A review of U.S. and Canadian lighting programs for the residential, commercial, and industrial sectors

Energy Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 145-158, 1993 Printedin GreatBritain

03605442193 $6.00+ 0.00 Pergamon PressLtd

A REVIEW OF U.S. AND CANADIAN LIGHTING PROGRAMS FOR THE RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL, AND INDUSTRIAL SECTORS STEVEN

M.

NADEL+

for an Energy-Efficient Economy 1001 Connecticut AvenueNW, Suite 801, Washington,D.C. 20036 U.S.A. American Council

BARBARA

A.

ATKINSON

AND JAMES E. MCMAHON

Energy Analysis Program,MS 9o-4oo0, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA 94’720U.S.A.

Abstract-We discuss both the technical potential for lighting savings and the achievable potential from existing programs aimed at realizing those savings in both the U.S. and Canada Approximately 422 ‘IWh or 57% of projected lighting electricity could be saved in the U.S. by 2010 if most cost-effective, commercially available measures were implemented in all applicable buildings. The estimate includes 306 TWh or 66% of projected commercial lighting energy, 60 TWh or 47% of residential lighting energy, and 56 TWh or 38%of industrial lighting energy. We estimate the achievable savings potential from utility programs and regulations (35 to 46%, or 261 to 345 ‘IWh of all U.S. lighting energy). According to this analysis, about 70 to 80% of the technical potential could be saved in 2010 by a combination of regulations and utility programs. INTRODUCTION

In North America, there is widespread agreement that improved lighting efficiency offers significant and accessible energy savings in the commercial, residential, and industrial sectors. Recognizing that investments in efficiency offer the “least-cost” source of supply, utilities have initiated a variety of lighting efficiency incentive programs for their customers. Federal, state, and provincial governments have also set up regulatory programs aimed at mitigating market barriers to energy efficiency. This article reviews many of these efforts, including information/technicaI assistance programs, utility programs, and regulations. In addition, we summarize recent work estimating potential U.S. lighting energy savings available from efficient lighting equipment now on the market, and estimate how much of this savings potential can be achieved with different programs and policies. Technical and achievable lighting energy savings estimates for Canada are not available. Technical Savings Potential Technical potential is defined as the savings possible if all cost-effective lighting efficiency measures were implemented in all applicable buildings. We include technologies that are presently commercially available. A measure is considered cost-effective based on its societal cost of conserved energy (CCE) over its life cycle. For the commercial sector, lighting measures with a CCE of $O.O77/kWh(0.056 ECU) are included? For the residential sector, measures with a CCE of $O.O75/kWh (0.054 ECU) or less are selected. For the industrial sector, all measures examined had a cost substantially less than $O.O7/kWh(0.051 ECU), so all measures were included in the totals. Effects of changes in lighting efficiency on cooling and heating energy are not included in this analysis. Analysis of the potential lighting savings in the commercial sector is based mostly on the lighting policy analysis prepared by Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (LBL).’ Savings for a few measures

’

Authorfor correspondence. $ The CCE is the annualized cost of conservation measuredividedby the.annualenergysavings.Throughoutthisarticle,we usea 6% real discountrate to cornpurethe CCEandexchangeratesof $1 U.S.= $0.85Canadian= 0.724 ECU. 14s

146

STEVEN

M. NADEL et al

are based on earlier work done by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE).2J The residential sector analysis is based on LBL work on residential supply curves.4 The industrial sector analysis is adapted from work done by ACEEE.’ Interior and exterior lighting savings are estimated. Street and roadway lighting savings are not included; this sector consumes 3 to 4 % of U.S. lighting electricity. The commercial sector consumes 57% of the total lighting electricity. Commercial-sector savings are presented by measure in Table 1A. These include: reduced-wattage fluorescent lamps, T8 lamps and electronic ballasts, efficient fixtures, compact fluorescent lamps, reduced wattage incandescent lamps, halogen reflector lamps, fluorescent exit signs, high-intensity discharge (HID) retrofits, timers, and occupancy sensors. Residential-sector lighting consumption is 23% of total electricity used for lighting. Residential-sector savings are presented in Table 1B. Measures include timer/photocell controls, compact fluorescent screw-in retrofits in compatible fixtures, and reducedwattage incandescents and halogen lamps in the remaining fixtures. Compact fluorescent and HID fixture replacement were studied but are not presently cost-effective on a retrofit basis. Industrialsector lighting consumes 17% of lighting electricity. Savings for industrial-sector lighting are presented in Table 1C. Measures include reduced-wattage fluorescents, metal halide lamps, high-pressure sodium lamps, and high-efficiency magnetic ballasts. An estimated 422 TWh (57%) of U.S. lighting electricity (excluding streetlighting) could be saved by 2010 if the cost-effective measures summarized in Tables lA, B, and C were implemented in all applicable buildings. This includes 306 TWh (66%) of projected commercial lighting energy in existing buildings. Similarly, 60 TWh (47%) of residential lighting in existing buildings could be saved. About 56 TWh (38%) of industrial lighting energy could be conserved. EDUCATION,

DEMONSTRATION,

AND TECHNICAL

ASSISTANCE

PROGRAMS

Several U.S. programs have recognized the lack of information as a major barrier to the adop tion of energy-efficient lighting. In California, the Advanced Lighting Professional Advisory Committee (ALPAC) seeks consensus between representatives of national and state lighting professional societies, manufacturers, environmental organizations, research groups, and utilities. ALPAC’s major achievement to date is the Advanced Lighting Guidelines, a state-of-the-art summary of lighting products and systems5 The second achievement is the initiation of a three-level lighting education program aimed at building facilities managers, two-year community colleges, and universities.6 Another substantial contribution to educational efforts is the Lighting Research Center (LRC), founded in 1988 at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in New York State. LRC offers a Masters of Science in Lighting in the School of Architecture. One of its programs is the National Lighting Product Information Program, intended to be an objective, updated source of manufacturer-specific Table 1A. Technical potential for commercial building lighting savings in 2010.1z*4

Measure

Projected usage TWh

Reduced-wattage fluorescent lamps T8 & electronic ballasts Efficient fixtures CIWmduced-wattage incandescents Tiiers/occupancy sensors Exit signs HID lamps Combiitionb TOTAL

466

Savings TWh.

