Pacific Gas and Electric Company - Emerging Technologies Program

Pacific Gas and Electric Company - Emerging Technologies Program

Pacific Gas and Electric Company - Emerging Technologies Program

Pacific Gas and Electric Company Emerging Technologies Program Application Assessment Report #0728 LED MR16 Lighting Demonstration West Sacramento, CA Issued: December 2008 Project Manager: Daryl DeJean Pacific Gas and Electric Company Prepared By: Christine Riker, Project Manager Tyson Cook, Project Manager Terrance Pang, Director Energy Solutions 1610 Harrison St. Oakland, CA 94612 (510) 482-4420  Copyright, 2008, Pacific Gas and Electric Company. All rights reserved. This report was prepared by Pacific Gas and Electric Company for exclusive use by its employees and agents. Neither Pacific Gas and Electric Company nor any of its employees and agents: (1) makes any written or oral warranty, expressed or implied, including, but not limited to those concerning merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose; (2) assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, process, method, or policy contained herein; or (3) represents that its use would not infringe any privately owned rights, including, but not limited to, patents, trademarks, or copyrights.

Copyright, 2008, Pacific Gas and Electric Company. All rights reserved.

Pacific Gas and Electric Company - Emerging Technologies Program

Table of Contents TA CO FA C E . B ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS RY BA PROJECT OVERVIEW . . 3 TECHNOLOGICAL OVERVIEW . . 3 MARKET OVERVIEW HOST SITE INFORMATION . . 5 LIGHTING TECHNOLOGY . . 6 MONITORING PLAN ELECTRICAL DATA . . 9 LIGHTING PERFORMANCE . . 11 ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE . . 17 ME RV CO I

Pacific Gas and Electric Company - Emerging Technologies Program

Preface Energy Solutions provided monitoring, data collection, and data analysis services for an LED MR16 Demonstration Project under contract to the Emerging Technologies Program of Pacific Gas and Electric Company.

The project replaced standard halogen MR16 lamps of nominal 35 and 50 watts with new LED MR16 lamps of varying wattages. Acknowledgements This project was funded by the Emerging Technologies Program of Pacific Gas and Electric Company. Energy Solutions would like to gratefully acknowledge the direction and assistance of Pacific Gas and Electric Company and the West Sacramento IKEA for their participation and support of this project.

Pacific Gas and Electric Company - Emerging Technologies Program

ES - 1 Executive Summary This report summarizes an LED assessment project conducted to study the applicability of LED luminaires in focal-point lighting in the retail sector. Halogen MR16 lamps were replaced with LED MR16 lamps in select fixtures in a retail store, IKEA, in West Sacramento. The LED MR16 lamp technology was tested as a replacement for 35W and 50W halogen MR16 lamps that were in use at this store. The suitability of the new technology was determined by energy and power usage measurements, lighting performance characteristics, qualitative satisfaction, and economic factors. In the retail sector, lighting is used to enhance shoppers’ experience by highlighting products and creating positive visual impressions.

Retailers use accent lighting and product positioning within a store to guide customers towards product the retailer is promoting at any given time. Given the significance of lighting to promote sales, an additional and important part of evaluating the new lighting performance was a staff survey to determine qualitative satisfaction. This LED demonstration project involved the demonstration of six LED MR16 lamps from the following manufacturers: CRS Electronics, IMS Lighting LLC, Lamina Lighting Inc, and LEDPower. For this application, one LED MR16 lamp replaced one halogen MR16 lamp in the existing fixture.

The four LED MR16 lamps tested, when powered by the IKEA fixture, resulted in an average draw of 8.3 watts, roughly 80% (33.7 watts) less than when the IKEA fixture powered a 35W halogen lamp.1 With an estimated 3,630 annual hours of operation, annual electrical savings are estimated to be approximately 122.4 kWh per luminaire. Measured results from the study are tabulated in Table ES-1 below.

Table ES-1: Potential Demand and Estimated Energy Savings 2 Lamp Type Used in Existing IKEA Fixture Average Power (W) Power Savings (W) Annual Energy Savings (kWh) 35W halogen MR16 42 - - Average of the four LED MR16 lamps tested 8.3 33.7 (80%) 122 Unfortunately, the one-for-one replacement scheme used in this demonstration resulted in lighting performance which was less than that acceptable to the host customer. However, it is possible that greater performance could have been achieved by using multiple LED lamps to replace each halogen MR16 lamp. Due to the very low power consumption of the LED lamps, it is likely that significant energy savings could still be achieved using these multiple LED lamps, while providing light output more equivalent to the baseline.

This solution, however, would have required a change in lighting design which was not acceptable to the host customer in this demonstration. A primary factor in lighting performance for this demonstration was staff feedback which was gathered with a survey. Since the number of relevant lighting staff at IKEA was small, only 6 staff members were able to complete the survey. Of these respondents, the overall reaction to the LED MR16 lamps was less than favorable with, 5 respondents indicating preference for the old lights and 1 indicating preference for the new lights. This reaction was primarily due to the lower light output which did not accent the product as desired.

However, given the potential for significant energy 1 For further details by manufacturer, see ‘Electrical Demand and Energy Savings’ section. 2 See ‘Electrical Demand and Energy Savings’ section.

Pacific Gas and Electric Company - Emerging Technologies Program

ES - 2 savings, the host site is interested in the assessment of future generations of LED MR16s as the light output as well as the correlated color temperature improves. Illuminance and luminance measurements were also taken to quantitatively determine the difference in “intensity” or “perceived brightness” between the halogen and LED MR16. Measurements in each test area indicated significantly lower values for illuminance and luminance for the LED MR16 lamps as compared to the baseline halogen source, ranging from around 25% reduction to around 60% reduction. The rated correlated color temperature of the LED lamps in the Sofa Section and Bedroom section was 1300K higher than the baseline halogen lamps resulting in a “bluish” tint to the products being highlighted with the LED lamps.

