Program Name or Ancillary Text eere.energy.gov

Performance Insights on Solid State LightingDOE’s CALiPER, NGL, and LED Lighting Facts Programs

Ruth Taylor

Pacific Northwest National LaboratoryACEEE Market Transformation Conference

March 26, 2013

www.ssl.energy.gov2 | Solid-State Lighting Program

Outline

• The programs

• The trends

• Digging deeper

• Next steps

www.ssl.energy.gov3 | Solid-State Lighting Program

The DOE Programs

• CALiPER – think consumer reports

• LED Lighting Facts – think food labels

• NGL – think J.D. Powers

www.ssl.energy.gov4 | Solid-State Lighting Program

Understanding the Trends

• CALiPER – significantly dependent on products tested in a

given year

• LED Lighting Facts – best trend set (over 7000 products

listed)

• NGL – only products meeting strict competition

requirements

www.ssl.energy.gov5 | Solid-State Lighting Program

CALiPER – Efficacy, Lamps

26

34

4447

54 55

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Lu

min

ou

s E

ffic

acy (

lm/W

)

(0) (16) (34) (39) (50) (43) (58)Maximum

75th Percentile

MeanMedian

Minimum

25th Percentile

Efficacy

www.ssl.energy.gov6 | Solid-State Lighting Program

CALiPER – CRI, Lamps

Maximum

75th Percentile

MeanMedian

Minimum

25th Percentile

6673 76 79

82 83

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

CR

I

Color Rendering

www.ssl.energy.gov7 | Solid-State Lighting Program

CALiPER – Efficacy, All Products

18

2932

4047

5552

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Lu

min

ou

s E

ffic

acy (

lm/W

)

Purchase Year

Number of Products

9 43 62 73 77 84 87

www.ssl.energy.gov8 | Solid-State Lighting Program

CALiPER – CRI, All Products

6871

74 77 79 80 82

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Co

lor

Ren

deri

ng

In

dex (

CR

I)

Purchase Year

Number of Products

9 43 62 73 77 84 87

www.ssl.energy.gov9 | Solid-State Lighting Program

CALiPER 2012 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

• Careful comparisons based on accurate performance

data is an absolute necessity

• Be cognizant of “secondary” quality issues: glare, flicker,

color tolerances, physical formats, reliability…

www.ssl.energy.gov10 | Solid-State Lighting Program

LED Lighting Facts

www.ssl.energy.gov11 | Solid-State Lighting Program

LED Lighting Facts - Efficacy

www.ssl.energy.gov12 | Solid-State Lighting Program

LED Lighting Facts - CRI

79 78 80 80 78 78 78 78 79 78 80 80 79 79 79

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2009 Q3 2009 Q4 2010 Q1 2010 Q2 2010 Q3 2010 Q4 2011 Q1 2011 Q2 2011 Q3 2011 Q4 2012 Q1 2012 Q2 2012 Q3 2012 Q4 2013 Q1

CR

I

Quarter of Initial Listing

www.ssl.energy.gov13 | Solid-State Lighting Program

LED Lighting Facts – Mean Efficacy

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

2009Q3

2009Q4

2010Q1

2010Q2

2010Q3

2010Q4

2011Q1

2011Q2

2011Q3

2011Q4

2012Q1

2012Q2

2012Q3

2012Q4

Me

an L

um

ino

us

Effi

cacy

(lm

/W)

Quarter of Initial Listing

Lamp

Luminaire

www.ssl.energy.gov14 | Solid-State Lighting Program

LED Lighting Facts – Mean Efficacy

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

2009 Q32009 Q42010 Q12010 Q22010 Q32010 Q42011 Q12011 Q22011 Q32011 Q42012 Q12012 Q22012 Q32012 Q4

Me

an L

um

ino

us

Effi

cacy

(lm

/W)

