1. CFL ENERGY EFFICIENCY LABELLING/ PUBLIC PROCUREMENT Presented at the workshop on “energy efficient procurement” Mumbai, September 20, 2005

2. In view of the world experience in promoting CFL, the following major performance criteria should be included in the Indian program: Efficacy level Lumen maintenance Rated average lifetime CFL lifetime claims Power factor Colour rendering GLS equivalence

3. Efficacy level: As of today, IS 15111: 2002 covers the standard for Values of lamp efficacy and the same is tabulated below: Lamp wattage W Lumen/W for 2700 K Lumen/W for 4000 K Lumen/W for 6500 K Upto and including 7 454442 8 to 10504947 11 to 15555451 16 to 23605956 24 to 26605956

4. If a CFL is marked as 7 W, the power dissipated by the lamp including ballast shall not differ from the rated wattage by more than +15 percent and -10 percent. No credits will be allowed for lumen levels, i.e. a CFL marked as 7 W should give a luminous flux of (7*45*.9) 283.5 at the minimum. Actual power measured would be used to determine the star rating i.e. if the power dissipated measured is 25 W and the total initial luminous flux measured is 1350 then the efficacy would be 1350/25 = 54L/W.

5. LUMEN MAINTENANCE: After 2000 hours of operation, including the ageing period, the lumen maintenance shall be not less than 85 percent of the initial lumen characteristics.

6. This means that 50% of samples can fail upto rated average life and still qualify for certification.

7. We have assumed that the major consumer expectation is of increased lamp life, based on the life shown on the packaging. Longer life than their incandescent equivalents is another issue that needs to be satisfied. The ‘average’ lamp life contained in most standards is taken to be the length of time before 50% of a sample of lamps fail under test conditions, where the sample of lamps is greater than 10. This in itself may surprise many consumers: that the lifetime quoted is only an average and that half of the lamps may fail by this time, and many may fail well before then while still being considered valid.

8. To counter the above, the Energy Star program for CFLs required manufacturers to display Product packaging must state “Warranty” or “Limited Warranty”, Phone number, and mailing address, and web site (or e-mail address) for consumer Complaint resolution. For Residential Applications: Warrantor limited warranty statement must cover at least a minimum of 24 months (2 years) from date purchase based on 4 hours per day usage. For Commercial Applications: Warranty or limited warranty statement must cover at least a minimum of 12 months (or 1 year) from date of purchase,

9. For India, there is another added difficulty to content with. The lamps are tested in the laboratory conditions with good power quality. Of-course all the other performance criteria can not be contested as these relate only to laboratory conditions. However if the lamp fails, the objective is lost. There is a need to evaluate the life of the self ballasted CFL under varying power quality and the impact on life. However, without a warrantee, the credibility of energy efficiency labelling programme or a public procurement programme would be at stake. Are there any such standard test procedure available? What is the time and cost for such tests? These need to be answered first.

10. CFL LIFETIME CLAIMS: Since most of the promotional material on CFL talks about the efficacy, longevity and pay back period another issue of required Disclaimer for CFL Guarantee / Lifetime Claims for Residential Use and all the manufacturers adopt the following table uniformly for calculating economics. CFL Rated Lifetime(based on 4 hours/day) 6,000 hours4 years 8,000 hours5 years 10,000 hours7 years 12,000 hours8 years 15,000 hours10 years

11. COLOUR RENDERING: It is proposed to introduce the following as pre- qualifications: Colour rendering > 4400: CRI ≥ 80 2700-4400 CRI ≥ 82 < 2700 CRI ≥ 84 However, as of today, it is understood that there is no capability in the Indian laboratories to measure the same and IS have hence not included the procedure and also performance parameters. This is one more constraint that need to be addressed by the lighting community urgently.

12. GLS EQUIVALENCE: CFLs are marketed to consumers on the basis of their performance relative to ‘standard’ lamp types, such as GLS. Typically CFLs are promoted as having a lower energy consumption and longer life than their incandescent equivalents. Figures are often provided in marketing materials, including CFL packaging, to demonstrate the cost effectiveness of CFLs over the lifetime of the lamp, and to justify the extra capital investment. These calculations of the ‘payback’ time are predicated on assumptions regarding the lamp lifetime, and claims of equivalent light output compared to ‘standard’ lamp types. This requires directly that all manufacturers use the same output compared to ‘standard’ (GLS incandescent lamp). A standardised table is required.

13. The standardised table used world wide for marking is reproduced below: CFL Luminous Flux Claim (lumens) Rated Wattage of Equivalent GLS Filament Lamp 214 25 W 386 40 W 530 50 W 660 60 W 874 75 W 1100 90 W 1246 100 W 2009150 W It is proposed to introduce the following as pre-qualifications

14. PRE CONDITIONS FOR ENERGY EFFICIENCY LABELLING PLAN/ PUBLIC PROCUREMENT PROGRAMME 1.The lamps should qualify the performance requirements for Lamp efficacy & life of IS 15111 (Part 2) 2002. 2.CFL Guarantee: The energy label user would also provide a minimum warrantee of two years for Residential Use and one year for commercial users to sustain consumer confidence in the product. 3.COLOUR RENDERING: Colour rendering criteria should be met. 4. GLS EQUIVALENCE: All users of energy efficiency label adopt the standardised table CFL Luminous Flux output (lm) as compared to ‘standard’ (GLS incandescent lamp) wattages. 5.POWER FACTOR: Minimum power factor should be greater than 50% and credit should be given for higher power factor. SUMMARISING