Due to the as yet undemonstrated useful life of these LED luminaires, economic and reliability claims are based on the best available information from the manufacturer and DOE reports. Based on the significant energy savings of the LED MR16s, simple paybacks were short for most lamps – on the order of two years versus 35-watt halogen MR16s. While the lamps tested were not found to be sufficient to replace the baseline lamps in this demonstration though, it is possible that they could replace lower-wattage halogen MR16s more satisfactorily while still maintaining strong economic performance.

Although 20-watt halogen lamps were not included in this demonstration, rough payback calculations indicated that the simple payback against these lamps would be in the order of 4 to 5 years.

Table ES-2: Simple Payback Economics vs. 35-watt Halogen MR16 Lamp Type Incremental Cost Annual Savings Simple Payback (Years) LED Power MR16 $28.24 $14.15 2.00 CRS LED MR16 $77.24 $11.37 6.79 IMS 12 Degree MR16 $32.24 $15.68 2.06 IMS 24 Degree MR16 $32.24 $15.72 2.05

Pacific Gas and Electric Company - Emerging Technologies Program

3 Project Background Project Overview The LED MR16 Lighting Demonstration project studied the applicability of light-emitting-diode (LED) lamps in existing fixtures used to provide focal-point lighting. Halogen MR16 lamps were replaced with new LED MR16 lamps at four settings within the IKEA store located in West Sacramento, California.

The applicability of the technology was determined by energy and power usage, qualitative satisfaction, lighting performance, and economic factors. This demonstration project was conducted as part of the Emerging Technologies Program of Pacific Gas and Electric Company. The Emerging Technologies program “is an information-only program that seeks to accelerate the introduction of innovative energy efficient technologies, applications and analytical tools that are not widely adopted in California... [The] information includes verified energy savings and demand reductions, market potential and market barriers, incremental cost, and the technology’s life expectancy.”3 Technological Overview The LED MR16 Lighting Demonstration project focused on high brightness, focal-point lighting used to highlight specific displays of merchandise in retail display lighting.

Focal-point lighting is the second most common type of lighting in retail display lighting, following linear fluorescent track lighting, which is used to provide accent or display case lighting.4 Currently, in many applications focal-point lighting is accomplished with halogen MR16 lamps. Halogen MR16 lamps are used primarily for their “spotlight” ability and the lack of other lamp options. At the time of this assessment, LEDs are showing promise in retail display lighting because of their potential for reduced energy consumption. There are also additional benefits specific to retail display lighting including long operating life, lower maintenance and life-cycle costs, reduced radiated heat, minimal light loss, dim ability and controllability, direction illumination, and adjustable color when compared to traditional sources.5 At this time, however, the initial cost of LED MR16 lamps is much higher than alternative light sources such as halogen MR16 lamps.

Information from the US Department of Energy suggests LED technology is changing at a rapid pace such that, “since 2002, commercial white LED device efficacies have increased from 30 lumens/watt (DOE, 2006a) to about 100 lumens/W in 2008.”6 Therefore, readers of this assessment are encouraged to note that while this particular demonstration may not have met the host customer’s requirements for further investment, advances in this field are occurring so quickly that this or another manufacturer may have a product under development that will soon meet the host customer’s performance and investment criteria.

3 Pacific Gas and Electric Company (2006). Program Descriptions, Market Integrated Demand Side Management, Emerging Technologies. PGE2011 4 Navigant Consulting, Inc (2008). “Savings Estimates of Light Emitting Diodes in Niche Lighting Applications.” 5 Navigant Consulting, Inc (2008). “Savings Estimates of Light Emitting Diodes in Niche Lighting Applications.” 6 Navigant Consulting, Inc (2008). “Savings Estimates of Light Emitting Diodes in Niche Lighting Applications.”

Pacific Gas and Electric Company - Emerging Technologies Program

4 Market Overview The penetration of LEDs into the retail lighting display niche is of importance for energy efficiency measures because this application normally involves high-power, high-brightness fixtures.

Currently, the market penetration of LEDs in the retail display sector is estimated at 0% because LED retail display products have only recently become available. This is expected to increase, as technology develops and efficacy increases. 7 A report by Navigant Consulting in 2002 estimates that lighting makes up approximately 22% of IOU kWh sales on a national scale. Using kWh sales figures from a 2006 study, the total consumption in PG&E’s service territory for lighting is calculated to be on the order of 21,500 GWh in 2002.8 This study also provides values for kWh lighting figures within PG&E’s commercial sector only.

A 2002 DOE study, found that of the total commercial lighting in the United States, about 12% is consumed by retail display areas resulting in an estimated energy savings potential within PG&E service territory of retail display lighting of around 1088 GWh.9 Although these figures are not exclusively for focal-point retail display lighting using MR16 lamps (the estimate also includes accent lighting and display case lighting) the figures do give an idea of the significant potential that exists for savings.

7 Navigant Consulting, Inc (2008). “Savings Estimates of Light Emitting Diodes in Niche Lighting Applications.” 8 Itron Inc., et al (2006). “California Energy Efficiency Potential Study”. 9 Navigant Consulting, Inc (2002). “U.S. Lighting market Characterization – Volume 1: National Lighting Inventory and Energy Consumption Estimate.”

Pacific Gas and Electric Company - Emerging Technologies Program

5 Project Objectives The objectives of this demonstration project were to examine electrical, lighting, and economic performance of LED MR16 lamps as compared to halogen MR16 lamps. The potential electrical demand and energy savings were measured in terms of average wattage and estimated annual kWh usage.

Lighting power density was also calculated. Lighting performance was measured in terms of satisfaction and concerns of interested parties along with illuminance, luminance, and correlated color temperature (in Kelvin). Finally, economic performance was calculated as a simple-payback for substitution in new installation or replacement scenarios, accounting for lamp life-span, maintenance costs, and electrical costs.