% of projectec usage

62.2 94.1 75.7 61.2 80.9 3.0 23.0 280.4

13 20 16 13 17 5 60

306

66

0.0@2//0.001 0.04//0.03 NA NA NA NA NA NA

Notes: (a) Savings for measures in tight-hand column may be added together. Savings for individual measures in left-hand column may not: they are included interactively in the “Combiiation” to avoid double-counting. Some measures such as specular reflector inserts, tandem wiring, and daylighting/diiming contmls am omitted. (b) Combination = Lamps&llasts/Fixtures/ControIs (Timers + Occupancy Sensors)

U.S. and Canadian lighting programs and policies Table 1B. Technical potential for residential building lighting savings in 2010.3

Measure

Projected usage TWh

Savings TWh’ 17.7

14

0.021//0.015

32 47

0.035//0.025

128

42.2 59.9

Timer/photocells CIWreduced-wattage incandescents

TOTAL

96 of projected usage

Table 1C. Technical potential for industrialbuilding lighting savings in 2010.4

Measure Reduced-wattagefluorescentlamps Electronic ballasts Metal halide lamps High-pressuresodium lamps TOTAL

Projected usage TWb

149

Savings % of projected CCE TWb’ usage WNWEcuikwh 19.1 13 0.009//0.007 7.4 5 0.006//0.004 6.8 5 0.020//0.014 22.6 15 0.043//0.031 55.9 38

performance information. Another is the Residential Energy-Efficient Lighting initiative, a series of projects aimed at introducing and promoting residential energy-efficient lighting. Several lighting technology demonstration centers are also now open to the public and design community in major U.S. cities. In Seattle, the Lighting Design Laboratory, primarily funded by the Bonneville Power Administration, features product displays, computer software, a library, classes and workshops, and a mock-up laboratory where designers can test various lighting configurations.7 Cosponsors include the Northwest Conservation Act Coalition, the Northwest Power Planning Council, the Washington State Energy Office, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the California Energy Commission, and several U.S. state and city utilities, plus BC Hydro in Canada. Near Los Angeles, Southern California Edison’s Customer Technology Application Center features three technology centers for the industrial, commercial, and residential sectors. Each center showcases lighting design, energy-efficient appliances, and energy control hardware. In San Francisco, Pacific Gas and Electric Company opened the Pacific Energy Center in December 1991 featuring mock-up laboratories for lighting and HVAC systems, customer showrooms, lighting classrooms, and in-house energy experts. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s “Green Lights” Program is a high-profile project designed to promote lighting retrofits in the facilities of top U.S. corporations. Using “environmental protection at a profit” as a motive, Green Lights obtains voluntary pledges from companies to audit their buildings within five years. Companies promise to invest in all quality lighting retrofits with annualized internal rates of return equivalent to the prime interest rate (now about 6.5%) plus 6%. The program provides publicity materials, decision-making tools, technical information, manufacturer and contractor information, information on utility rebates, and publicity for participants. As of June 1992,273 major corporations (representing 220 million m2 of floor area) had signed up for the program. UTILITY

PROGRAMS

In the U.S., private investor-owned utilities supply approximately 75% of all electric power? The remainder is provided by public utilities operated by federal and local governments. In Canada, most power is generated by public utilities operated by provincial governments. North American utilities have been operating programs to promote conservation and load management for more than ten years. Initially, programs were offered by a limited number of industry innovators in the U.S., but in recent years programs have spread to many regions and to Canada. Conservation and load management programs are operated by public and private utilities. Both types of utilities promote these programs for a number of reasons, including: (1) they reduce the need to build new generating facilities that are expensive, risky to finance, and difficult to site, due to environmen-

148

STEVEN M.

NADEL et al

tal concerns; (2) they reduce consumer electricity bills resulting in satisfied customers who are less likely to seek alternative energy providers; (3) they reduce power plant emissions (a kWh saved is less fuel burned); and (4) they increase profits (i.e. some state regulatory boards, recognizing that utilities have a disincentive to discourage consumption, have begun innovative programsthat allow utility stockholders to keep a small share of the monetary savings generated by efficiency programs)? Programs to promote lighting efficiency are the most common. Historically, lighting programs for commercial and industrial (C&I) customers have received the most attention, although in recent years residential lighting programs have become more prominent. In discussing these programs, we focus on three variables. Cumulative participation rate is the number of customers who have participated in the program, over its life, divided by the number of eligible customers. Such data provide information about the number of customers who have been reached by a program and how many have been missed. Percentage savings is the average kWh savings resulting from a program, divided by the average pre-program electricity use of participants. This figure indicates the depth of savings among participating customers. Unless otherwise noted, we have relied on estimates derived from statistical analysis of metered electricity use before and after program participation. Cost per kWh, often called the Cost of Conserved Energy, helps indicate the cost-effectiveness of a program. We use utility costs (including both incentive and administrative costs), to calculate cost per kWh because data on total societal costs are rarely available. However, when utilities pay 100% of a measure’s cost, as is the case for several programs discussed below, utility cost is very similar to societal cost. Commercial and industrial Programs A recent compilation tif C&I lighting programs in the U.S. found nearly 200 programs offered by 93 utilities serving 43 states. lo Utility lighting programs for C&I customers fall into five general categories: information-only programs, rebate programs, direct installation programs, loan and leasing programs, and new construction programs. information Programs - These typically involve mailing an educational brochure to customers that promotes the benefits of efficient lighting. Another common type of information program is a lighting audit in which a utility conducts a walk-through survey of a facility and provides a list of recommended lighting improvements to the customer. Information programs appear to have the lowest participation rates (3% or less of targeted customers purchase efficient lighting products), although this finding should be treated with caution since only limited participation data on information-only programs are available. For example, Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. conducted an experimental program in which a group of customers was mailed an informational brochure and another group was mailed an identical brochure that also contained a rebate offer. In a survey conducted at the end of the six-month experiment, 3% of the information-only group reported that they had switched to energy-saving fluorescent lamps in the last six months, while 2.5% of customers in a “control” group that received no brochure reported the same switch. Thus, the brochure had an insignificant effect. In comparison, 5.6% of customers receiving the rebate offer reported the same switch.” To our knowledge no study has measured the energy savings resulting from a lighting information program. Rebate Programs - This is probably the most common type of utility lighting program, representing over 70% of the lighting programs evaluated in a recent study.r2 This proportion is even higher in Canada. In a typical rebate program, targeted customers are mailed a brochure listing eligible measures and rebate amounts. For example, rebates of $0.50 (0.36 ECU)/lamp might be offered for reduced-wattage fluorescent lamps. A few utilities offer rebates based on energy or load savings instead of specific measures. For example, a rebate of $100 (72 ECU)/kW saved might be offered. The rebates offered typically cover 20 to 50% of the cost of qualifying measures. Many programs offer rebates only for reduced-wattage fluorescent lamps (so called “energysaver” lamps). Other products commonly covered by rebates are electronic ballasts for fluorescent lamps, compact fluorescent lamps, reflective fixture inserts, exit sign retrofits, occupancy sensors, and HID lamps and fixtures. Most rebate programs are promoted primarily through direct mail offers. Many utilities also try to encourage participation through personal contacts with lighting dealers and large customers.

