Bringing Efficiency to Light. 4-pin-base LED Replacement Lamps 2 nd Draft Technical Requirements. September 21, 2016

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Bringing Efficiency to Light. 4-pin-base LED Replacement Lamps 2 nd Draft Technical Requirements. September 21, 2016"

Duane Barnett
6 years ago
Views:

1 Bringing Efficiency to Light. 4-pin-base LED Replacement Lamps 2 nd Draft Technical Requirements September 21, 2016

2 Misc. Notes Slides will be posted on after presentation Please use GoToWebinar Interface (Question pane) to submit questions during today s webinar Send any additional questions or comments to info@designlights.org. Comment period closes October 5 th,

3 Agenda Background Purpose of DLC, Development Process Overview Original Proposal Overview Comments and Revision Comments Received to original proposal Review of adjustments made to proposal Timeline Questions 3

4 General DLC Development Process DLC Aggregates Requests/Suggestions for Development Maintain wish lists Spec Development (new primary uses) Spec Revision (new performance thresholds) Policy Development Policy Revision Prioritize Wish Lists Periodically Active review with DLC Technical Committee Surveys of entire DLC Membership Prioritized Tasks Undertaken for Development Any new spec development or program change goes through Stakeholder Input Process 4

5 Category Development Overview Iterative as needed Prioritized Category evaluated, researched. Draft requirements presented to Technical Committee; adjustments made based on feedback. Draft distributed for industry input via Stakeholder Input Process Commenters call held to discuss feedback received Stakeholder input summarized and discussed with TC Revisions made based on Stakeholder and TC input. New Policy Released! 5

6 Concepts to Keep in Mind When Submitting Comments Category development and revision are prioritized in response to DLC Member needs, and are informed by industry perspective Members have diverse interests, but all looking for energy savings and persistence Feedback that can help particular efforts get prioritized: Specific market data (market share and saving potential) Technical information Suggested alternatives and solutions for challenges identified 6

7 DLC Spec Precedent: Lamps Several Existing Lamp Categories Two- and Four-foot Linear replacement lamps Type A, B, C Testing in reference troffer, general qualification Mogul Screw-base replacement lamps Type B, C only Testing in reference fixture, only qualified in that specific end-use application In-fixture performance requirements aligned with luminaire category Specific equivalency claims not policed (no requirements) 7

8 4-pin-base Lamps ( CFLEDs ) Scope Scope: LED replacements for CFLs Operate off existing CFL ballast ( Type A ) 4-pin-base (G24q/GX24q) 8

CFLEDs: Approach General Approach General qualification, based upon assumed end-use in downlights (similar to linear fluorescent replacements) Recognized that some end-use in decorative wall or

9 CFLEDs: Approach General Approach General qualification, based upon assumed end-use in downlights (similar to linear fluorescent replacements) Recognized that some end-use in decorative wall or ceiling mounted fixtures Assessed that this is small enough portion of overall market that additional testing requirements were not valuable. Distinct identification for Horizontal Products Vertical Products 9

10 CFLEDs Proposal: Testing Type A: test on reference ballast Designed for/compatible with specific CFL ballasts Primary descriptor in spec sheets: wattage (13W, 18W, 26W, 32W, 42W) Limit product offering; typically products will serve multiple replacement levels Test on reference 18W or 26W ballast Common ballasts attempted to be chosen Pre-approved equivalent possible Intend to consider BF, efficiency, power quality for pre-approved equivalent requests Feedback on reference ballast welcome End-use reference luminaire 6 Downlight Reference 8 more common, but 6 also common and worst-case Approved list, with ability for pre-approved equivalent Feedback on appropriate housings welcome Vertical or Horizontal Mount, as appropriate Horizontal-Mount: Double lamp Vertical-Mount: Single lamp 10

11 CFLEDs Proposal: Performance Requirements Luminaire-level requirements ENERGY STAR reference, except efficacy, L 70 Category Minimum Lumens Efficacy ZLD Color 11 PL Lamps (luminaire is a downlight) Other criteria: L 70 50,000 hrs. (as measured in-situ) THDi 20%, PF 0.9 (including ballast effects) Safety certification from appropriate organization (US or Canada) Horizontal-mount lamps must be rotatable/aimable Must provide list of compatible ballasts 5-year warranty lm/w 75% 0-60⁰ (axially symmetric) 5000K 80 CRI

12 Specific Issue: Equivalency Recognize: performance minimum (light output) and testing requirement (reference ballast, # of lamps to fixture) are very general Suggestion: have more granular spec, based on equivalency claims E.g. specific lumen output and testing requirements for 13W, 18W, 26W, 32W equivalents, specific lumen output requirements on one vs. two-lamp configurations? Complications: Complexity of spec Need to monitor equivalency claims in marketing material (on-going?) Note: in other lamp categories: specific equivalency claims not monitored (no requirements) 12

13 Specific Issue: Compatibility Understood: all lamps may not be compatible with all ballasts Performance issues (flicker) Safety issues (end-of-life circuitry) Proposed requirement limited: provide list of compatible ballasts Requested feedback: more specific compatibility requirements needed? How to verify compatibility claims? Test procedure and lab accreditation both considerations Note: Type-A TLEDs currently have no specific compatibility requirements Some members have commented this has cause issues in their programs 13