Methodology Host site information The facility selected for this demonstration was a 2 story retail store in West Sacramento specializing in home product sales (IKEA). This demonstration project focused on four test areas within the store to represent the different ways in which IKEA uses MR16 lamps to provide accent lighting. The four testing areas included the Sofa Section within the Living Room Display, a mock bedroom set-up, the Textile & Rugs Display area, and various blue hanging destination signs. These main testing areas also included subsections as outlined in the list below: 1) Sofa Section a.

Blue Sofa b. White Sofa 2) Bedroom a. Bed b. Corner Dresser 3) Textiles & Rugs a. Pillows b. Placemats c. Circle Rugs 4) Destination Signs a. Textiles & Rugs b. Living Room (front and back of sign) The lighting system in the testing areas consists of linear 32WT8 fluorescent lamps for off-hours cleaning and other tasks, linear 35WT5 fluorescent lamps for open-hours ambient illumination, and halogen MR16 lamps (hereafter the lamps of consideration) for open-hour focal-point lighting. The MR16 lamps are 50 watts in area 3-Textils & Rugs, and 35 watt in the other three areas. Lighting design is given a high priority by this retailer, and directional lighting is used heavily to illuminate products as well as steer customer attention.

As a result, the arrangements of the MR16 lamps are changed relatively frequently, with a complete re-arrangement during re-merchandizing. There are an estimated 3500 total MR16 lamps (2000 35watt, 1500 50watt) in this facility.

Pacific Gas and Electric Company - Emerging Technologies Program

6 Of the 6 types of LED lamp tested, the primary lamps of consideration were IMS lighting 12° and 24° beam angles. These were tested in areas 1, 2, and 3, and were chosen because the specifications indicated that they were the most likely to be a feasible replacement for the baseline technology. All other lamp types were tested in area 4. Prior to testing, both halogen and LED lamps were operated for approximately 100 hours of burnin time. Lighting Technology This LED demonstration project involved the demonstration of six LED MR16 lamps from the following manufacturers: CRS Electronics, IMS Lighting LLC, Lamina Lighting Inc, LED-Power.

The six LED MR16 lamps were provided to the California Lighting Technology Center (CLTC) to determine performance characteristics including Color Temperature (K), Color Rendition Index – CRI, and Power (W), which are listed in Table 1 below.

Table 1: CLTC Test Results for LED MR16 Lamps LED Manufacturer Color Temperature Description Color Temperature CRI Beam Spread (degree) Power IMS Lighting LLC Natural White 4195 K 92.6 24° 5.8 W IMS Lighting LLC Natural White 4249 K 94.5 12° 5.7 W Lamina Lighting Inc Warm White 3082 K 52.6 38° 7.5 W Lamina Lighting Inc Trucolor 3106 K 87.1 57° 7.5 W LED-Power Warm White 3255 K 76.9 30° 5.2 W CRS Electronics Warm White 2778 K 96.0 Not Available 5.0 W The LED MR16 lamps were compared to halogen MR16 lamps that were currently in use at IKEA. Product information on the baseline halogen lamps, provided by the manufacturer, is included in Table 2 below.

Table 2: Manufacturer Specifications for Halogen MR16 Lamps Baseline Halogen Manufacturer Color Temperature Description Color Temperature CRI (typ/min) Beam Spread (degree) Company Stated Power OSRAM Halogen Dichroic 3000 K NA 24° 35 W OSRAM Halogen Dichroic 3100 K NA 10° 50 W

Pacific Gas and Electric Company - Emerging Technologies Program

7 The LED MR16 lamps were demonstrated in the four test areas as described in Table 3. Table 3: Products Used in Test Areas Test Area LED MR16 Lamp Halogen MR16 Lamp (Baseline) Sofa Section IMS 24° OSRAM 35 W Bedroom IMS 24° OSRAM 35 W Textiles & Rugs IMS 12° OSRAM 50 W LED-Power OSRAM 35 W Destination Signs CRS OSRAM 35 W The Lamina Lighting Inc (Lamina) MR16 lamps were planned to be used in the Destination Signs Test Area, but proved to be incompatible with the fixtures currently installed at IKEA.

The base of the lamps are plastic and the plastic melted when placed in the IKEA MR16 fixtures because the fixture included a metal clip to hold the bulb in place. Therefore, only four lamps were tested onsite at IKEA.

Monitoring Plan The Monitoring Plan included initial, pre-installation, installation, and post-installation field visits to the IKEA store in West Sacramento The initial field visits were intended for team members to meet and become familiar with the facility staff, to note the general pre-retrofit lighting conditions in the facility, and to determine demonstration areas within the facility. The pre-installation field visit occurred after the initial field visit and prior to installation of the LED lamps. The visit was used to document the existing condition of the lighting system. This visit was scheduled to minimize inconvenience and reduce impact at the demonstration facility.

In accordance with common industry practice, the visit occurred at a time when the pre-retrofit halogen MR16 lamps in the testing areas had been in use for approximately 100 hours. Photographic records as well as spot-measurement of illuminance, luminance, and correlated color temperature values were used to determine lighting characteristics in all four test areas. Each of the four test areas displayed different merchandise. Therefore, a common grid for lighting characteristic measurement locations was not appropriate at this site. The location of the lighting characteristics measurements taken in the sofa section and bedroom can be found in Appendix A: Measurement Diagrams.

Also, the pre-installation measurements for all four site areas are located in Section “Project Results and Discussion.” Fixture counts were also taken to determine Lighting Power Density (LPD) in the sofa section and textiles & rugs area.