U.S. and Canadian lighting programs and policies

149

Participation rates in lighting rebate programs have varied widely, from less than 1% to nearly 10% of eligible customers (including up to 25% of customers with peak demand of approximately 100 kW or more).i2 These results are typically achieved over a period of three to seven years. The highest participation rates have generally been achieved in the U.S., primarily because the most successful U.S. programs have been operating longer than most Canadian programs. Programs with the highest participation rates generally feature simple application procedures, attractive marketing materials, active involvement of equipment dealers and other trade allies, free audits to help customers identify appropriate conservation measures, and extensive personal marketing with an emphasis on developing a personal relationship with customers, especially large customers. In addition, recent experience in the northeastern U.S. indicates that during a recession, rebate applications increase substantially. This is because new construction is at a halt, and the primary business available to electrical contractors and lighting dealers is the promotion of utility rebate programs.13 There has been much discussion about the effect of rebate level on participation rates. Several recent studies have examined this issue in depth and concluded that while many factors affect program participation, program structure and marketing approach often are more important than the level of financial incentive. However, when program features are held constant and only the level of incentives is varied, participation rates tend to increase as financial incentives increase.14 Furthermore, the relationship between incentives and participation may not be a simple direct relationship. On the one hand, adding incentives to a no-incentive program tends to increase participation rates, and high incentives (greater than 50% of measure cost) can increase participation rates above levels achieved with lower incentives. On the other hand, the difference between low and moderate incentives (on the order of 15 and 30% of measure cost, respectively) may have little effect on participation.‘2 As noted previously, several programs have provided rebates to lighting dealers instead of, or in addition to, rebates paid directly to customers. Results of these programs have been mixed. For example, Northeast Utilities complemented rebates it paid customers with a gift program for lighting dealers: the more rebates the dealer promoted, the more points she/he earned, and the more points, the larger the gift. An evaluation of this program found that the gift program increased dealer interest and satisfaction with the program, but that incentives had only a limited impact on customer participation.15 One issue that has received a lot of attention in the U.S. and Canada is the level of “free riders” in rebate programs. Free riders are program participants who would have taken the same conservation actions even if no program were offered, and thereby contribute to program costs without providing benefits to the utility. Data on free riders indicate that their presence in lighting programs vary widely, from less than 5% to nearly 90%. In examining the data, an important trend emerges: when measures that already have a high market share (such as reduced-wattage fluorescent lamps) are promoted, free rider shares are high. When products with low market share are promoted (such as compact fluorescent lamps or electronic ballasts), free rider shares are generally 10w.l~Thus, to a large extent, free rider proportions can be regulated by limiting the products and efficiency levels that are promoted. Of course, as qualifying efficiency levels are increased, participation rates can be expected to decline, at least initially. Evaluations of the energy savings achieved by lighting rebate programs are just beginning, so the number of studies on this subject is limited. For example, a study on a pilot rebate program conducted by New England Electric found that participating customers reduced their total electricity use by 2.6%. This corresponds to a 6 to 7% reduction in lighting energy use. Similarly, a study of Southern California Edison’s Hardware Rebate program found that participants reduced their electricity use by 7.2%. Approximately half of these savings resulted from lighting measures. An analysis of 46 lighting rebate programs found that if the average measure life is assumed to be ten years, programs generally cost the utility less than !$O.O2/kWh (0.015 ECU/kWh), with a median cost of $O.Ol/kWh (0.072 ECU/kWh).12

Direct Instullution Programs - These programs pay all or most of the cost of lighting equipment purchase and installation. The most common type of direct installation program combines a lighting audit with utility purchase and installation of lighting efficiency measures. These programs are usually

150

STEVEN M. NADEL

et al

directed at small C&I customers (peak demand of less than 50 to 100 kW) because, as discussed above, small customers are less likely than large customers to participate in rebate-type programs. A few direct installation programs target large customers, and promote comprehensive retrofits combining lighting with other measures, such as heating and cooling controls, high-efficiency motors, and window improvements. With large customers, the utility typically pays about 70% of the cost. Direct installation programs for lighting fall into two categories: (1) those that concentrate on fluorescent lamps only (including both compact fluorescent lamps and full-size fluorescent tubes): and (2) those that provide comprehensive lighting retrofits. Direct installation programs generally have the highest participation rates of utility programs. In eight direct installation lighting programs, participation rates averaged 13% of eligible customers, including two with participation rates above 30% of eligible customers. I2Because of the extensive services that are provided directly by the utility, only a limited number of customers can be served each year (on the order of a few hundred large customers or a few thousand small customers). Thus, cumulative participation rates depend upon the number of years the program is running as well as the number of eligible customers. Energy savings for participating customers are generally greater for direct installation programs than for other types of utility programs. For example, an analysis of savings from a lamp-only program operated by the City of Austin estimated that it reduced lighting electricity use of participating customers by 15 to 20%. Similarly, savings from a pilot comprehensive lighting program for small C&I customers operated by New England Electric averaged 9 to 13% of participating customer total electricity use (saving approximately 20 to 30% of lighting electricity use). Savings for direct installation programs for large customers range from 10 to 23% of total electricity use.12 Perhaps half to two-thirds of these savings are due to lighting measures. While direct installation programs appear to have higher participation rates and savings per participating customer than other approaches, these savings come at a price. A recent review of utility costs found that direct installation lighting programs range from $0.012 to O.O48/kWh saved (0.009 to 0.035 ECU/kWh), assuming a five-year measure life for lamp-only programs, and a tenyear measure life for more comprehensive programs. The highest costs are for programs that offer comprehensive, multi-measure retrofits, while the lower costs are for programs that only finance lamp replacements. However, since the utility pays nearly all costs, costs to society (utility costs plus customer costs) are nearly the same as utility costs. In some cases economies of scale through bulk purchases of materials and through efficient training and scheduling of installers can make societal costs for direct installation programs less than societal costs for rebate programs.‘z Loan and Leasing Programs - Only a few utilities operate loan and leasing programs for C&I customers. In a loan program, the utility typically finances customer conservation investments, at interest rates ranging from 0% up to the utility’s cost of capital (approximately 12%). With this type of approach the customer is generally responsible for measure identification and installation. Side-by-side comparisons with rebate programs offered by the same utilities show that most C&I customers prefer rebates. For example, both Wisconsin Electric and Puget Sound Power and Light offer customers a choice between a zero-interest loan or a rebate that is approximately equivalent to the interest subsidy on the loan. In both programs over 90% of the participating customers have chosen rebates instead of 10ans.l~ However, loans can be useful for a minority of customers who do not have sufficient cash to finance conservation improvements. Somewhat greater success has been achieved with leasing programs. These resemble direct installation programs (the utility identifies and installs measures), except that rather than providing a grant to finance the conservation measures, the utility leases the equipment to the customers, recouping the cost over a period of approximately five years. Payments are included on customers* monthly electricity bills. Programs are carefully structured to keep monthly lease payments less than the monthly electricity savings attributable to the program. Lease payments may also include an option for the customer to buy the system. Leasing programs for C&I lighting are offered by the cities of Gainesville, FL, Taunton, MA, and Burlington, VT. For example, the Taunton program served approximately 10% of eligible customers over 1.5 years. The program has reduced customer-connected load by an average of 0.06 Watts/m2 of floor area, at an average installed cost of $650 (470 ECU) per kW saved. Assuming

