFLs, even though some recalled because they presented a fire danger (CPSC, 2010). state laws mandate recycling of fluorescent and a number Many consumers who were early adopters of CFLs ended of retailers and other entities have launched free recycling up removing them from their homes because of the disap- programs (Bohan, 2011; Silveira and Chang, 2011). Never- pointing performance (Broderick, 2007). In many cases, CFL theless, EPA and others have pointed out that CFLs may still products were used as screw-in replacements for various result in a net decrease in mercury releases into the environ- types of incandescent bulbs, such as the PAR lamp, used in ment because the mercury released from CFLs, especially recessed, downlighting applications. Lacking the internal if handled and disposed of properly, would be less than reflector, the retro-fitted, omni-directional CFL in some the amount of mercury emissions that would result from cases would result in lower efficacy (lumens per watt) of the coal-fired power plants if powering all incandescent lamps luminaire. A similar problem occurred in surface-mounted (ENERGY STAR®, 2010). downlights, where the lamp was indiscriminately matched Some states have adopted regulations for recycling or with the luminaire’s optical components. disposal of mercury-containing light. For example, the In addition, some CFLs have not lived up to their adver- Massachusetts Mercury Management Act, adopted in 2006 tised extended lifespan. For example, one analysis of the (Chapter 109 of the Acts of 2006), prohibits the disposal of Program for the Evaluation and Analysis of Residential mercury-containing lamps in the trash or other unapproved lighting (PEARL) found that 2 to 13 percent (depending sites and requires manufacturers of such lamps to imple- on brand) of CFLs failed early, and half of reflector CFLs ment a plan for educating users about recycling “end of life”

OCR for page 018
HISTORY OF PUBLIC POLICY ON LIGHTING 31 lamps. The Massachusetts law also establishes recycling Stavins, 1994). The Government Accountability Office targets for mercury-containing lamps that reached 70 percent (GAO) estimates that the higher up-front cost of a CFL would by December 2011. Similarly, Maine requires (Chapter 850, be recovered in 2 to 7 months because of the higher energy Section 3A) any type of mercury-added lamp used in com- efficiency and lower replacement costs of CFLs, but con­ mercial, industrial, or residential applications to be treated sumers are disproportionately influenced by the higher initial as hazardous waste, which requires that all such lamps cost (Logan, 2008). Consumers apply a very high implicit be treated, disposed, or recycled at an authorized destina- discount rate—as high as 300 percent compared to the typical tion facility. The State of Washington adopted legislation 2.5 to 10 percent used in most economic analyses—that deter in 2010 (ESSB5543) that established a producer-financed consumer purchases of energy efficiency technologies that product stewardship program for the collection, recycling, may cost more up-front but save money over their lifetime and disposal of mercury-containing lamps that must be ­ because of lower energy and replacement costs (Azevedo et implemented by 2013, after which no CFLs may be placed al., 2009). This inflated consumer discount rate is attributed in the garbage. to a number of factors, including lack of knowledge about Moreover, there is also concern about individual lamps cost savings, disbelief about lifetime savings, and lack of breaking in residential use, and the EPA recommends expertise in addressing the time value of money (Azevedo special precautions in using and disposing of CFLs if they et al., 2009). break (EPA, 2011a), which may alarm some consumers. In addition, substantial variation in CFL pricing, includ- The European Union’s Scientific Committee on Health and ing the availability of inexpensive subsidized lamps, creates Environmental Risks (SCHER) calculated that ambient consumer confusion and beliefs that higher-priced CFLs are room exposures to mercury are in the range of or exceed the over-priced (Sandahl et al., 2006). Empirical studies indi- occupational exposure limit (100 µg/m3), but because that cate that many consumers are unaware of the lower operat- exposure limit is based on the safe level of lifetime exposure, ing costs of CFLs, as well as their environmental benefits the expert group concluded that adults would not be harmed (Di Maria et al., 2010; LRC, 2003). Better communication by mercury exposures from a broken CFL lamp (SCHER, initiatives—such as clearer labels emphasizing lower life- 2010). Various unconfirmed allegations in the media about time costs and the trade-offs between initial and operating other potential health impacts of CFLs, including migraine costs, as well as various types of consumer education cam- headaches, skin problems, epileptic seizures, and cancer, paigns, have been suggested as necessary to help