The installation field visit was intended to assist the staff at IKEA with the replacement of the inuse halogen MR16 lamps with the LED MR 16 lamps in the current fixtures. Prior to this visit, Energy Solutions completed the 100 hour recommended burn time for the LED MR16 lamps offsite. The post-installation field visit was used to document the new condition of the lighting system. This visit took place the day after the installation field visit. All photographs and lighting characteristic measurements were taken in a manner consistent with the procedure for the preinstallation visit. In addition, the Lighting Performance Survey was distributed to appropriate IKEA staff that had direct interaction with the LED demonstration areas to determine comparative lighting performance between preand post-retrofit lighting systems.

8 The following monitoring equipment used in the execution of this Monitoring Plan was obtained from the Pacific Energy Center: ME T E R Li-Cor Light Meter, Model: LI-250 with LI-COR Photometric Sensor, Model: li-210sa Konica Minolta Luminance Meter, Model: LS-110 ME T E R Konica Minolta Chroma Meter, Model CL-200 D I G I TA L CA M E R A Nikon D80 Digital Camera

9 Project Results and Discussion Electrical Data ELECTRICAL DEMAND AND ENERGY SAVINGS The four LED lamps demonstrated along with the two halogen lamps currently in use at IKEA were tested in-house at Energy Solutions to determine power consumption of each lamp when used in the IKEA focal-point lighting fixture.

At IKEA West Sacramento, focal-point lighting is usually used during store hours, which are 10:00 AM to 8:00 PM, 363 days a year, resulting in an average usage of 3630 hours per year. The measured power demand, power factor and estimated yearly energy consumption are summarized in Table 4. Table 5 displays the potential demand and energy savings of using the LED MR16 lamps as compared to the baseline 35W halogen lamp, while Table 6 displays the savings compared to the baseline 50W halogen lamp.

Table 4: Energy Solutions Measured Power Demand and Estimated Energy Usage MR16 lamp used in current IKEA fixture Power (W) Estimated Annual Consumption (kWh) Halogen OSRAM 35W 42.1 W 152.7 OSRAM 50W 60.2 W 218.6 LED IMS Lighting - 12° 8.4 W 30.4 IMS Lighting - 24° 8.3 W 30.1 LED-Power 10.8 W 39.4 CRS Electronics 5.8 W 21.2 Table 5: Potential Demand and Energy Savings – Compared to 35W Halogen MR16 MR16 lamp used in current IKEA fixture Power (W) Power Savings (W) Estimated Annual Energy Savings (kWh) Halogen OSRAM 35W 42.1 W - - LED IMS Lighting - 12° 8.4 W 33.7 W 122.3 kWh IMS Lighting - 24° 8.3 W 33.8 W 122.6 kWh LED-Power 10.8 W 31.2 W 113.3 kWh CRS Electronics 5.8 W 36.2 W 131.5 kWh AVERAGE 8.3 W 33.7 W (80%) 122.4 kWh

10 Table 6: Potential Demand and Energy Savings – Compared to 50W Halogen MR16 MR16 lamp used in current IKEA fixture Power (W) Power Savings (W) Estimated Annual Energy Savings (kWh) Halogen OSRAM 35W 60.2 W - - LED IMS Lighting - 12° 8.4 W 51.8 W 188.2 kWh IMS Lighting - 24° 8.3 W 51.9 W 188.5 kWh LED-Power 10.8 W 49.4 W 179.2 kWh CRS Electronics 5.8 W 54.4 W 197.4 kWh AVERAGE 8.3 W 51.9 W (86%) 188.3 kWh LIGHTING POWER DENSITY The lighting power density (LPD) was calculated for the Sofa Section and Textile & Rugs according to the following equation: ft Area Site W Watts Installed Density Power Lighting ≡ The installed watts included the wattage of the T5 lamps that provide ambient light in the store along with the wattage of the spot fixtures using MR16 lamps that were used for accent lighting.

The T5 lamps in use at IKEA are GE Ecolux® Starcoat® T5 F35W/T5/830/ECO while the ballasts in use are Sylvania Quicktronic® electronic ballast. There were 20 MR16 lamps in use in the Sofa Test Section and 18 in the Textile & Rugs Test Section.

As seen in the tables below, through the use of LED MR16 lamps the lighting power density for the Sofa Section was reduced by 52% over the current Halogen lamps. The lighting power density for the Textile and Rugs section had an even more pronounced reduction resulting in a decrease in lighting power density of 58%. Table 7: Lighting Power Density – Sofa Section Lighting Power Density Power – Ambient Lighting (W) Power – Accent Lighting (W) Area (ft 2 ) Lighting Power Density (W/ft 2 ) Baseline w/ Halogen MR16 (35W) 440 842 924 1.39 LED MR 16 (IMS 24° ) 440 166 924 .66

11 Table 8: Lighting Power Density – Textiles & Rugs Lighting Power Density Power – Ambient Lighting (w) Power – Accent Lighting (w) Area (ft 2 ) Lighting Power Density (W/ft 2 ) Baseline w/ Halogen MR16 (50W) 520 1084 675 2.38 LED MR 16 (IMS 12° ) 520 151 675 .99 Lighting Performance In this demonstration, the technology under consideration was generally used to provide focalpoint accent lighting.

As a result, the primary determinant of lighting performance is different than in a general area lighting application. Whereas in general area lighting, the most important consideration may simply be the amount of light output, in this application customer acceptance provides the greatest indication of whether or not the LED lamps were a suitable replacement. However, since this is a purely qualitative metric, quantitative measurements of illuminance, luminance, and color temperature were also taken. The results of a customer satisfaction survey, as well as the measured qualitative results, are shown here.

CUSTOMER ACCEPTANCE The main application of the MR16 lamp at IKEA is to provide focal-point accent lighting. Therefore, the primary factor in determining the lighting performance of the LED MR16 lamp was through staff feedback that was collected on a paper survey distributed to IKEA staff. The total number of respondents was limited due to the small number of relevant staff. A total of 6 respondents completed the survey. Overall reactions to the new LED lights from the respondents were less than favorable; of the 6 respondents, when asked, “Do you generally prefer the new lights or the old lights?”, 5 indicated preference for the old lights while 1 preferred the new lights.

