california residential cfl market status cpuc – energy division hearing room a june 16, 2009

22
California Residential CFL Market Status CPUC – Energy Division Hearing Room A June 16, 2009

Upload: litzy-boals

Post on 31-Mar-2015

216 views

Category:

Documents


1 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: California Residential CFL Market Status CPUC – Energy Division Hearing Room A June 16, 2009

California Residential CFL Market Status

CPUC – Energy DivisionHearing Room AJune 16, 2009

Page 2: California Residential CFL Market Status CPUC – Energy Division Hearing Room A June 16, 2009

2

Overview

Awareness and Use of CFLs in California CFL sales

– Statewide sales– ULP shipments

CFL price Residential CFL penetration and market potential Lessons learned in other regions

Page 3: California Residential CFL Market Status CPUC – Energy Division Hearing Room A June 16, 2009

3

Awareness and Use of CFLs

96% of residential customers in CA IOU territories are aware of CFLs– 92% in comparison

area 79% of aware

consumers in CA report that they currently use CFLs– 66% in comparison

area

CFL Awareness, 2008

CFL Use, 2008

* Difference from CA results is statistically significant at the 90% level of confidence. Source (both figures): CFL Market Effects Final Interim Report, 2009.

95.8%

91.6%*

75%

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

2008

Pe

rce

nt

of

Re

sp

on

de

nts

California Comparison Area

California

79%

6%

10%

5%

Comparison Area

5%

17%

13%

65%*

Unfamiliar

Not tried

Previous User

Current User

Page 4: California Residential CFL Market Status CPUC – Energy Division Hearing Room A June 16, 2009

4

21%

3%

5%

12%

24%

35%

Grocery

Discount

Drug

Hardware

Home Improvement

Mass Merchandise/Membership ClubOther

2%

15%

39%

19%7%

8%

10%

CA Total CFL Sales v. ULP Shipments

Greater proportion of ULP shipments through non-big box than total CA sales

* Awaiting final data on shipments within PG&E service territory. Sources: CFL Market Effects Interim Report, 2009 and IOU 2006-2008 ULP tracking data.

CA CFL Sales

by Retail Channel, 2007

ULP Shipments

by Retail Channel, 2007 *

CA CFL Sales and ULP Shipments, 2007

0

20

40

60

Total StatewideCFL sales

ULPShipments

Nu

mb

er

of

CF

Ls

(M

illio

ns

)

*

Draft Data DO NOT CITE

Total 2007 CFL sales totaled approximately 55.6 million– ULP shipments represented ~75% of

total 2007 CFL sales in CA

Page 5: California Residential CFL Market Status CPUC – Energy Division Hearing Room A June 16, 2009

5

ULP CFL Shipments

* Awaiting final data on shipments within PG&E service territory.Source: IOU 2006-2008 ULP tracking data.

Upstream Lighting Program CFL Shipments by IOU and Retail Channel, 2006-2008

38%44%

32%40%

16%

25%

14%

19%

9%

4%

11%

7%10%

4%

4%

7%

8%8%

13%

8%

7%5%

9%

7%

10% 8%16%

10%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

PG&E * SCE SDG&E All IOUs

Other

Ltg & Electronics

Membership Club

Mass Merchandise

Home Improvement

Hardware

Drug

Discount

Grocery

74% of 2006-2008 ULP shipments went to non-big box stores (grocery, discount, drug, small hardware)

Draft Data DO NOT CITE

Page 6: California Residential CFL Market Status CPUC – Energy Division Hearing Room A June 16, 2009

6

ULP CFL Styles

ULP CFL Styles by IOU, 2006-2008 ULP Specialty CFL Styles by IOU, 2006-2008

Draft Data DO NOT CITE

* Awaiting final data on shipments within PG&E service territory.Source: IOU 2006-2008 ULP tracking data.

86%

95%85%

0

10

20

30

40

50

PG&E SCE SDG&E

Nu

mb

er o

f C

FL

s (M

illio

ns)

Specialty

Bare Spiral

*

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

PG&E SCE SDG&E

Nu

mb

er o

f C

FL

s (M

illio

ns)

Three-way

Reflector

Globe

Dimmable

A-lamp

*

11% of 2006-2008 ULP shipments were specialty CFLs – PG&E/SDG&E had greater focus on specialty CFLs than SCE– PG&E provided incentives for the largest volume of specialty CFLs (~6.5M)

Three-way, reflector, and globes comprised the majority of ULP specialty CFL incentives

Page 7: California Residential CFL Market Status CPUC – Energy Division Hearing Room A June 16, 2009

7

California CFL Price

Source : Preliminary Results from the 2008 California Lighting Retailer Shelf Inventory conducted by KEMA, Inc. as part of the Impact Analysis of the CA IOUs’ 2006-2008 Residential Retrofit Programs. DATA IS PRELIMINARY AND UNWEIGHTED AND SHOULD NOT BE CITED IN OTHER CONTEXTS.