U.S. and Canadian lighting programs and policies

1.51

a ten-year average measure life, cost per kWh has averaged $O.O29/kWh (0.021 ECU/kWh), approximately 20% of which is recovered from customers through lease payments.r7 New Conwucfion Programs - These promote efficiency improvements beyond local building code requirements, and/or beyond standard local construction practices. New construction programs are often referred to as “lost opportunity” programs, because if efficiency measures are not incorporated into a building at the time of construction, achieving the same savings later will almost always be more expensive, if not impossible. New construction programs range from information and rebate programs similar to those previously described to comprehensive programs that seek to improve the efficiency of the entire building. Participation rates, costs, and savings for information and rebate programs are generally similar to the results described previously. Comprehensive new construction programs generally combine training and technical assistance services, free computer simulations, financial incentives for additional design time undertaken by the project design team, and post-construction building commissioning and monitoring services. Most of these programs pay rebates equal to the full incremental cost of efficiency measures not normally included in standard construction practice, up to a ceiling based on the value of a kW and kWh saved to the utility. Examples of comprehensive programs include the Bonneville Power Administration’s Energy Edge program and Northeast Utilities Energy Conscious Construction program. The Northeast Utilities program signed contracts for 752 buildings (average size 3,440 m2) in its first 28 months, including 170 buildings that have received comprehensive services.‘* The Bonneville pilot program reduced the energy use of participating office buildings by 33% compared to prevailing local construction practice. An estimated 34% of these savings were due to lighting measures.r9 Design and construction costs totaled approximately $O.O27/kWh saved (0.020 ECU/kWh) assuming a 20-year average measure life (this figure does not include utility administrative costs).” Residential Programs Most residential lighting programs emphasize compact fluorescent lamps because of the large savings achievable with these products and their long life. Promotion of compact fluorescent lamps is made difficult by the high retail cost of these products (typically $12 to 25 per lamp, 9 to 18 ECU), and by the fact that in the absence of heavy promotional efforts, these products are generally not available in stores where light bulbs are purchased, such as supermarkets and hardware stores. Residential lighting programs include rebate/coupon, mail order, charity sales, direct installation, leasing, and new construction programs. Rebate/Coupon Programs - This is probably the most widely used method in the U.S. to promote compact fluorescent lamps. Unfortunately, these programs have not been especially successful due to the high cost and limited availability of these products. To provide one representative example, Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&B) offered a $4 coupon (2.9 ECU) to customers during 1990 for compact fluorescent lamps. A total of 10,124 lamps were sold during the year, representing a participation rate of less than 0.3% of residential customers. In 1991, PG&E increased the rebate to $7 (5 ECU) and is providing the rebate directly to dealers.21 One rebate program in Canada has achieved much higher participation. Using a program approach originally developed in Europe,” Ontario Hydro has combined a modest coupon ($5 Canadian per lamp, 3.1 ECU) with an extensive promotional campaign conducted with a major food store chain in their service area. The food store also provided its own discount on the bulbs, reducing its profit margin to minimal levels. Over the three-month period of the program, 122,000 lamps were sold, exceeding program goals by a factor of six, and the food store’s typical monthly sales of compact fluorescent lamps by a factor of lKLp A number of U.S. and Canadian utilities are planning similar programs, including several that plan to reduce the consumer cost of bulbs to the $3 to 7 range (2 to 5 ECU).U Mail Order and Charity Sales - Mail order programs bypass traditional retailers and make compact fluorescent lamps available directly to customers, usually at a discount. Typically, utilities buy bulbs in bulk from manufacturers at a substantial discount, and sell bulbs to customers at the same price they paid. Sometimes utilities further subsidize the bulbs. One of the most successful EGY 18:2-G

152

STEVEN M. NADEL

et al

programs of this type was offered by Wisconsin Electric. This program offered consumers a chance to buy one bulb for $5 (3.6 ECU), and get a second bulb free. In one year, 7% of the utility’s residential customers purchased bulbs. Z As one might expect, these programs are not usually popular with lamp retailers, although some retailers appreciate the fact that these programs increase consumer interest in compact fluorescent bulbs. Central Maine Power (CMP) used another novel approach to promote compact fluorescent bulbs. In the CMP territory, a public service organization called the Lions Club conducts an annual light bulb sale to raise money for charity. Normally, the Lions Club sells standard incandescent bulbs, but CMP convinced them to sell compact fluorescents. CMP purchased the bulbs in bulk and gave them to the Lions Club, which sold them for $3 each (2.2 ECU). In the first year of the program, available bulbs were sold out in two weeks, and over 20% of CMP’s residential customers participatedZ Direct Installation - These programs provide customers with free compact fluorescent bulbs plus assistance with installation. Typically, direct installation programs are operated in conjunction with other conservation programs. For example, if the utility is in a home to provide an energy audit, or to provide weatherization assistance, free bulbs and installation are provided. Since utility workers are in the home anyway, incremental costs of providing compact fluorescents are relatively low. For example, using PG&E’s estimates of the costs and savings for this type of program, and assuming a six-year average lamp life, the cost of the program is $O.O37/kWh (0.027 ECU/kWh).Z1 In a few cases, utilities operate direct installation programs for lighting as stand-alone programs. For example, Southern California Edison has contracted with community organizations since 1985 to provide and install free compact fluorescent lamps in the homes of low-income customers. As of early 1991, nearly a million lamps had been given away.% Similarly, both New England Electric and Boston Edison operate “Energy Fitness” programs that provide free compact fluorescents on a door-to-door basis, regardless of income. Typically, four bulbs are provided per home. In these programs, marketing is done on a “neighborhood blitz” basis in which advance publicity lets homeowners know when the program will be in their neighborhood, and door-to-door canvassing is used to solicit program participation. Such strategies keep travel and marketing costs low. Preliminary results for New England Electric’s program indicate that 44% of customers in targeted neighborhoods participate in the program, including 70% of customers who are actually home when the utility representative visits. Pre-program estimates of costs and savings indicate a cost of approximately $O.O4/kWh (0.03 ECU), assuming a six-year average lamp life.” Leasing - The cities of Taunton, MA, and Burlington, VT, operate leasing programs. Under both programs, the utility purchases CFLs in bulk and offers them to customers for $0.20 (0.14 ECU) per month. As long as the lamp is used at least 1.5 hours each day, monthly savings are more than the lease payments. The Philips Lighting Company is trying to market this program to other U.S. utilities. Under the Taunton program, customers request bulbs via the mail or visit the utility’s office to pick up their bulbs. Approximately 5% of residential customers have participated in the program.‘7 The cost to the utility averages approximately $O.O25/kWh (0.018 ECU/kWh).% In the Burlington program, the program is marketed door-to-door by college students hired by the utility. Approximately two-thirds of the households approached have leased bulbs, at an average of five per home.29 New Construction - In the residential sector, these programs primarily emphasize improvements to the building shell and to heating and cooling systems. However, several programs also provide incentives for installation of fluorescent fixtures in homes, either tube fixtures or compact fluorescent fixtures. For example, as part of the statewide Energy Crafted Home program, utilities in Massachusetts provide rebates of $25 for hard-wired fluorescent fixtures. In addition, the program requires that all bare light bulbs in participating homes be compact fluorescents.30 Participation rates are not yet available for this program. REGULATIONS