Similarly, when asked, “Do you think the new lights will drive more or less sales?”, 3 of 4 responded “Much less”, while 1 responded “No change”.

The less than favorable reaction was primarily due to the lower light output which did not properly accent the product as desired. However, the host site is interested in the assessment of future generations of LED MR16s as the light output improves as well as the correlated color temperature. The full results of the survey including staff comments are included in Appendix B: Lighting Performance Survey. ILLUMINANCE Illuminance measurements were taken using a Konica Minolta Chroma Meter (Model CL-200). Spot measurements were taken in two testing areas for three specific testing objects. The exact locations of the measurements are indicated on the diagram found in Appendix A1: Sofa Section Diagram and Appendix A2: Bedroom Diagram.

Illuminance measurements were reduced in all test locations from the baseline halogen lamps as compared to the LED lamps. Consolidated illuminance values are shown below:

12 Table 9: Illuminance – Sofa Section White Sofa A (fc) B (fc) C (fc) D (fc) E (fc) F (fc) Avg. (fc) Halogen MR16 (35 W) 13.0 58.4 34.9 73.5 65.6 43.5 48.1 LED MR16 (IMS 24° ) 22.9 23.4 23.2 26.9 32.9 33.7 27.2 Blue Sofa A (fc) B (fc) C (fc) D (fc) E (fc) F (fc) Avg. (fc) Halogen MR16 (35W) 33.3 44.0 29.1 43.2 54.8 39.2 40.6 LED MR16 (IMS 24°) 16.6 23.4 19.6 26.1 34.3 27.7 24.6 Table 10: Illuminance – Bedroom Bed A (fc) B (fc) C (fc) Avg. (fc) Halogen MR16 (35W) 58.9 149 60.2 89.5 LED MR16 (IMS 24° ) 35.8 38.2 38.8 37.6 LUMINANCE Luminance measurements were taken using a Konica Minolta Luminance Meter (Model LS-110, identification number of PEC 14126).

Spot measurements were taken in each of the four testing locations to determine values of maximum and minimum luminance (cd/m2). Depending on the testing object, other spot luminance measurements were taken as indicated by the tables below. The location of each spot measurement coincides to the diagrams found in Appendix A1: Sofa Section Diagram, Appendix A2: Bedroom Diagram and Appendix A3: Corner Dresser Diagram. Consolidated luminance values are shown below: Table 11: Luminance – Sofa Section Note: Diagram of spot measurements found in Appendix A1: Sofa Section Diagram White Sofa Maximum (cd/m 2 ) Minimum (cd/m 2 ) Halogen MR16 (35W) 443 15.3 LED MR16 (IMS 24° ) 92.1 10.0

13 White Sofa A cd/m 2 B cd/m 2 C cd/m 2 D cd/m 2 E cd/m 2 F cd/m 2 G cd/m 2 H cd/m 2 I cd/m 2 Avg. cd/m 2 Halogen MR16 (35W) 295 139 102 114 126 108 20.0 27.0 26.0 106 LED MR16 (IMS 24° ) 51 52 50 56 66 74 13 12 14 43 Blue Sofa A cd/m 2 B cd/m 2 C cd/m 2 D cd/m 2 E cd/m 2 F cd/m 2 G cd/m 2 H cd/m 2 I cd/m 2 Avg. cd/m 2 Halogen MR16 (35W) 3.8 3.8 2.7 4.8 6.4 4.9 .84 1.0 0.70 3.2 LED MR16 (IMS 24° ) 1.7 2.4 1.8 3.3 4.1 3.1 0.6 0.70 0.70 2.0 Table 12: Luminance – Bedroom Note: Diagram of spot measurements found in Appendix A2: Bedroom Diagram and Appendix A3: Corner Dresser Diagram Bed Maximum (cd/m 2 ) Minimum (cd/m 2 ) A (cd/m 2 ) C (cd/m 2 ) Halogen MR16 (35W) 70 1.6 200 94 LED MR16 (IMS 24° ) 26 1.4 16 22 Blue Sofa Maximum (cd/m2 ) Minimum (cd/m2 ) Halogen MR16 (35W) 8.5 0.80 LED MR16 ( IMS 24° ) 5.9 0.70 Corner Dresser Maximum (cd/m 2 ) Minimum (cd/m 2 ) Top of Vase (A) (cd/m 2 ) Left Front Corner (B) (cd/m 2 ) Right Front Corner (C) (cd/m 2 ) Right Back Corner (D) (cd/m 2 ) Halogen MR16 (35W) 1100 1.1 1.4 1.6 1.1 150 LED MR16 ( IMS 24°) 990 0.48 0.72 0.79 0.48 103

14 Table 13: Luminance – Textiles & Rugs Pillows Maximum (cd/m 2 ) Minimum (cd/m 2 ) Halogen MR16 (50W) 400 2.2 LED MR16 (IMS 12° ) 130 1.1 Placemats Maximum (cd/m 2 ) Minimum (cd/m 2 ) Halogen MR16(50W) 340 3.3 LED MR16 (IMS 12° ) 90 1.1 Circle Rugs Maximum (cd/m 2 ) Minimum (cd/m 2 ) Halogen MR16(50W) 180 2.8 LED MR16 (IMS 12° ) 160 2.3 Table 14: Luminance – Destination Signs “Textiles & Rugs” Maximum (cd/m2 ) Minimum (cd/m2 ) Below Letter X (cd/m2 ) Inside Letter G (cd/m2 ) Halogen MR16 (35W) 290 1.7 7.6 26 LED MR16 (CRS) 27 1.1 3.2 3.5 “Living Room - Salas” – side facing elevator Left of Letter L (cd/m 2 ) Corner of Letter L (cd/m 2 ) Center of Letter G (cd/m 2 ) Top of Letter M (cd/m 2 ) Bottom of Letter A (cd/m 2 ) Halogen MR16 (35W) 55 164 25 6.5 17 LED MR16 (LED-Power) 7.4 37 3.7 2.5 3.7 “Living Room - Salas” – side not facing elevator Left of Letter L (cd/m 2 ) Below Letter N (cd/m 2 ) Top of first O in “Room” (cd/m 2 ) Top of Letter M (cd/m 2 ) Bottom of first A in “Salas” (cd/m 2 ) Halogen MR16 (35W) 3.8 29 65 37 77 LED MR16 (CRS) 1.5 2.5 38 6.2 4.9

