1. DOE SSL Program Overview and 2012 CALiPER Reports in Review January 22, 2013 0

2. DOE SSL PROGRAM OVERVIEW 1 Comprehensive Program R&D and Commercialization  R&D  CALiPER Testing  LPrize Competition  Next Generation Luminaire  LED Lighting Facts  GATEWAY Demonstrations  Street Lighting Consortium  TINSSL ssl.energy.gov/

3. DOE SSL PROGRAM OVERVIEW LED Lighting Facts  DOE's LED Lighting Facts ® program showcases LED products for general illumination from manufacturers who commit to testing products and reporting performance results according to industry standards.LED Lighting Facts ® program  LED Lighting Facts label provides lighting buyers, designers, and energy efficiency programs with information essential to evaluating SSL products  Data is measured by the industry standard for testing photometric performance, IES LM-79, and covers five areas: light output (lumens), watts, efficacy (lumens per watt), CCT, and CRI. Optional information related to LED lumen maintenance and warranty may also be provided on the label.  Products Listed: 7,680 2

4. DOE SSL PROGRAM OVERVIEW 3 GATEWAY Demonstrations  Showcase high-performance LED products for general illumination in a variety of exterior and interior lighting applications.  Demonstration results connect DOE technology procurement efforts with large-volume purchasers and provide buyers with reliable data on product performance.  Demonstration results provide buyers with real-world data on product performance. Municipal Solid State Street Lighting Consortium  Shares technical information and experiences related to LED street and area lighting demonstrations and serves as an objective resource for evaluating new products on the market intended for street and area lighting applications.  Most recent development: Draft Model Specification for Adaptive Control and Remote Monitoring of LED Roadway LuminairesDraft Model Specification for Adaptive Control and Remote Monitoring of LED Roadway Luminaires

5. DOE SSL PROGRAM OVERVIEW 4 L Prize Competition  Sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy and designed to spur lighting manufacturers to develop high-quality, high-efficiency solid-state lighting products to replace the common light bulb.  Recent L Prize winning product: a 60W replacement lamp manufactured by Philips.  Next category is for PAR38 replacement lamps Next Generation Luminaires™  The Next Generation Luminaires™ (NGL) Solid-State Lighting (SSL) Design Competition was created to recognize and promote excellence in the design of energy-efficient LED luminaires for commercial, industrial and institutional applications.  In 2012, the Next Generation Luminaire competition was expanded to include separate indoor and outdoor competitions.  www.ngldc.org www.ngldc.org  2012 Outdoor winners announcement: February 14, 2013  2013 Indoor winners announced March 20, 2013

6. DOE SSL PROGRAM OVERVIEW CALiPER Summary Reports  The DOE CALiPER program supports testing of a wide array of SSL products available for general illumination, using industry-standard test procedures.  Results provide unbiased product performance information to foster the developing market for high-performance SSL products.  Most recent reports focused on photometric performance of 38 LED PAR38 lamps (CALiPER summary report 20) and performance of nine LED linear pendants and a collection of 11 linear pendant products available in both an LED and fluorescent version (CALiPER summary report 19). 5

7. 6 THANK YOU! Jon Linnjlinn@neep.org781-860-9177 x134 Fritzi Pieperfpieper@neep.org781-860-9177 x123 Irina Rasputnisirasputnis@neep.org781-860-9177 x133

8. 7 | Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energyeere.energy.gov The CALiPER Program: Latest Findings and 2013 Preview January 22, 2013 Naomi Miller & Michael Royer Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

9. 8 CALiPER History CALiPER started in the SSL ‘Wild Wild West’ – No LM-79 test procedures – Little understanding of how to compare products – Many low efficacy products with even lower light output – Virtually no industry accountability – False equivalency claims by many – Potential for great consumer disappointment 2012 – Entirely different story!