Draft Data DO NOT CITE

Non-IOU IOU-

Discounted All CFLs Non-IOU IOU-

Discounted All CFLs

Basic Bare Spiral 3.07$ 1.09$ 2.79$ 6,739 1,075 7,814

Specialty Lamps

A-lamp 4.06$ 1.71$ 3.78$ 607 81 688Reflector 7.14$ 3.25$ 6.72$ 741 88 829Globe 4.93$ 1.06$ 4.29$ 330 65 395Torpedo/Bullet 4.51$ 1.07$ 3.98$ 208 38 246Dimmable or Three-way Spiral 9.46$ 1.87$ 8.85$ 216 19 235Bug Light 6.57$ 3.29$ 6.49$ 81 2 83Tube-style/U-shaped 7.58$ 1.19$ 6.85$ 31 4 35Circline 12.59$ n/a 12.59$ 5 0 5Other 7.80$ 0.95$ 7.48$ 41 2 43

All Specialty 5.98$ 1.95$ 5.51$ 2,260 299 2,559

All CFLs 3.80$ 1.27$ 3.46$ 8,999 1,374 10,373

Style

Price Number of Lamps

Average CA Prices for IOU-Discounted CFLs, Non-IOU CFLs, and All CFLs by Style, 2008

Incremental cost for non-IOU vs. IOU-discounted lamps– $2.00 for basic bare spirals – Roughly $2.50-$7.50 for specialty lamps

Reflector CFLs among most abundant and most expensive specialty styles

Page 8: California Residential CFL Market Status CPUC – Energy Division Hearing Room A June 16, 2009

8

California CFL Price

* “Basic Bare Spiral” refers to single-wattage non-dimmable bare spiral CFLs.Source : Preliminary Results from the 2008 California Lighting Retailer Shelf Inventory conducted by KEMA, Inc. as part of the Impact Analysis of the CA IOUs’ 2006-2008 Residential Retrofit Programs. DATA IS PRELIMINARY AND UNWEIGHTED AND SHOULD NOT BE CITED IN OTHER CONTEXTS.

Average prices for IOU-discounted CFLs are similar to prices for comparable incandescent styles– For basic bare spirals and also for specialty lamps

Draft Data DO NOT CITE

$0.84

$2.70

$1.26$1.09

$1.95

$1.27

$3.07

$5.98

$3.80

$2.79

$5.51

$3.46

$-

$1.00

$2.00

$3.00

$4.00

$5.00

$6.00

$7.00

Basic Bare Spiral* / IncandescentA-Lamp

Specialty Lamp All Lamp Styles

Pri

ce

Pe

r L

am

p

Incandescent Lamp IOU-Discounted CFL Non-IOU CFL All CFLs

Average CA Prices for Incandescent Lamps, IOU-Discounted CFLs, Non-IOU CFLs, and All CFLs, 2008

Page 9: California Residential CFL Market Status CPUC – Energy Division Hearing Room A June 16, 2009

9

California Residential CFL Penetration

91% of CA homes in IOU territories have 1 or more CFLs installed Average number of lamps per home is 48.7 Average number of CFLs per home is

– 10.3 among all homes – 11.3 among homes that have 1 or more CFLs installed

26%

20%

13%9%

32%

Zero

1 to 5

6 to 10

11 to 20

20+

Source : Preliminary Results from the CPUC’s Residential Lighting Metering Study (KEMA, 2009).

Percent of California IOU-Territory Homes by Number of CFLs Installed, 2008

Page 10: California Residential CFL Market Status CPUC – Energy Division Hearing Room A June 16, 2009

10

California Residential CFL Penetration

Approximately 21% of sockets are currently using CFLs– 74% of these CFLs are spirals

– 90% are MSB

– 7% are on controls other than on/off switch 3% of all CFLs are in dimmable

sockets 4% of all CFLs are in 3-way

sockets

Sockets with CFLs by Lamp Shape, Base Type and Control Type, 2008

n = 6,583 sockets.Source: Preliminary Results from the

CPUC’s Residential Lighting Metering Study (KEMA, 2009).