15 COLOR RENDITION To qualitatively analyze color rendition, photos were taken of each test site location. They were taken with a Nikon D80 digital camera. The camera settings were identical on each photo. A representative of the pictures taken is included below, using the bedroom as an example. Note that the MR16 lamps assessed were directed only at the pillows and head of the bed. Additional lighting was provided by the incandescent fixtures seen in the photographs. The complete set of pictures can be found in Appendix C: Color Rendition Photographs. Bedroom Bed – Halogen MR16 - 35W Bed – LED MR16 – IMS 24° COLOR Color measurements taken by the CLTC for each LED MR16 lamp tested are provided in Table 1.

Color measurements were also taken in the field using a Konica Minolta Chroma Meter (Model CL- 200). For the blue and white sofa, measurements were taken in six places, three on the back and three on the seat of the sofa. Exact location of test points can be found in Appendix A1: Sofa Section Diagram. For the room set, three measurements were taken from left to right on the middle of the bed. Exact location of test points can be found in Appendix A2: Bedroom Diagram. A summary of the correlated color temperature measurements can be found in Table 15 and Table 16.

The LED lamps tested in Sofa Section and Bedroom had a rated correlated color temperature (CCT) of 4300K. According to Table 15 and Table 16 there appears to be minimal difference in CCT between the LED lamps and the halogen lamps, this is likely because the light from the LED MR16 lamps was not reaching the surface of the test site and therefore the CCT being measure was actually from the ambient T5 lighting which was rated with a CCT of 3000K.

16 Table 15: Correlated Color Temperature – Sofa Section Blue Sofa Correlated Color Temperature (K) Halogen MR16 (35 W) LED MR16 (IMS 24°) Back of Sofa A 2978 2963 B 2791 3238 C 2854 3111 Avg 2874 3104 Seat of Sofa D 2827 2905 E 2811 3028 F 2875 3005 Avg 2838 2979 TOTAL AVERAGE 2856 3042 White Sofa Correlated Color Temperature (K) Halogen MR16 (35 W) LED MR16 (IMS 24° ) Back of Sofa A 2926 3077 B 2828 3147 C 2793 3054 Avg 2849 3093 Seat of Sofa D 2835 2945 E 2812 2590 F 2798 2950 Avg 2815 2828 TOTAL AVERAGE 2832 K 2961 K Table 16: Correlated Color Temperature – Bedroom Bed Correlated Color Temperature (K) Halogen MR16 (35 W) LED MR16 (IMS 24° ) 1 2915 2912 2 2997 2993 3 2899 2925 Avg 2937 K 2943 K

17 Economic Performance Economic performance was evaluated primarily by simple payback of the LED lamps versus the halogen MR16 lamps. To calculate this, maintenance and energy costs were taken into account assuming current energy and materials costs. To estimate energy cost, a 2008 PG&E E-20s rate schedule was used. This is the rate schedule used by IKEA, under which electrical rates are varied based on time of use. For simplicity, the “‘Average’ Total Rate” of $0.12261/kWh was assumed. The electrical costs for the LED lamps varied from an estimated roughly $2.60 to $4.80 per year. These are compared to estimated electrical costs for the 35- and 50-watt halogen MR16 lamps of roughly $18.70 and $26.80 per year, respectively.

In this demonstration, lighting design is such that lamps are routinely adjusted and changed by a lighting team. As a result, differences in maintenance costs are a function of only the different lamp costs and lifetimes. It is assumed that the LED lamps will be replaced at the end of their useful life as determined by a 30% reduction in light output from initial output. This is a reasonable assumption due to the necessity of maintaining a minimal light output in this situation, and due to the robust nature of LED technology and its tendency towards rare catastrophic failure. The base case halogen MR16 lamps are assumed to be replaced at the end of their rated life of 4,000 hours, or just under once per year.

The costs of the LED lamps ranged from $31 to $80, compared with under $3 for the halogen lamps.

The high energy costs of the base case halogen MR16 lamps were such that lamp replacement costs were a very small portion of the total annual cost. Due to the greatly reduced energy costs of the LED lamps however, their annualized replacement cost became a significant portion of their estimated total annual cost. Table 17: Annual Lamp Costs Lamp Type Annual Maintenance Cost (per Lamp) Annual Energy Cost (per Lamp) Total Annual Cost (per Lamp) 35-watt Halogen MR16 $2.50 $18.72 $21.23 50-watt Halogen MR16 $2.50 $26.80 $29.31 IMS 24° $1.82 $3.69 $5.51 IMS 12° $1.82 $3.73 $5.55 LED-Power $2.25 $4.83 $7.08 CRS LED MR16 $7.26 $2.59 $9.85 Currently, the cost of the LED MR16 lamps is over 10 times that of the base case halogen MR16 lamps.

However, the energy savings are so great that simple paybacks were generally just over two years versus the 35-watt halogen lamps, and between one and two years versus the 50-watt halogen lamps The exception to this was the CRS LED, which had an upfront cost more than double the other lamps.