Even the most successful information and utility programs will not reach all energy users. Many people will decide not to participate, because they do not hear of the programs, do not

U.S. and Canadian

lighting programs

and policies

153

have the time to participate, do not consider energy costs a problem, or have little to gain from participation. Mandatory regulations provide a means to conserve energy in facilities where end users do not take advantage of efficiency opportunities. Regulations make sense in situations where market barriers prevent the ready adoption of cost-effective efficiency measures. An example of market barriers is the third-party decision-maker problem; that is, builders and landlords are rarely concerned about operating costs because these costs are passed on to tenants. Another is the “payback gap,” in which consumers demand simple payback periods of approximately three years or less from efficiency measures, while the failure to invest in efficiency obligates society to invest in generating facilities that have payback periods of ten years or more. In the sections below, we discuss three types of regulatory programs: testing and labeling requirements, building codes, and equipment efficiency standards. Testing and Labeling Testing and labeling are the first steps toward consumer awareness. Reliable test procedures make possible the formulation of equipment-efficiency standards. Two major U.S. projects respond to the need for standardizing lighting equipment test procedures. In the Evaluation of Test Procedures for Lighting Fixtures and Systems, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has evaluated existing industry and professional association test procedures for lamps, ballasts, and fixtures. In the first phase, NIST found that while such tests are well-defined and commonly accepted, they do not specify thermal or equilibrium conditions carefully; there is a gap between test results and installed system performance. Since these tests are aimed toward individual components, NIST is also designing standardized tests for luminaire system efficiency. The second project is a laboratory accreditation procedure for facilities that test electric lighting product performance. This program, requested by the National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA), seeks to establish consensus procedures so that credible consumer data may be provided. This is being accomplished through NIST’s National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program. Building Codes New Construction - The U.S. presently has no mandatory commercial or residential building energy code. DOE has adopted a standard that is mandatory for all federal buildings?l A voluntary national code has been developed by the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) and the Illuminating Engineering Society (IES)?2 ‘Ihis code, ASHRAE/IES 90. l- 1989, contains LPD (lighting power density, i.e. Watt/mz) limits for about 60 building types and tasks. The DOE standard uses the same approach and numbers as the ASHRAE/IES standard, but its 1993 revisions will contain stricter LPD requirements. Several bills in the U.S. Congress call for incentives for states to adopt ASHRAE 90.1-1989, and there is growing consensus among lighting professionals for this policy. Sample LPDs for office buildings are ASHRAE/DOE-1989, 16 to 20 W/mz, and DOE- 1993,12 to 15 W/m*. The standards also include requirements for switches and incentives for use of lighting controls. With controls, fewer switches are required and higher LPD values are allowed. Several states have building codes that include lighting regulations. California’s Title 24 nonresidential building code has LPD requirements, as well as some lighting control and switching requirements and credits. A sample LPD limit for office buildings is 16 W/m2.33New York State’s building energy code took effect in March 1991, and has significantly less stringent LPD regulations combined with equipment standards described below. For example, the office building LPD limit is 26 W/m2.33The Northwest Energy Code commercial section is voluntary in four states and may soon be adopted by Washington state. It has LPD budgets, exterior lighting limits, and lighting controls and switching requirements. A sample LPD limit is 13 W/m* for office buildingsgs The Code’s author, the Northwest Power Planning Council, is publishing guidelines requiring utilities to design programs going beyond the code. Several other states have LPD standards or lighting regulations of some type in their building codes. In Canada, energy-efficiency standards are normally legislated by the individual provinces. The National Building Code has a secondary model (voluntary) code that is based on ASHRAE standards

154

STEVEN M.