Lamp Shape

Percent of CFLs

Spiral 73.5%Reflector 7.1%A-lamp 2.7%Globe 3.8%Decorative 1.0%Other shapes 11.9%

Base Type

Percent of CFLs

MSB 90.3%SSB 1.3%Pin-base 8.4%

Control Type

Percent of CFLs

On/Off 93.1%Dimmer or 3-way 6.9%

Page 11: California Residential CFL Market Status CPUC – Energy Division Hearing Room A June 16, 2009

11

CA Residential Lighting Market Potential Sockets can be characterized by energy savings

potential– “Higher potential” sockets are in locations with relatively

high hours of use and/or relatively low on/off switch rates– “Lower potential” sockets are in locations with relatively

low hours of use and/or relatively high on/off switch rates Note that for the purposes of this analysis, hours of use are based

on 2005 CA CFL Metering Study (metering results not yet available from current study)

Final characterizations will reveal lamp style/control combinations with greatest/least remaining residential market potential

Page 12: California Residential CFL Market Status CPUC – Energy Division Hearing Room A June 16, 2009

12

CA Residential Lighting Market Potential

53 million MSB “high use sockets” available for CFL installation– Such sockets currently use non-CFL

a-lamps with on/off controls

– 145M total non-CFL MSB a-lamps in use

42 million MSB spiral CFLs (“basic CFLs”) are in storage in CA households – If installed in highest use locations,

these could theoretically achieve most of the remaining energy savings for a-lamps

2008 Remaining CA (non-CFL) MSB A-Lamp Sockets with On/Off Controls

by Savings Potential

Source: Preliminary Results from the CPUC’s Residential Lighting Metering Study (KEMA, 2009).Higher/lower characterizations based on HOU from

2005 CFL Metering Study.

Draft Data DO NOT CITE

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

MSB A-lamp (On/OffControls)

Nu

mb

er

of

Av

aila

ble

MS

B S

oc

ke

ts (

Mill

ion

s)

LowerSavingsPotential

HigherSavingsPotential

Page 13: California Residential CFL Market Status CPUC – Energy Division Hearing Room A June 16, 2009

13Source: Preliminary Results from the CPUC’s Residential Lighting Metering Study (KEMA, 2009).

Reflector and globe style MSB lamps with on/off controls represent the greatest potential among specialty lamps– Higher/lower savings potential designations below are a

placeholder for final data from current metering study

Draft Data DO NOT CITE

CA Residential Lighting Market Potential

2008 Remaining (non-CFL) MSB Sockets by Lamp Type, Control Type, and Savings Potential

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

A-l

am

p

Re

flect

or

Glo

be

De

cora

tive

A-l

am

p

Re

flect

or

Glo

be

De

cora

tive

A-l

am

p

Re

flect

or

Glo

be

De

cora

tive

On/Off Controls Dimmable Three-Way

Mill

ion

s o

f A

va

ilab

le M

SB

So

ck

ets Lower Savings Potential

Higher Savings Potential

Page 14: California Residential CFL Market Status CPUC – Energy Division Hearing Room A June 16, 2009

14

2008 Remaining (non-CFL) SSB Sockets by Lamp Type, Control Type, and Savings Potential

Draft Data DO NOT CITE

Source: Preliminary Results from the CPUC’s Residential Lighting Metering Study (KEMA, 2009).

CA Residential Lighting Market Potential Small screw-base (SSB) lamps represent 10% of total residential sockets Decorative lamps with on/off controls represent greatest remaining SSB

potential– Higher/lower savings potential designations below are a placeholder for final data from

current metering study

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

A-l

am

p

Re

flect

or

Glo

be

De

cora

tive

A-l

am

p

Re

flect

or

Glo

be

De

cora

tive

A-l

am

p

Re

flect

or

Glo

be

De

cora

tive

On/Off Controls Dimmable Three-Way

Nu

mb

er

of

Av

aila

ble

SS

B S

oc

ke

ts (

Mill

ion

s)

Lower Savings Potential

Higher Savings Potential

Page 15: California Residential CFL Market Status CPUC – Energy Division Hearing Room A June 16, 2009

15

The Northwest CFL Market The Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA) began

promoting CFLs in 1997– Began offering strategic/targeted upstream CFL incentives in 2005

Excluded large home improvement (DIY) stores and wholesale clubs starting in 2006

NEEA reached its 2009 CFL sales goal at the end of 2007 (10.8M CFLs/year)– Withdrew CFL incentives from the Northwest market in early 2008

Other Northwest energy-efficiency program sponsors (e.g., BPA) continued CFL incentives in 2008 – Roughly half of 2008 incentives in the Northwest were for specialty

lamps

Page 16: California Residential CFL Market Status CPUC – Energy Division Hearing Room A June 16, 2009

16

California vs. Northwest

California and the Northwest have had similar CFL promotion strategies– Began market support in big box stores, transitioned

focus toward grocery/drug/small hardware

– Began market support for basic bare spirals and introduced specialty CFLs later

California and Northwest CFL markets and incentive strategies differ in at least 3 ways– CFL sales volume

– CFL retail channels

– CFL price

Page 17: California Residential CFL Market Status CPUC – Energy Division Hearing Room A June 16, 2009

17

California vs. Northwest CFL Sales Annual California CFL sales are double Northwest sales Incentive CFL sales in California comprise a far greater

proportion of total sales than in the Northwest– ULP incentive CFLs comprised 73% of total California CFL sales in

2007

– Incentive CFLs comprised 27% of Northwest CFL sales in 2007 NEEA incentive CFL sales comprised 11% of 2007 Northwest CFL sales

* Awaiting final data on shipments within PG&E service territory.California Sources: (1) CFL Market Effects Final Interim Report, 2009; (2) IOU 2006-2008 ULP tracking data. Northwest Source: Fluid Market Strategies, 2009. Q4 2008 “Widget” CFL Sales Data Report. Prepared for NEEA. March 6, 2009.