consumers have further increased public anxiety about the “unfamiliar” understand the energy saving and environmental benefits of CFLs (Ward, 2011). CFLs (Di Maria et al., 2010). Consumer confusion and uncertainty have also been Mandating technology change through legislation without impediments to CFL uptake (Sandahl et al., 2006). Some any concerted effort to educate and prepare consumers, not specific examples included uncertainty about whether CFLs unexpectedly, creates a political backlash, with the per- could be used in existing luminaires, confusion caused by the ceived shortcomings of the CFL serving as a key catalyst use of different names to describe CFLs, the lack of ability to much of the controversy and opposition. (See further to compare different lighting technologies in terms of watts discussion of this issue in Chapter 6 in the section “Role and lumens, and the inability to communicate different color of Govern­ ent in Aiding Widespread Adoption.”) Some m options (Sandahl et al., 2006; Broderick, 2007). Con­ umers s consumers are stockpiling incandescent lamps (O’Donnell were more comfortable with performance descriptions that and Koch, 2011), in many cases after trying and rejecting were framed in terms of comparisons with existing, familiar CFLs, and the public resistance to the switchover is likely products (Sandahl et al., 2006). More generally, there also to grow as more consumers become aware of the legisla- is considerable inertia in the consumer demand for lighting, tive consequences as they began to take effect on January with many consumers displaying strong preferences for lamps 1, 2012. Some politicians have decried the “light bulb ban” that are most similar to the type they have been using previ- and criticized the attempt to impose those “little, squiggly, ously. Thus, as the incandescent lamp is gradually phased out pigtailed” CFLs on an unreceptive public (Rice, 2011). The under the EISA 2007 timeline, many con­sumers will switch to EISA 2007 mandate has become a lightning rod for con- halogen lamps rather than CFLs, even though CFLs generally tested national political debates on the role of government provide a greater energy efficiency advantage. in society and consumer freedom. Legislation has been Initial price has also been a problem for CFL uptake introduced to overturn the phase-out of the incandescent (LRC, 2003; Sandahl et al., 2006; APT, 2010). Even though lamp, but none has succeeded to date, although some have CFLs save consumers money in the long-run because of received significant and even majority support. For example, lower energy use and longer lifespan, consumers are par- the U.S. House of Representatives passed an amendment in ticularly sensitive to the higher up-front costs of CFLs, as July 2011 that would prohibit DOE from spending any funds is the case with many other energy efficient products, an on implementing the lighting efficiency standards (Howell, effect described as the “energy paradox” of the very gradual 2011). As noted above, similar bills have been introduced in diffusion of energy-conservation technologies (Jaffe and state legislatures in South Carolina and Texas (Simon, 2011).

OCR for page 018
32 ASSESSMENT OF ADVANCED SOLID-STATE LIGHTING FINDING: Disposal of mercury-containing CFL lamps DOE. 2009. Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards and perceived health impacts are causing concern by some and Test Procedures for General Service Fluorescent Lamps and Incan- descent Reflector Lamps. Final Rule. Federal Register 74(133):34079- citizens and states. Federal legislators and other actors 34179 (July 14). promoting CFL lamps failed to adequately anticipate these DOE. 2010. Department of Energy FY 2011 Congressional Budget Request, perceived risks and concerns. Volume 3. Washington, D.C.: DOE Office of the Chief Financial ­Officer. February. Available at http://www.cfo.doe.gov/budget/11budget/­ RECOMMENDATION 2-7: Policy makers should Content/Volume%203.pdf. Accessed October 25, 2011. DOE. 2011a. Solid-State Lighting Research and Development: Multi-Year anticipate real or perceived environmental, health, and safety Program Plan. Washington, D.C.: Office of Energy Efficiency and issues associated with solid-state lighting technologies and Renew­ ble Energy, Building Technologies Program. March. a prepare to address such concerns proactively. DOE. 2011b. Department of Energy FY 2012 Congressional Budget ­R equest, Volume 3. Washington, D.C.: DOE Office of the Chief FINDING: The experience with CFLs provides a number Financial Officer. February. Available at http://www.cfo.doe.gov/ budget/12budget/­ ontent/Volume3.pdf. Accessed October 25, 2011. C of lessons for SSL, including the following: (1) the quality, DOE. 2011c. Energy Savers: When to Turn Off Your Lights, July 18. Avail- reliability, and price of initial products will be a critical able at http://www.energysavers.gov/your_home/lighting_daylighting/ factor in the success and consumer uptake of the product; index.cfm/mytopic=12280. (2) market introduction and penetration take time; (3) manu- DOE. 2011d. Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for General facturers and others should take care not to over promise; Service Fluorescent Lamps, General Service Incandescent Lamps, and Incandescent Reflector Lamps—Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. Fed- (4) consumer education is critical; and (5) ENERGY STAR® eral Register 76:56661-56678 (September 14). and other credible performance standards can play important DOE. 2011e. Building Energy Standards Program: Final Determination roles in raising quality and confidence. Regarding Energy Efficiency Improvements in the Energy Standard for Buildings, Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings, ANSI/ASHRAE/ IESNA Standard 90.1-2010. Federal Register 76:64904-64923 (Oc- REFERENCES tober 11). DOE. 2011f. Critical Materials Strategy. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Depart- Angelle, A. 2010. Will LED light best your CFLs and incandescents? Popu- ment of Energy. December. lar Mechanics. August 4. Available at http://www.popularmechanics. DSIRE. 2011. Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency. com/science/environment/will-led-light--best-cfls-and-incandescents. Available at http://www.dsireusa.org/. APT (Applied Proactive Technologies, Inc.). 2010. The U.S. Replacement ENERGY STAR®. 2010. Frequently Asked Questions Information on Lamp Market, 2010-2015, and the Impact of Federal Regulation on Compact Fluorescent Light (CFLs) and Mercury. November. Available Energy Efficiency Lighting Programs. Springfield, Mass.: APT, Inc. at http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/promotions/ change_light/ August. Available at http://www.appliedproactive.com/uploads/pdf/ downloads/Fact_Sheet_Mercury.pdf. USLampMarket_and_EELightingPrograms_APT_Final.pdf. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2009. Celebrating a Aucott, M., M. McLinden, and M. Winka. 2003. Release of mercury from ­ ecade of Energy Star Buildings: 1999-2009. Washington, D.C.: U.S. D fluorescent. Journal of the Air and Waste Management Association EPA. Available at http://www.energystar.gov/ia/business/downloads/­ 53:143-151. Decade_of_ Energy_Star.pdf. Azevedo, I.L., M.G. Morgan, and F. Morgan. 2009. The transition to solid- EPA. 2011a. What to Do if a Compact Fluorescent Light (CFL) Bulb or state lighting. Proceedings of the IEEE 97:481-510. Fluorescent Tube Light Bulb Breaks in Your Home. January 25. Avail- Baker, A. 2011. “ENERGY STAR® Lighting: An Update on the New able at http://www.epa.gov/cfl/cflcleanup.pdf. Program.” Presentation to the Committee on Assessment of Solid State EPA. 2011b. ENERGY STAR® Program Requirements Product Specifica- Lighting, Washington, D.C. July 28. tion for Lamps. Version 1.0, Draft 1. Washington, D.C.: U.S. EPA. Barbaro, M. 2007. Wal-Mart puts some muscle behind power-sipping. New October. York Times. January 2. EPA. 2012. ENERGY STAR® Products Program Strategic Vision and Guid- Bohan, S. 2011. Mercury in unrecycled CFLs take a toll on the environment. ing Principles. Washington, D.C.: U.S. EPA. January. Los Angeles Times. April 7. GAO (Government Accountability Office). 2010. Energy Star Program: Broderick, J. 2007. CFLs in America: Lessons learned on the way to the Covert Testing Shows the Energy Star Program Certification Process is market. LD+A July:52-56. Vulnerable to Fraud and Abuse. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Brodrick, J.R., U.S. Department of Energy. 2012. “Briefing on DOE Solid- Printing Office. State Lighting Program.” Presentation to the Committee on Assess- Gillingham, K., R.G. Newell, and K. Palmer. 2004. Examination of ment of Solid State Lighting, Washington, D.C. May 9, 2011; updated Demand-Side Energy Efficiency Policies. RFF discussion paper. Wash- February 2012. ington, D.C.: Resources for the Future. CPSC (Consumer Product Safety Commission). 2010. Trisonic Com- GSA (General Services Administration). 2011. Energy Efficient Commer- pact Fluorescent Light Recalled Due to Fire Hazard. CPSC Release cial Building Tax Deduction. Available at http://www.gsa.gov/portal/ #11-001. October 5. Available at http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/ content/221677. Accessed May 21, 2012. prhtml11/11001.html. Howell, K. 2011. Despite rider, lights will stay on for standards—­Advocates. Di Maria, C., S. Ferreira, and E. Lazarova. 2010. Shedding light on the light Greenwire. December 16. bulb puzzle: The role of attitudes and perceptions in the adoption of IALD (International Association of Lighting Designers). 2011. “Energy energy efficient light. Scottish Journal of Political Economy 57:48-67. Codes: Moving Forward.” Memorandum dated April 12, 2011. Chicago, DOE (Department of Energy). Undated. Net Zero Energy Commercial Ill.: IALD. Building Initiative. Available at http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ publications/pdfs/alliances/cbi_fs.pdf.