Quarter of Initial Listing

IndoorOutdoorOther

www.ssl.energy.gov15 | Solid-State Lighting Program

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

2009 Q32009 Q42010 Q12010 Q22010 Q32010 Q42011 Q12011 Q22011 Q32011 Q42012 Q12012 Q22012 Q32012 Q4

Max

Lu

min

ou

s Ef

fica

cy (

lm/W

)

Quarter of Initial Listing

Lamp

Luminaire

LED Lighting Facts – Max Efficacy

www.ssl.energy.gov16 | Solid-State Lighting Program

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

2009 Q32009 Q42010 Q12010 Q22010 Q32010 Q42011 Q12011 Q22011 Q32011 Q42012 Q12012 Q22012 Q32012 Q4

Max

Lu

min

ou

s Ef

fica

cy (

lm/W

)

Quarter of Initial Listing

Indoor

Outdoor

Other

LED Lighting Facts – Max Efficacy

www.ssl.energy.gov17 | Solid-State Lighting Program

Next Generation Luminaires Design Competition

www.ngldc.org

www.ssl.energy.gov18 | Solid-State Lighting Program

NGL Efficacy Advancements

All recognized (avg. efficacy)

• 2008 - 37 lm/W

• 2009 - 52 lm/W

• 2010 - 45 lm/W

• 2012 - 65 lm/W

• 2013 – 75 lm/W (indoor)

www.ssl.energy.gov19 | Solid-State Lighting Program

Shift in Focus

Product Selection & Purchasing

Independent LM-79-08 Testing

Data Analysis

Report Publication

Shift to Lighting

Facts QA

New CALiPER

Focus

www.ssl.energy.gov20 | Solid-State Lighting Program

CALiPER Digging Deeper

• Snapshot Reports using data

from LED Lighting Facts

• Application Reports focusing

on specific product types and

design scenarios, going beyond

LM-79 testing

• Exploratory Studies that

incorporate product installations

and evaluations

• Standards Support for

emerging areas such as flicker,

dimming, power quality, long-

term performance, etc.

www.ssl.energy.gov21 | Solid-State Lighting Program

Recessed Troffer Exploratory 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

www.ssl.energy.gov22 | Solid-State Lighting Program

www.ssl.energy.gov23 | Solid-State Lighting Program

Efficacy

Energy efficiency – Luminaire efficacy

• All LED products did as well or better than the Fluorescent

Min LPW Max LPW Average LPW

FL benchmark troffers

(28W lamps)

54 72 65.3

Dedicated LED

troffers

75 104 90.6

LED tube retrofits 55 76 68.8

LED retrofit kits 60 76 66.5

www.ssl.energy.gov24 | Solid-State Lighting Program

Watts

Energy use – Luminaire watts

• If you’re not careful, LED retrofit tubes may not alter watts

Min Watts Max Watts Average 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 retrofits 48 (2x4) 79 (2x4) 16 to 26W per

tube

LED retrofit kits 35 (2x2) 51 (2x2) 41.2

www.ssl.energy.gov25 | Solid-State Lighting Program

What did we learn?

• Wide range of quality in LED troffers

• LED tubes produce some funky luminaire

appearance

• Be careful in choosing the beam angle on

these tubes, LED tubes can change the

distribution of light from the luminaire

• LED tubes may have unexpected installation

problems, especially concerning sockets

• Luminaire efficacy is very high. Holds great

promised. Look for LPW of 90+

• Dedicated LED troffers are a good option for

new installations

See it, mock it up before you buy a bunch of

them!

www.ssl.energy.gov26 | Solid-State Lighting Program

CALiPER – 2013 Preview

• Additional Office Study testing

(T8 replacements first)

• PAR38 long term & stress

testing

• Start Retail Display Exploratory

Study

• Continued standards support

and testing (Roundtable next

month)

www.ssl.energy.gov27 | Solid-State Lighting Program

What’s Next?

• CALiPER – focus on deeper dives

• LED Lighting Facts – verification testing for QA

• NGL – discussions on separate competition for

cutting edge, emerging products

Any thoughts?