NADEL et al

preceding 90. l-l 989 and is intended for adoption by the provinces. Lighting requirements are relatively mild and apply to interior commercial lighting only. LPDs may not exceed 22 W/m2 for business and personal service occupancies, and 50 W/m2 for mercantile areas. This code is under revision and may include the 1995 version of ASHRAE 90.1. ASHRAE 90.1 is presently a mandatory code for the city of Vancouver. The city of Toronto requires ASHRAE 90.1- 1989 standards as part of the municipal approvals process. The province of British Columbia is considering adoption of ASHRAE provisions. This would make it the first province to adopt non-residential building efficiency regulations. Very little data are available on compliance rates with these building codes. One recent study in Massachusetts found that nearly half the new commercial buildings were in compliance with that state’s LPD requirements (based on ASHRAE 90.1-1989) during the period just before the requirements formally took effect.% This finding implies that the LPD levels are not especially difftcult to meet. Another study on compliance with California’s Title 24 non-residential building code found that 14 out of 50 buildings examined were not fully in compliance with the LPD requirements, either because plans did not properly document or calculate the LPD of a building or because the equipment installed differed from the equipment specified on the plansr7 These two studies imply that many buildings are in voluntary compliance with LPD requirements and mandatory codes prob ably increase the compliance rate, but that enforcement of building codes needs to be improved. Retrofit - In the U.S., only San Francisco, CA, has a commercial energy conservation ordinance that applies whenever a building is sold or renovated. Several mandatory measures cover interior and exterior lighting. For example, the building’s LPD must be within 25% of the California Title 24 Standard for new buildings. Compliance to date has been slow because of low public awareness and lax enforcement.38 Equipment Eficiency Standards U.S. Federal - Equipment or component standards specify minimum efficiency levels or efficacy (e.g. lumens/Watt) and prohibit products with lower efficiencies. Efficiency standards were first developed for residential appliances in California. Other states adopted them, leading the U.S. Congress to pass national standards in 1987 under the National Appliance Energy Conservation Act (NAECA). Fluorescent ballasts were amended to the legislation in 1988, following ballaststandard adoption in California and other states. This amendment was supported by energy conservation advocates as well as manufacturers, who observed states adopting ballast standards and were concerned that individual states’ regulations could vary. Under NAECA, energy-efficient magnetic ballasts are now required. The standard is undergoing its first update, which will most likely take effect in 1996. Electronic and hybrid (magnetic/electronic, or cathode cutout) ballasts have been studied as part of the standard-setting process. Several bills directing DOE to establish lamp or lighting product efficiency standards were introduced in Congress in 1991. As a result of these bills, negotiations were held between lighting manufacturers and efficiency advocates, resulting in a compromise agreement. This agreement, which is expected to be part of any energy legislation passed in 1992, establishes specific efficiency standards for fluorescent and reflector incandescent lamps, with updated standards established by DOE every five years. In general, the standards apply to many commonly used incandescent and fluorescent products; specialized products are exempted. The proposed standards essentially limit: (1) reflector incandescent lamps to those with a halogen capsule (or more efficient lamp, such as CFLs); and (2) fluorescent tube lamps to either t&phosphor lamps or to reduced-wattage halophosphor lamps with a krypton gas fill (a 34-Watt lamp of this type can usually replace a standard 4OWatt lamp in existing buildings). The compromise also calls for DOE to study standards for HID and general service incandescent lamps, and to implement a labeling program for luminaires and incandescent larnp~.‘~ U.S. State - The state of Massachusetts has developed minimum efficiency standards for general service incandescent, reflector incandescent, and fluorescent lamps. The standards are designed to promote use of efficient lighting equipment in existing buildings, because these are generally

155

U.S. and Canadian lighting programs and policies

not covered by the state building code. The Massachusetts standards were the basis for the pending federal reflector incandescent and fluorescent standards discussed above. In addition, Massachusetts developed general service incandescent standards that essentially limit general service incandescent lamps to reduced wattage (“energy-saving”) lamps (e.g. a 52- or 55-Watt lamp designed to replace a 60-Watt lamp) or more efficient products.” Because of strong manufacturer opposition, the standards have not been signed into law. In 1991, the state of New York adopted efficiency standards for lamps and luminaires as part of the state building code that applies to new construction and major renovation projects. The lamp standard applies only to the most commonly used fluorescent tubes, and requires use of lamps with a t&phosphor coating. The fixture standards specify a minimum efficiency, varying with fixture type and shielding angle. Two levels of standards are established: an initial level that began in 199 1 that eliminates only the least-efficient products from the market, and a second level, which takes effect in 1995 and limits products to those generally falling in the upper half of the 1991 efficiency distribution.34 Canada - The Canadian Standards Association (CSA) is a voluntary national organization composed of manufacturers, consumers, lighting professionals, and regulators. CSA committees develop consensus standards for many products for adoption by the provinces. A new CSA standard for fluorescent ballasts was published in fall 1991. Its provisions are similar to those of the U.S. 1991 NAECA standards, although it covers more ballast types. Some provinces are expected to adopt this standard. A draft standard for measurement of harmonic currents in fluorescent ballasts is forthcoming. CSA technical committees have decided not to create lamp standards at this time. Federal legislation that would encourage provinces to adopt CSA minimum efficiency standards is expected within a year. However, initially the law will address only household appliances, not fluorescent ballasts. Efficiency standards for fluorescent lamps have also been proposed in the provinces of Ontario and British Columbia. Additional research and discussions are now taking place.” Other Programs The Lighting Policy Analysis, a DOE project, studied federal policy options for lighting efficiency in the commercial and residential sectors. These include equipment standards, performance standards such as building codes, prescriptive standards such as mandatory use of controls, voluntary equipment standards, consumer rebates, consumer tax credits, consumer education, and labeling. The analysis provided a comprehensive estimate of national impacts of the policy options on consumers, manufacturers, and utilities. The Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) has begun a Federal Relighting Initiative with the goal of retrofitting federal buildings to achieve “life-cycle cost-effective, high visual quality lighting.” This program is part of FEMP’s mandate to achieve a 10% reduction in federal building energy between 1985 and 1995. FEMP is conducting demonstration projects with federal agencies and utilities and developing an expert system tool for facilities managers. LIGHTING

ENERGY

SAVI-NGS

FROM

UTILITY

PROGRAMS

AND REGULATIONS

We noted above that there is a technical potential to reduce lighting energy use in the U.S. by approximately 57%, at a cost less than average marginal generation costs. However, convincing all lighting decision-makers to implement all cost-effective improvements is practically impossible. Therefore, the question is: how much of the available savings can actually be achieved? In Table 2 we provide two estimates of cost-effective conservation that could be achieved as a result of utility programs, building codes, and equipment efficiency standards for the year 2010. These estimates differ in the order in which savings are attributed to different programs as well as the aggressiveness of utility programs. The “High” estimate assumes regulations and then adds savings from aggressive utility programs. The “Low” estimate assumes a combination of existing utility and federal non-regulatory programs at current levels, and then adds additional savings from regulations.