Estimated Incentive and Non-Incentive CFL Sales in California and the Northwest, 2007

Draft CA DataDO NOT CITE

73%

27%

27%

73%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

California * NorthwestN

um

be

r o

f C

FL

s (

Mill

ion

s)

Non-Incentive Sales

Incentive Sales

Page 18: California Residential CFL Market Status CPUC – Energy Division Hearing Room A June 16, 2009

18

10%

8%

7%19%

39%

15%

Grocery

Discount

Drug

Small Hardware

Home Improvement

Mass Merchandise/Membership ClubOther

48%

13%

12%

8%

19%

21%

3%

5%

12%

24%

35%

Grocery

Discount

Drug

Small Hardware

Home Improvement

Mass Merchandise/Membership ClubOther

52%

3% 3%

23%

19%

California vs. Northwest CFL Retail Channels Non big box stores account for a

greater proportion of overall CFL sales in California than in the Northwest– 44% in California versus 30% in

Northwest

Same applies to incentive CFL sales– 73% non big box in California, 33% in

Northwest

CA Source: CFL Market Effects Interim Report, 2009.Northwest Source: Fluid Market Strategies, 2009.

California CFL Sales

by Retail Channel, 2007

California ULP Shipments

by Retail Channel, 2007

Northwest CFL Sales

by Retail Channel, 2007

Northwest Promotional CFL Sales by Retail Channel, 2007

Page 19: California Residential CFL Market Status CPUC – Energy Division Hearing Room A June 16, 2009

19

California vs. Northwest CFL Price CFL prices are lower in California than in the

Northwest– Especially given that ULP CFL sales account for majority of

total CA CFL sales

$1.09

$1.95

$1.27

$3.07

$5.98

$3.80

$2.79

$5.51

$3.46$4.06

$6.36

$4.29

$-

$1.00

$2.00

$3.00

$4.00

$5.00

$6.00

$7.00

Basic Bare Spiral CFLs Specialty CFLs All CFLs

Pri

ce

Pe

r L

am

p

California - IOU discounted California - Non-IOU California - All CFLs Northwest - All CFLs

CA Source : Preliminary Results from the 2008 California Lighting Retailer Shelf Inventory conducted by KEMA, Inc. as part of the Impact Analysis of the CA IOUs’ 2006-2008 Residential Retrofit Programs. DATA IS PRELIMINARY AND UNWEIGHTED AND SHOULD NOT BE CITED IN OTHER CONTEXTS. NW Source: KEMA, 2009. 2008-2009 CFL Tracking Study Draft Report. Prepared for NEEA.

Average California and Northwest CFL Prices by Style, 2008

Draft CA DataDO NOT CITE

Page 20: California Residential CFL Market Status CPUC – Energy Division Hearing Room A June 16, 2009

20

Summary: California vs. Northwest Broadly, California and Northwest have utilized similar incentive

strategies– However, there are key differences between the California and the

Northwest Incentive sales comprise a much larger proportion of total CFL sales

in California than in Northwest California incentives provide greater support to non big box channels

in California than in the Northwest CFL prices in California are considerably lower than in the Northwest

No noteworthy changes Northwest CFL market after NEEA withdrew incentives in early 2008– Other entities provided CFL incentives instead

– Incentives shifted toward specialty lamps

Page 21: California Residential CFL Market Status CPUC – Energy Division Hearing Room A June 16, 2009

21

Connecticut

Department of Public Utility Control (DPUC) has directed CT utilities to: – Scale back incentives for “common” (basic bare

spiral) CFLs – Shift incentives toward specialty bulbs– Increase promotion of CFLs in retail outlets where

sales trail those of big box retailers Pay special attention to grocery and drug stores

– Eliminate upstream incentives for common CFLs by 2010

Source: Decision: State of Connecticut Department of Public Utility Control Docket No. 08-10-03.DPUC Review of the Connecticut Light and Power Company’s and the United Illuminating Company’s Conservation and Load Management for the Year 2009. Pages 14-15. May 7, 2009.

Page 22: California Residential CFL Market Status CPUC – Energy Division Hearing Room A June 16, 2009

Thank you for your attention.

Jenna Canseco Senior Consultant KEMA, Inc. 510-891-0446 x44121

[email protected]