1 / 8

RTF Residential Lighting Subcommittee

RTF Residential Lighting Subcommittee. Comparison of Lumen Grouping Options. At March 25 subcommittee meeting, we reviewed the sensitivity of results to program variations from RBSA representation when we shift from 6 lumen categories to 3.

morna
Download Presentation

RTF Residential Lighting Subcommittee

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. RTF Residential Lighting Subcommittee Comparison of Lumen Grouping Options

  2. At March 25 subcommittee meeting, we reviewed the sensitivity of results to program variations from RBSA representation when we shift from 6 lumen categories to 3. • We saw that this coarser grouping is generally OK, except • The General Purpose 665 to 1439 lumen category is sensitive to differences between Program and RBSA. This is the most popular lamp type. • Direct install LEDs with a CFL baseline are highly sensitive • The subcommittee was OK not including these as measures so that the coarser groupings could be used for all proposed measures. The workbook will still contain CFL to LED savings estimates. Overview

  3. The subcommittee prefers to keep the number of lumen categories at 3. • They requested that RTF staff compare the sensitivity of results to two mappings: • Option 2/2/2 – each 2 RTF lumen categories are mapped to one new lumen category. • Option 2/1/3 – the first two RTF lumen categories are mapped to one new lumen category, the next RTF lumen category is mapped to its own new lumen category, and the next three RTF lumen categories are mapped to the third lumen category. Overview

  4. ResultsDI - CFLs 2/2/2 Option 2/1/3 Option

  5. ResultsDI - LEDs 2/2/2 Option 2/1/3 Option

  6. ResultsRetail - CFLs 2/2/2 Option 2/1/3 Option

  7. ResultsRetail - LEDs 2/2/2 Option 2/1/3 Option

  8. Option 2/1/3 is more polarizing than option 2/2/2: 2/1/3 has more red (highly sensitive) and more gray (not sensitive) areas. • More gray because there’s no potential difference between RBSA and programs in the 664 to 1014 lumen category • More red because the 1014 to 2600 is a weighted average of a wider range of savings values, so small shifts in weights lead to relatively larger shifts in average savings. • This analysis builds on the RTF lumen-for-lumen assumption. It does not capture the effects of • cross-shopping (e.g. replacing 75W incandescent with a 60W equivalent LED ) • Programs selecting products of slightly higher lumens than preferred in order to claim savings from a higher lumen category. • If cross-shopping is most prevalent between 60W-equivalent and 75W-equivalent lamps, than these should be in the same category. • Although Option 2/2/2 has the potential to get savings wrong, in practice, recent CFL programs have had similar proportions of 60W-equivalent and 75W-equivalent lamps as we see in RBSA. And it’s probably safe to assume that the mix of CFLs in programs going forward will be similar. • For these reasons, Staff think that Option 2/2/2 is better than Option 2/1/3. Conclusions

More Related