156

STEVEN

M. NADEL et al

Higher Savings from Regulations Followed by Aggressive UtilityPrograms ACEEE’s analysis42 assumes that the ASHRAE/IES 90.1 Standard is incorporated into state building codes as of 1993, and that a still stronger standard is adopted effective 1998. It also assumed that federal ballast standards are amended to require electronic ballasts (or their efficiency equivalent) effective in 1995, and that federal efficiency standards for the most commonly used lamps are adopted and phased-in over the 1993- 1995 period. The analysis assumes comprehensive efforts by utilities between 1991 and 2010 period to promote additional efficiency improvements beyond those required by codes and standards and beyond present utility efforts (e.g. providing extensive technical and financial assistance in order to achieve a participation rate of approximately 70% in 20 years). Finally, utility programs are limited to technologies that are commercialized today. Based on these assumptions, ACEEE estimates that a total of 345 TWh of lighting energy use can be saved in 2010. Of this, 186 TWh is from utility programs as described above, 72 TWh from building codes for new construction, and 87 TWh from equipment standards. These savings represent 46% of predicted lighting energy use, or 8.6% of total U.S. electricity use. Peak demand savings are estimated to be 73 GW, or 11.3% of U.S. total load. Total savings are 82% of technical potential. Lower Savings from UtilityPrograms at Existing Levels Followed by Regulations In LBL’s analysis,* EPRI’s forecasting model COMMEND 3.2 was used to project commercial sector savings from various lighting efficiency policies. Achievable potential was calculated based on the assumption that utility and other DSM Programs such as EPA’s Green Lights, FEMP’s Relighting Initiative, and existing listing standards continue at their current levels. Savings from equip ment standards and building codes were estimated beyond those stimulated by those programs. Commercial building code savings assume implementation of the DOE-93 standard in 1995. Like the High estimate, the Low estimate assumes ballast standards requiring electronic ballasts and lamp standards requiring reduced-wattage, general service incandescent lamps and halogen reflector incandescent lamps. However, the “Low” analysis assumes greater penetration rates of these technologies in the years before standards take effect (1995) due to existing programs, leaving less opportunities for energy savings from equipment standards. The “Low” estimates present savings from commercialized technologies selected by minimum life-cycle-cost criteria or by CCE. Using these assumptions, 283 TWh are forecast to be saved in 2010. Of these savings, 217 TWh are from utility and federal programs mentioned above, 35 TWh from building codes, and 31 TWh from equipment standards. These savings represent 38% of predicted lighting electricity use, or 7% of total U.S. electricity. Total lighting savings are 67% of technical potential. Table 2. Estimate of achievable lighting energy savings from utility programs,codes, and standards.lcz Peak demand savings (GW) High High’ 2000 2010

Measure

Energy Savings’ (TWh) High Highb Low 2ooo 2010 2010

Commercial building code Ballast standards Lamp standards utility programs

10.0 16.8 42.3 72.7

71.9 42.9 44.0 186.0

34.8 15.2 15.6 217.6

4.5 3.9 11.4 12.9

15.8 13.7 11.7 31.3

151.8 4.7

344.8 8.6

282.6 7.0

32.7 5.9

72.5 11.3

TOTAL Total as % of U.S. electricityd

Notes: (a) These savings are at the end-user level. Savings from standards and utility programs am for the commercial, residential, and industrial sectors. (b) These estimates assume that 50% of total commercial building code savings, 37% of utility programTWh savings, and 29% of the utility program GW savings are from lighting measures. Estimates from the original source have been reduced by 11.5% to subtractsavings from measures not presently commercialized. (c) GW savings as a percent of totat U.S. ekcnicity generating capacity assume average transmission and distribution losses of 8% and an average reserve margin of 20%. (d) Comparedto total U.S. electricity sales and peak demand in 2010 (shown in Tables lA,B.C) as estimated in the U.S. Energy Information Administration 1991 Reference F0tecast.4~

U.S. and Canadian lighting programs and policies

157

CONCLUSIONS

Approximately 57% of lighting electricity (422 TWh) could be saved by 2010 if most cost-effective measures using commercially available technologies were implemented in all applicable buildings. Further savings may be possible from technologies not yet on the market. Our analysis indicates that approximately 70 to 80% of this technical potential, or 283 to 345 TWh can be achieved by 2010 through a combination of policies including utility programs, building code requirements, and minimum efficiency standards on lamps and ballasts. Programs and policies implemented to date provide a strong foundation for achieving these savings. To reach a substantial portion of the technical savings potential described above, expanded and improved efforts will be needed, including: (i) information and technical assistance programs that help users identify the most efficient equipment suitable for their application; (ii) utility programs expanded to most utilities throughout the country that are based on the most successful programs in place today (regulatory profit incentives for utilities will probably be required to achieve this expansion);44 (iii) widespread adoption of ASHRAE 90.1-1989 building code, and adoption of a strengthened building code by the late 199Os, with proper enforcement; (iv) strengthened ballast efficiency standards and enactment of efficiency standards for lamps. These programs and policies should work together so that the best overall result is obtained. For example, mandatory requirements establish a level that all users must meet. Incentive programs encourage users to voluntarily go beyond the mandatory requirements. Information and technical assistance facilitates the proper application of mandatory requirements and provides additional impetus for the voluntary adoption of further efficiency measures. Acknowledgments-AC walk on this article was funded in part by grants from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation and the Energy Foundation. LBL work on this paper was supported in part by the Assistant Secretary for Conservation and Renewable Energy, Office of Building Technologies of me U.S. Department of Energy, under Contract No. DE-ACO3-76SF0098.

REFERENCES 1. B. Atkinson, J. McMahon, J. Eto, M. Lecar, F. Rubinstein,

2. 3. 4.

5. 6. 7.

8. 9.

10. 11.

12.

0. Sezgen, P. Chart, T. Chan, J.G. Koomey, and T. Wenzel, “Analysis of Federal Policy Options for Improving U.S. Lighting Energy Efficiency,” Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, U.S.A., LBL-31469 (March 1992 draft). P. Miller, J.H. Eto, and H. Geller, “The Potential for Electricity Conservation in New York State,” New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, Albany, NY, U.S.A. (1989). B. Atkinson, “Commercial Lighting Savings Estimates for the National Energy Strategy,” Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, U.S.A. (unpublished, 1991). J. G. Koomey. C. Atkinson, A. Meier, J.E. McMahon, S. Boghosian, B. Atkinson, I. ‘Dniel, M.D. Levine, B. Nordman, P, Chan, “The Potential for Electricity Efficiency Improvements in the Residential Sector,” Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, U.S.A., LBL-30477 (1991). California Energy Commission, “Advanced Lighting Technologies Application Guidelines,” Building and Appliance Efficiency Office, Sacramento, CA, U.S.A., Publication 400-90-014 (1990). B. Atkinson, “California to Pioneer Lighting Education,” Home Energy 8,9, Berkeley, CA, U.S.A. (1991). D. Setterfield, “The Lighting Design Lab: Spotlight on a Pacific Northwest Success Story,” Proceedings of the 1st European Conference on Energy-Efficient Lighting, Swedish National Board for Industrial and Technical Development, Stockhom, Sweden (E. Mills ccl.) (1991). U.S. Energy Information Administration, “Financial Statistics of Selected Investor-Owned Electric Utilities,” DOE/EL%0437(89)/l, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC, U.S.A., p.3 (1990). M. Reid and J. Chamberlin, “Financial Incentives for DSM Programs: A Review and Analysis of Three Mechanisms,” in Proceedings ACEEE 1990 Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Washington, DC, U.S.A., pp. 5.157-5.166 (1990). Barakat & Chamberlm, Inc., “Green Lights Utility Program Database, Version 0.5,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, U.S.A. (1991). J. Clinton and A. Goett. ‘High-Efficiency Fluorescent Lighting Program: An Experiment with Marketing Techniques to Reach Commercial and Small Industrial Customers,” in “Energy Conservation Program Evaluation: Conservation and Resource Management, Proceedings of the August 23-25, 1989 Conference,” Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, IL, U.S.A., pp. 93-98 (1989). S. Nadel, Lessons Learned: A Review of Utility Experience with Conservation and Load Management Programs for Commercial and Industrial Customers, New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, Albany, NY, U.S.A., pp. 36-37 (1990).