18 Table 18: Simple Payback Economics vs. 35-watt Halogen MR16 Lamp Type Incremental Cost Annual Savings Simple Payback (Years) IMS 24° $32.24 $15.72 2.05 IMS 12° $32.24 $15.68 2.06 LED-Power $28.24 $14.15 2.00 CRS LED MR16 $77.24 $11.37 6.79 Table 19: Simple Payback Economics vs. 50-watt Halogen MR16 Lamp Type Incremental Cost Annual Savings Simple Payback (Years) IMS 24° $32.24 $23.80 1.35 IMS 12° $32.24 $23.76 1.36 LED-Power $28.24 $22.23 1.27 CRS LED MR16 $77.24 $19.45 3.97 While there were no 20-watt halogen lamps in use at the facility featured in this demonstration, they are used for focal point lighting in other sectors of the retail marketplace.

To provide a general understanding of whether the current LED MR16 technology would be a viable replacement for this lower wattage halogen MR16, rough payback calculations were completed. Since 20-watt halogen lamps were not measured, the lamps were assumed to have power losses consistent with the other lamps when used in the IKEA luminaires (20%). Other assumptions remained constant as well. The resulting simple payback estimates are provided in Table 20 included below. Table 20: Simple Payback Economics vs. 20-watt Halogen MR16 Lamp Type Incremental Cost Annual Savings Simple Payback (Years) IMS 24°IMS24 $32.24 $7.68 4.20 IMS 12°IMS 12 $32.24 $7.64 4.22 LED-Power $28.24 $6.10 4.63 CRS LED MR16 $77.24 $3.33 23.2

19 Discussion LED lamps have the potential for great energy savings in focal-point accent lighting applications. This is because, in the majority of cases, the lamps would be replacing a baseline of inefficient incandescent bulbs. The inherently directional nature of lighting dispersion from LEDs, as well as their potentially small size, also gives LEDS an advantage over other efficient lighting technologies. This demonstration provided an example of the possible energy savings, with reductions in energy use of over 80% per lamp replaced. Unfortunately though, the lighting performance of the LED MR16 lamps was not found to be equivalent to that of the baseline halogen MR16 lamps being replaced.

The main concerns of the host customer were reduced total light output as compared to the baseline, and different color temperature than the baseline.

While the one-for-one replacement scheme used in this demonstration resulted in lighting performance not acceptable to the host customer, it is possible that greater performance could have been achieved by using multiple LED lamps to replace each halogen MR16 lamp. Due to the very low power consumption of the LED lamps, it is likely that significant energy savings could still be achieved using this scenario, while providing light output more equivalent to the baseline. This solution, however, would have required a change in lighting design which was not acceptable to the host customer in this demonstration.

While greatly more efficacious than incandescent bulbs, LED chips still convert only a small amount of the total power input into light output. The rest of the power input is lost as heat, which must be dissipated away from the lamp. This is one of the primary factors affecting LED lamp performance, because as they become hot, they become less efficient and depreciate faster. This is of greatest concern where the total size of the lamp is limited, such as with MR16 lamps, because the total area that can be used to dissipate heat is limited. When enclosed cans are used, as in this demonstration, the problem is further exacerbated.

It is for this reason that LED lamp manufacturers are unable to simply use more or higher-wattage LED chips in a single lamp. Fortunately though, as LED MR16 design improves, it can be expected that slightly more power can be utilized within the size limitations. Additionally, LED technology continues to improve rapidly. As efficacies increase, more light will be able to be produced with the same power consumption.

Due to the significant energy savings of the LED MR16 lamps, simple paybacks were very short for most lamps – between one and two years. While the lamps tested were not found to be sufficient to replace the baseline lamps in this demonstration, it is possible that they could replace lower-wattage halogen MR16 lamps more satisfactorily while still maintaining strong economic performance. It is also likely that increased lamp costs resulting from further research and design, as well as more technologically advanced components, could easily be accommodated with still low simple payback periods.

PG&E uses this and other Emerging Technologies assessments to support development of potential incentives for emerging energy efficient solutions.

Because the performance and quality of the LED fixtures are critical to the long-term delivery of energy savings, it is important that incentive programs include quality control mechanisms. Incentive programs should include performance standards for qualifying products that include minimum criteria for warranty, efficacy, light distribution, and other important criteria.

20 Conclusion LED lighting has great potential for energy savings in retail applications. This demonstration provided an example of this potential in focal-point accent lighting. However, the particular lighting design and replacement scheme in this demonstration did not result in lighting performance acceptable to the host customer. With the rapid advancement of LED technology though, it is likely that products with improved performance characteristics will be available in the near future, and the host customer indicated willingness to consider these future products. This is indicative of the desire that exists in the retail sphere for an energy-efficient replacement for the current technology.

As the technology increases in performance, utility or government incentive programs can help to tip the scale towards greater adoption of LED lamps by reducing the initial investment required. These utility incentive programs should require minimum performance standards for qualifying products in order to ensure long-term energy savings.

i Appendi x A: M ea sure m e nt Di agra ms AP P E ND I X A1 : S O FA S E CT AM AP P E ND I X A2 AG AP A3 : CO D

Appendix B: Lighting Performance Survey Lighting Questions Respondents Responses Please circle the answer you most strongly agree with: 1 € Did you notice a difference in lighting from yesterday to today? 6 Yes 6 No 0 Comments: From halogen to LED.

Between day 1 and day 2 of LED, the answer is no. (Proceed only if answered ‘Yes’) Section I: Lighting Quality Please circle the answer you most strongly agree with: 1 € How did the new lights affect the visibility of merchandise? 6 Strongly improved 0 Somewhat improved 0 No change 0 Somewhat lessened 1 Strongly lessened 5 No opinion 0 Comments: 2 € How did the new lights affect the color of merchandise? 6 Strongly improved 0 Somewhat improved 0 No change 0 Somewhat lessened 2 Strongly lessened 4 No opinion 0 Comments: 3 € How did the color of light from the new lights compare to the old lights? 6 Strongly prefer new lights 0 Prefer new lights 1 No opinion 0 Prefer old lights 1 Strongly prefer old lights 4 Comments: The color of lighting chosen was blue and made the merchandise look sickly.