14 Comments: Testing Thermal testing: require UL 1993 environment Conduct thermal testing on all reference ballasts High-heat performance: required ENERGY STAR elevated temp L.O. ratio test Specify a dimming ballast for products to test on that claim compatibility with dimming ballasts Note, currently DLC only requires testing at full-power. Additional commentary welcome. Require testing to prove performance on all ballasts claimed compatibly with, across entire voltage range Develop a simplified testing procedure for investigation of all ballasts Longer-term development effort Require all testing on specific ballast, not list of options with pre-approved equal provisions 14

15 Comments: Compatibility Require confirmation from ballast manufacturers for any claims of compatibility Require information on datasheet/spec sheet regarding compatible ballast technology Additional reference ballasts testing for compatibility Additional testing/requirements (test on all ballasts) Flicker Overheating Catastrophic failure due to ballast incompatibility (apply ENERGY STAR Operating Frequency requirements passing criteria) ENERGY STAR Tests proposed, but non-standardized Raises questions of accreditation, as well as appropriateness 15

16 Comments: Performance Requirements Generally supportive Light output changes Remove completely Suggested revision: 1-lamp vertical: lamp horizontal: 1200 Tie to equivalency ZLD: change to 75% 0-90 Concerns about glare by raising ZLD to 90 L 70 requirement of 40,000 hours Would be inconsistent with other categories Rotatable products must rotate >135 16

17 Comments: Equivalency Most feedback: support for the general proposal Suggested revision: require lumen output aligned with equivalency claims: 13W CFL = min. 800lm 18W CFL = min. 1100lm 26W CFL = min. 1600lm 32W CFL = min. 2000lm 42W CFL = min. 3000lm 17

18 Comments: Scope Type B replacement lamps Compatibility, Energy savings (no ballast losses), Ballast maintenance costs Less interest from members; market size information important; increased energy savings vs. extra labor costs; safety concerns 2-pin-base lamps Less interest from members; market size information important; questions on how to deal with legacy magnetic ballasts Other base types (GU24, E26, other misc) Similar: market size/savings potential key; also any considerations of interaction or overlap with ENERGY STAR; unique characteristics of installed products employing these base-types (e.g. magnetic ballasts for 2-pin lamps) Type B, 2-pin lamps remain on wish list for future prioritization 18

19 Comments: Approach Little commentary; implicit support? Clarification requested: include definitional language explicitly confirming approval in wall-sconces Minority feedback: take specific approach (CFLEDs in downlights), not general; also, specify (on QPL) whether IC- or non-ic downlights, open or closed, etc. Mimic safety approvals Strongly articulated; more commentary welcome 19

20 Miscellaneous Additional Comments Specific end-of life provisions Beyond what is in safety standards? How to verify? Maximum wattage requirements Specific to equivalency claims; not pursuing at this time On QPL, list only bare-lamp data, not luminaire testing data Rated or measured? Require additional bare lamp testing? Concern about market confusion 20

21 Adjustments Lamp-level Testing Lamp-level testing Clear desire from members to identify lamp-level performance Adjustments made to luminaire-level requirements to ease testing burden 21

22 Adjustments - Compatibility Compatible ballast information must be included in marketing and installation literature (spec sheet, product guides, etc.) Based on industry feedback; testing designed to ensure broad compatibility Must conduct ENERGY STAR Operating Frequency Testing on 9 reference ballasts 6 ballasts specified as acceptable for LM-79 testing 3 additional ballasts (specified) No pre-approved equivalents Must be conducted at a Laboratory on ENERGY STAR recognized laboratory list (Labs on the Lighting list; scope includes LED lamps) Comments sought on sufficiency and burden or proposed compatibility testing 22

23 23 Adjustments - Compatibility

24 Adjustments Light Output Horizontal vs. Vertical Lumen Output One-lamp vs. Two-lamp configuration Lumen output benchmarked to lowest wattage CFL, including fixture efficiency, and rounding 24

25 Adjustments - ISTMT Thermal testing clarification ISTMT to be conducted in mostrestrictive UL/CSA (1993) Environment Dependent on product ratings (closed vs. open), etc. 25 Illustration should not be taken as definitive. Please refer to Standard.

26 Additional Clarification Requested Nomenclature for OSRAM ballasts (will be corrected/clarified) QTP1/2x18CF/UNV Specifying reflector for downlight housings Specific suggestions welcomed 26

27 Timeline Step Anticipated Timeframe Comment Period Closes October 5 Commenters Call Following close of period TC Call Mid October Finalization of Requirements Late October 27

28 Thank You! Irina Rasputnis x133 Liesel Whitney-Schulte x162 Dave Ryan x1078 Questions/Comments? 28

Color Tuning: Assessing Performance

Stakeholder MEETING 2017 Color Tuning: Assessing Performance Facilitator Liesel Whitney-Schulte DLC Greg Barker Energy Solutions 2 Discussion Session Ground Rules Please sign in on the Roster Please state