10. 9 CALiPER’s Emphasis Historically: – Capture market trends and gauge performance levels – Improve manufacturer accountability – Inspire consumer confidence New Emphasis: – Identify important areas for improvement – Educate industry on potential issues – Support standards activities

11. 10 CALiPER’s Emphasis Product Selection & Purchasing Independent LM- 79-08 Testing Data Analysis Report Publication Shift to Lighting Facts QA New CALiPER Focus

12. 11 CALiPER’s Emphasis Snapshot Reports using data from LED Lighting Facts Application Reports focusing on specific product types and design scenarios, going beyond LM-79 testing Special Investigations that incorporate product installations and evaluations Standards Support for emerging areas such as flicker, dimming, power quality, long-term performance, etc.

13. 12 CALiPER Testing, 2006 – 2011 2006 Pilot phase – 4 products (hard to purchase) 2007 Rounds 1, 2, 3 – Small replacement lamps, desk lamps, undercabinet, small downlights 2008 Rounds 4, 5, 6 – Downlight and T8 in situ testing, replacement lamps 2009 Rounds 7, 8, 9 – Streetlights, bollards, downlights, 2x2 panels, 2x4 troffers, replacement lamps 2010 Rounds 10, 11 – Parking garage, wallpack, cove lights, replacement lamps, roadway, high-bay 2011 Rounds 12, 13 – Downlights, track lights, A- lamps, T8 replacements, cove lights, high-bays, wall packs, 2x2 troffers

14. 13 CALiPER Testing, 2012 Application Summary Reports 14: Retrofit Downlight Units 15: Floodlights 16: BR30/R30 Lamps 17: AR111/PAR36 Lamps 18: Recessed Wallwashers 19: Linear Pendants 20: PAR38 Lamps

15. 14 CALiPER Results, 2012 Lamps Efficacy (13) (6)(38) Maximum 75 th Percentile Mean Median Minimum 25 th Percentile

16. 15 CALiPER Results, 2012 Lamps OutputPower Note: Values likely influenced by CALiPER selection process. Maximum 75 th Percentile Mean Median Minimum 25 th Percentile

17. 16 CALiPER Results, 2012 Lamps Maximum 75 th Percentile Mean Median Minimum 25 th Percentile Color Rendering

18. 17 CALiPER Results, 2012 Lamps Generally a range of performance within each product category Lamp formats generally performing better than retrofit products Downlight retrofit units and BR30 lamps have output similar to conventional downlights CRI in the low 80s for the vast majority of products Some exceptional products, some duds

19. 18 CALiPER Results, Lamps 2006 – 2012 (0)(16)(34)(39)(50)(43)(58) Maximum 75 th Percentile Mean Median Minimum 25 th Percentile Efficacy

20. 19 CALiPER Results, Lamps 2006 – 2012 Maximum 75 th Percentile Mean Median Minimum 25 th Percentile Output Power

21. 20 CALiPER Results, Lamps 2006 – 2012 Maximum 75 th Percentile Mean Median Minimum 25 th Percentile Color Rendering

22. 21 CALiPER Results, 2012 Luminaires Efficacy Color Rendering Output Power

23. 22 CALiPER Results, 2012 Luminaires Highly variable performance across and within product categories (as expected to meet application needs) – More difficult to establish performance criteria LED products are often not direct one-for-one replacements for conventional luminaires, even if they are from the same product family

24. 23 CALiPER Results, All Products 2006 – 2012 Number of Products 9436273778487

25. 24 CALiPER Results, All Products 2006 – 2012 Number of Products 9436273778487

26. 25 CALiPER Results, All Products 2006 – 2012 Stabilization of efficacy? – Influence of types of products tested – Tradeoffs with price and quality?