I prefer the new lights due to energy conservation and do feel we can get the same effect as the old lights The light intensity was not strong enough. It made the fabric look sun bleached. It also made whites look blue.

Not to a huge extent but it felt darker a bit to my co-workers. Could be that we need to re____ other lights or add a couple more. Changed color or something a bit (more bluish) Made any color fabric look sun bleached. Made hard white surfaces look blue. Area not quite as bright and the LED lights cast a different glow on some colors changing them a bit Light was a cooler blue instead of a warm yellow. Wattage used was lower, resulting in fainter light output. When the regular range lights were replaced, I noticed a dramatic drop in the light level. The new lights were much weaker and cast a blue cold light instead of a warm light.

Dull, too blue

4 € How was the light level of the new lights compared to the old lights? 6 Much more 0 Somewhat more 0 No change 0 Somewhat less 1 Much less 5 No opinion 0 Comments: 5 € What effect do the new lights have on the appearance of merchandise? 6 Strongly improved 0 Somewhat improved 0 No change 0 Somewhat lessened 1 Strongly lessened 5 No opinion 0 Comments: 6 € Do you generally prefer the lighting from the new lights or the old lights? 6 Strongly prefer new lights 0 Prefer new lights 0 No opinion 1 Prefer old lights 0 Strongly prefer old lights 5 Comments: Section II: Use of Lights (skip for sales staff) 7 € Is the ease of installation of the new lights improved or lessened from the old lights? 4 Strongly improved 0 Somewhat improved 0 No change 3 Somewhat lessened 1 Strongly lessened 0 No opinion 0 Comments: 8 € Is the ability to adjust the new lights improved or lessened from the old lights? 4 Strongly improved 1 Somewhat improved 0 No change 3 Somewhat lessened 0 Strongly lessened 0 No opinion 0 Comments: In terms of the cans it made it easier to quickly adjust because it was not hot at all.

No need to get the gloves.

We used the same fixtures Required more fixtures and bulbs. Significantly lowered the quality level of the product. I like the new ones because they save energy and it doesn't seem to be effecting sales. It was more difficult to put the new lights into our fixtures. They have a tight prong and the base seemed to be ridged which made it hard to put in. Had no effect in contrasting between general light from T5s and the area spotlighted. I think the LED lights used have a lower equivalent wattage.

9 € How do you feel the pattern of light from the new lights as compared to the old lights? 4 Strongly improved 1 Somewhat improved 1 No change 0 Somewhat lessened 1 Strongly lessened 1 No opinion 0 Comments: 10.€€€ What effect do the new lights have your ability to steer sales? 3 Strongly improved 0 Somewhat improved 1 No change 0 Somewhat lessened 0 Strongly lessened 2 No opinion 0 Comments: Section III: Summary Questions 11.€€€ Do you think the new lights drive more or less sales? 4 Much more 0 Somewhat more 0 No change 1 Somewhat less 0 Much less 3 No opinion 0 Comments: 12.€€€ Do you generally prefer the new lights or the old lights? 6 Strongly prefer new lights 0 Prefer new lights 1 No opinion 0 Prefer old lights 2 Strongly prefer old lights 3 Comments: 13.€€€ What would you say is the biggest difference between the lighting today and yesterday? Light intensity and color rendition It was way dimmer because of the low wattage of LED used.

LED = 5 watts, Halogen = 50 watts.

LED lights put off dull bad lighting Weaker output and color difference (very blue) Brightness and color Need to use more fixtures and distorts some colors Due to the fact that it was almost impossible to see there was light on the merchandise. Prefer the new lights due to energy conservation but the old lights were brighter and gave off more light The light level changed from very bright warm light to weak cold lighting. I could see that if the light color to warm and a higher level it would have given a more direct light than our old The light seemed to be more direct, though much weeker in intensity, so it was hard to tell.

No halo effect

14.€€€ In your own words, why do you generally prefer the new or old lights? Old = brighter true color representation. New = energy conservation/ longer lasting As for the old ones, the pros were intensity, color rendition. As for the new ones, the pros were less heat, no halo effect. No light given off into the can which made the source less visible (focus on the product). Old lights were more smooth Old halogen are brighte and colo representation on product more true, The old lights are stronger and warmer. It's way with the old lights to overlap and give the product a nice glow. It was very difficult to see the new light on the product.

Halogens are much more brighter than LEDs used. If only they had equivalent wattage it would have made the difference.

Appendi x C : Col or Rend i ti on P hotographs Sofa Section Blue Sofa – Halogen MR16 - 35W Blue Sofa – LED MR16 - IMS 24°

White Sofa – Halogen MR16 - 35W White Sofa – LED MR16 - IMS 24°

Bedroom Bed – Halogen MR16 - 35W Bed – LED MR16 - IMS 24° Night Stand – Halogen MR16 - 35W Night Stand – LED MR16 - IMS 24°

Textiles & Rugs Pillows – Halogen MR16 50W Pillows – LED MR16 IMS 12° Placemats – Halogen MR16 50W Placemats – LED MR16 IMS 12°

Circle Rugs – Halogen MR16 50W Circle Rugs – LED MR16 IMS 12°

Destination Signs Textiles & Rugs – Halogen MR16 35 W Textiles & Rugs – LED MR16 CRS Living Rooms(facing elevator) Living Rooms(facing elevator) Halogen MR16 35W LED MR 16 LED-Power Living Rooms (not facing elevator) Living Rooms (not facing elevator) Halogen MR16 35W LED MR 16 CRS