1.58

STEVENM.

NADEL

et al

13. Tim Stout, New England Electric, Westborough, MA, U.S.A., and Sharon Stepling, Northeast Utilities, Rocky Hill, CT, U.S.A. (April, 1991), personal communication. 14. L. Berry, ‘The Market Penetration of Energy-Efficiency Programs,” Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN, U.S.A., ORNWCON-294, pp. 32-36 (1990). 15. Kathy Thayer, Northeast Utilities, Rocky Hill, CT, U.S.A. personal communication (July, 1989). 16. Peggy Clippert, Wisconsin Electric, Milwaukee, WI, U.S.A. and Mr. Syd France, Puget Sound Power and Light, Bellingham, WA, U.S.A., personal communication (1989). 17. Joseph Desmond, Taunton Municipal Lighting Plant, Taunton, MA, U.S.A., personal communication (April 1991). 18. Don Flynn, Northeast Utilities, Rocky Hill, CT, U.S.A., personal communication (May 1991). 19. J. Harris, R. Diamond, 0. deBuen, A. Hatcher, B. Nordman, M.A. Piette, “Energy Edge Impact Evaluation, Findings and Recommendations from the Phase One Evaluation,” Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, U.S.A., LBL Report No. 30358, p. 7-l (1990). 20. K. Anderson and N. Benner, “The Energy Edge Project: Energy Efficiency in New Commercial Buildings,” article presented to the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (1988). 21. Pacific Gas and Electric, “Residential Energy-Efficiency Services Programs for 1991, Advice and ECAC Filings,“RevisedMarch 25,1991, Pacific Gas and Electric, San Francisco, CA, U.S.A., Section 17 (1991). 22. E. Mills, Energy Policy, 19 266 (April, 1991). 23. Rick Fleming, Ontario Hydro, Toronto, Canada, personal communication (April 1991). 24. New England Electric, “Integrated Resource Management Draft Initial Filing - May 20, 1991, Technical Volumes,” Westborough, MA, U.S.A. (April). 25. S. Schick, I. Birnbaum, J. Blagden, and M. Adelaar, “Review and Assessment of U.S. Utility Experience with Residential Energy-Efficiency Programs” (draft), Ontario Hydro, Toronto, Canada, Section VII ( 1990). 26. J. Fasana, Letter to Paul Berkowitz, Southern California Edison, Rosemead. CA, U.S.A. ( Jan. 10,199l). 27. E. Tolkin and P. Mihlmester, “The Worcester Energy Fitness Program, An Assessment of the Neighborhood Blitz Approach,” in ‘Proceedings ACEEE 1990 Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings,” American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, pp. 6.191-6.193, Washington, DC, U.S.A., (1990). Also, personal communication from Betty Tolkin, New England Electric, Westborough, MA, U.S.A. (June 1990). 28. F. Krause, E. Vine, and S. Gandhi, “Program Experience and its Regulatory Implications, A Case Study of Utility Lighting Efficiency Programs,” Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, LBL-28268, p. 3 1, Berkeley, CA, U.S.A. (1989). 29. Tom Buckley, Burlington Electric Depart., Burlington, VT, U.S.A., personal communication (March 1991). 30. MarkKelly, Building Science Engineering, Harvard, MA, U.S.A., personal communication (May 1991). 31. U.S. Department of Energy, “Energy Conservation Voluntary Performance Standards for Commercial and Multi-Family High Rise Residential Buildings: Mandatory for New Federal Buildings; Interim Rule,” U.S. DOE, 10 CFR 435, Washington, DC, U.S.A. (January 30, 1989). 32. American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers, “ANSI/ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1-1989: Energy-Efficient Design of New Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings,” Atlanta, GA, U.S.A. (1989). 33. California Code of Regulations, Title 24, “Energy Efficiency Standard for Non-Residential Buildings, High-Rise Residential Buildings, and Hotels/Motels,” Sacramento, CA, U.S.A. (1991). 34. New York State Energy Oftice,“New York State Energy Conservation Construction Code with Amendments Effective March 1,1991,” pp. 41-42 New York State Energy Office, Albany, NY, U.S.A., (1990). Also, personal communication from Eric Noble, New York State Energy Office, Albany, NY, U.S.A. (Match, 1991). 35. Northwest Power Planning Council, “‘Northwest Energy Code,” Portland, OR, U.S.A. (1987). 36. S. Nadel and F. Davis, “Is ASHRAE/IES Standard 9O.lP Being Followed?,” Lighting Design and Application 20 20.26 (March 1990). 37. E. Vine, “Building Code Compliance and Enforcement: The Experience of San Francisco’s Residential Energy Conservation Ordinance and California’s Building Standards for New Construction,” Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, LBL-29748, pp. 28-31 Berkeley, CA, U.S.A. (1990). 38. K. Egel, J. Cook, and B. Knox, “Mandating Energy Efficient Commercial Buildings: San Francisco’s Commercial Energy Conservation Ordinance,” in “Proceedings ACEEE 1990 Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings,” pp. 7.43-7.50, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Washington, DC, U.S.A. (1990). 39. National Electric Manufacturers Association, “Energy Conservation Standards for Certain Lamps and Showerheads,” Washington, DC, U.S.A. (October 18, 1991). 40. Division of Energy Resources, “Proposed Regulations-Draft #4,” Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Boston, MA, U.S.A. (1990). 41. Brian Kelly, Marbek Resource Consultants, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, personal communication (January 1991). 42. D. Moskovitz, S. Nadel, and H. Geller, “Increasing the Efficiency of Electricity Production and Use: Barriers and Strategies,” Tables 9-13, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Washington, DC, U.S.A. (1991). 43. U.S. Energy Information Administration, “Annual Energy Outlook 1991,” DOE/EIA-0383 (91), U.S. Department of Energy, Washington DC, U.S.A. (1991). 44. D. Moskovitz, “Profits and Progress Through Least-Cost Planning,” National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, Washington, DC, U.S.A. (November 1989).