27. 26 2013 Preview: PAR38 Expanded Testing

28. 27 2013 Preview: Troffer Study Install 24 pairs of similar performing recessed luminaires (2×2 and 2×4) and 0−10 V dimming controls in mock office space Show examples of fluorescent benchmarks, LED tubes, LED retrofit kits, and dedicated LED troffers Invite 18 designers/engineers to observe, brainstorm, and comment Get feedback from non-lighting experts as well

29. 28 2013 Preview: Troffer Study

30. 29 2013 Preview: Troffer Study

31. 30 2013 Preview: Troffer Study Performance Comparison Efficacy looking like an advantage for LED products… Min LPWMax LPWAverage LPW FL benchmark troffers (28W lamps) 547265 Dedicated LED troffers 7510491 LED tube retrofits557669 LED retrofit kits607667

32. 31 2013 Preview: Troffer Study Performance Comparison …but they don’t always use less energy… Min WattsMax WattsAverage Watts FL benchmark troffers (28W lamps) 49 (2x2)83 (2x4)63.5 Dedicated LED troffers (2x2 and 2x4) 34 (2x2)58 (2x2)43.6 LED tube retrofits48 (2x4)79 (2x4)16 to 26W per tube LED retrofit kits35 (2x2)51 (2x2)41.2

33. 32 2013 Preview: Troffer Study Performance Comparison …and might not produce the same quality of light Min CRI, R9Max CRI, R9Avg. CRI, R9 FL benchmark troffers 82, 1486, 1484, 14 Dedicated LED troffers 68, -4191, 5883, 20 LED tube retrofits68, -4483, 3677, -4 LED retrofit kits82, 284, 3983, 22

34. 33 2013 Preview: Troffer Study Visual Appeal – Diffuser products with linear details or mixtures of lens and reflector preferred by experts – Observers were indifferent toward smooth white panel troffer – Conventional K12 lens and parabolic louver troffers not liked – Lensed or parabolic troffers with funky patterns liked LEAST

35. 34 2013 Preview: Troffer Study Lumen Output – How appropriate is the light output from the luminaire for this application? Too High Too Low

36. 35 2013 Preview: Troffer Study Distribution – Patterns created on wall by parabolic louvered fixtures not liked Fluorescent preferred over LED tube retrofits. LED Tube T8 Fluorescent Tube

37. 36 2013 Preview: Troffer Study Distribution: Spacing Criterion is not a rigorous metric – Is the light distribution on the workplane between luminaires appropriately uniform for this application? 2×4 2×2 10'8' Too Uniform Too Uneven

38. 37 Flicker – Fluorescent with electronic dimming ballasts: no perceivable flicker – LED with dimming drivers at full: usually little perceivable flicker – LED with dimming drivers at low: about 1/3 exhibited perceivable flicker, both kits and dedicated LED troffers 2013 Preview: Troffer Study

39. 38 2013 Preview: Troffer Study Comparative quality of tubes, kits, and dedicated LED troffers – LED tubes change troffer appearance and performance – LED tubes may have unexpected installation problems – LED kits can be good if well-engineered, but may not save you much energy unless you drop light levels – LED tubes and kits often have NRTL labeling complications – Dramatic brightness patterns on lenses can be very distracting and glaring from some LED retrofit products – Flicker is a problem with some LED drivers when dimming and there is no complete metric at this point in time – Dedicated LED troffers are a good option for new installations See it, mock it up before you buy a bunch of them

40. 39 2013 Preview: Office Lighting STAY TUNED! CALiPER report due February 2013 – Comparison of knowledgeable and naïve observers – Criteria for evaluating luminaires for CALiPER – Better understanding of predictive metrics for lighting quality – Published results on dimming, flicker, glare, etc. – Feedback to manufacturers on LED lamp, kit, and fixture design – Will inform future CALiPER investigations on Type A luminaires, kits, and LED tubes

41. 40 Conclusions Overall improvements in light output, efficacy, light distribution, power factor, color quality, etc. Manufacturer claims and equivalency claims are improving… but can still be a problem Suitability often depends on application – Comparable (or better) products are now found in many lighting applications – Poor performing products are also found Careful comparisons based on accurate performance data is an absolute necessity Be cognizant of “secondary” quality issues: glare, flicker, color tolerances, physical formats, reliability…