OCR for page 018
HISTORY OF PUBLIC POLICY ON LIGHTING 33 ICC (International Code Council). 2012. International Energy Conservation Scelfo, J. 2008. Any other bright ideas? New York Times. January 10. Code. Washington, D.C.: ICC. SCHER (Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks). IRS (Internal Revenue Service). 2012. Internal Revenue Bulletin: 2012-17. 2010. Opinion on Mercury in Certain Energy-Saving Light. Brussels, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. ­Belgium: European Union Health and Consumer Protection Directorate- Jaffe, A.B., and R.N. Stavins. 1994. The energy paradox and the diffusion General. May 18. of conservation technology. Resource and Energy Economics 16:91-122. Silveira, G.T.R., and S.-Y. Chang. 2011. Fluorescent lamp recycling initia- Logan, J. 2008. Lighting Efficiency Standards in the Energy Independence tives in the United States and a recycling proposal based on extended and Security Act of 2007: Are Incandescent Light “Banned”? CRS producer responsibility and product stewardship concepts. Waste Man- Report RS22822. April 23. agement and Research 29:656-668. LRC (Lighting Research Center). 2003. Increasing Market Acceptance Simon, R. 2011. Texas aglow with effort to save the incandescent bulb. Los of Compact Fluorescent Lamps (CFLs). Report prepared for the U.S. Angeles Times. July 9. Environmental Protection Agency. September 30. Available at http:// Smith, R. 2011. The new light lose a little shine. Wall Street Journal. Janu- www.lrc.rpi.edu/programs/lightingTransformation/colorRoundTable/ ary 19. pdf/MarketAcceptanceOfCFLsFinal.pdf. Sudarshan, A., and J. Sweeney, Stanford University. 2008. Deconstructing NRC (National Research Council). 2001. Energy Research at DOE: Was the “Rosenfeld Curve.” Working paper. Available at http://www.stanford. It Worth It? Energy Efficiency and Fossil Energy Research 1978-2000. edu/group/peec/cgi-bin/docs/modeling/research/­Deconstructing%20 Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. the%20Rosenfeld%20Curve.pdf. NRC. 2010. Real Prospects for Energy Efficiency in the United States. Swope, T. 2010. “The Present and Possible Future CFL Market,” Presenta- Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press. tion to the Northeast Residential Lighting Stakeholders Meeting on O’Donnell, J., and W. Koch. 2011. Some consumers resist ‘green’ light behalf of D&R International for U.S. DOE. March 30. Available at bulbs. USA Today. February 7. http://neep.org/uploads/Summit/2010%20Presentations/NEEP%20 Parfomak P., and L. Lave. 1996. How many kilowatts are in a negawatt? Lighting_ Swope.pdf. Verifying ex post estimates of utility conservation impacts at the regional ­ Thompson, E. 2011. Incandescent phase-out pushed back two years. The level. The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Eco- Vancouver Province. May 19. nomics 17(4):59-88. Vestel, L.B. 2009. As C.F.L. sales fall, more incentives urged. New York Rice, A. 2011. Bulb in, bulb out. New York Times Magazine. June 3. Times. September 28. Sandahl, L.J., T.L. Gilbride, M.R. Ledbetter, H.E. Steward, and C. Calwell. Waide, P. 2010. Phase Out of Incandescent Lamps: Implications for Interna- 2006. Compact Fluorescent Lighting in America: Lessons Learned tional Supply and Demand for Regulatory Compliant Lamps. International on the Way to Market. Report to DOE Prepared by Pacific Northwest Energy Agency Information Paper. April. Paris: International Energy National Laboratory. May. Available at http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/ Agency. buildings/publications/pdfs/ssl/cfl_lessons_learned_web.pdf. Ward, V. 2011. Energy saving light ‘contain cancer causing chemicals.’ The Savitz, M. 1986. The federal role in conservation research and develop- Telegraph (U.K.). April 20. ment. Pp. 89-118 in The Politics of Energy Research and Development, Williams, A., B. Atkinson, K. Garbesi, E. Page, and F. Rubinstein. 2012. Volume 3 (J. Byrne and D. Rich, eds.). Energy Policy Studies Series. Lighting controls in commercial buildings. Leukos: The Journal of the New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction, Inc. Illuminating Engineering Society of North America 8(3):161-180.