2 nd Ad-Hoc Working Group (AHWG) meeting for the revision of EU GPP criteria for the product group: Road lighting and traffic signals. Presentation and discussion of criteria proposals relating to energy efficiency. 19 September 2017 Minutes of the meeting Contents Agenda ........................................................................................................................... 2 List of participants ......................................................................................................... 3 Luminaire efficacy criteria (TS1, AC1, CPC2) ............................................................. 4 Dimming criteria (TS2, TS3, CPC3) ............................................................................. 5 Power Density Indicator (PDI) and Annual Energy Consumption Indicator (AECI) (TS4, TS5, AC2) ............................................................................................................ 6 Metering (TS6)............................................................................................................... 7 Life Cycle Cost for Traffic Signals (TS1, AC1) ............................................................ 8 Closing remarks and next steps...................................................................................... 9
Transcript
2nd Ad-Hoc Working Group (AHWG) meeting for the
revision of EU GPP criteria for the product group:
Life Cycle Cost for Traffic Signals (TS1, AC1) ............................................................ 8
Closing remarks and next steps...................................................................................... 9
Agenda
Time Agenda point
14:00 - 14:10 Connection and introductions.
14:10 – 14:25 Luminaire efficacy criteria.
14:25 – 14:40 Discussion about criteria proposal for luminaire efficacy.
14:40 – 14:55 Dimming control criteria.
14:55 – 15:10 Discussion about criteria proposal for dimming control.
15:10 – 15:35 PDI and AECI criteria.
15:35 – 16:00 Discussion about criteria proposal for PDI and AECI.
16:00 – 16:10 Metering criteria.
16:10 – 16:20 Discussion about criteria proposal for metering.
16:20 – 16:30 LCC criteria for traffic signals (and for preliminary evaluation of road lighting).
16:30 – 16:50 Discussion about use of LCC.
16:50 – 17:00 Concluding remarks and next steps.
List of participants Surname Name Organisation Brunet Pierre ANPCEN
Degiorgis Enrico DG ENV
Donatello Shane DG JRC
Falchi Fabio ISTIL
Gama Caldas Miguel DG JRC
Giacomelli Andrea Loss of the Night Network
Hollan Jenik CzechGlobe, Global Change Research Institute
Horvath Christof Austrian Energy Agency
Kyba Christopher German Research Centre for Geosciences
Mohar Andrej Dark Sky Slovenia
Pistochini Patrizia ENEA, ISPRA
Schappi Bernd Austrian Energy Agency
Scholand Michael European Environmental Bureau
Van Tichelen Paul VITO
Wachholz Carsten European Environmental Bureau
List of interested participants not able to attend
Surname Name Organisation Bara Salvador Universidad de Santiago de Compostela
Bardenhagen Harald Licht und Natur e.V.
Baddiley Chris Retired astronomer
Diaz Castro Javier Instituto de Astrofisica de Canarias
Eelen Dirk
Horvath Christof Austrian Energy Agency
Lathuy Yanick Wegen en Veerker
Pagano Fabio Associazione nazionale produttori illuminazione
Seraceni Matteo Gruppohera
Thorns Peter Thorn Lighting Ltd.
Luminaire efficacy criteria (TS1, AC1, CPC2) The JRC introduced the criterion for luminaire efficacy. The usefulness of such a
criterion was described in the sense that it can easily be matched to what is available
on the market thanks to comprehensive databases such as Lighting Facts, which is
supported by the US DoE. The presentation questioned if it would be relevant and
possible to justify different luminaire efficacy requirements as a function of a) the type
of road lighting environment (e.g. the 5 different situations defined in Italy) and/or b)
based on the power rating of the luminaire. Stakeholders were informed of recent
improvements in average LED luminaire efficacy that, during the period 2012 to 2016,
equated to annual improvements of a staggering 8.6lm/W per year (around 9-10% per
year). The criteria proposals in TR 2.0 focussed on a single TS (Technical
Specification) for minimum efficacy with an AC (Award Criterion) to encourage
tenderers to source lighting equipment with an even higher efficacy. Finally a CPC was
also proposed in order to ensure that the winning tenderer delivers lighting equipment
that complies with or exceeds the original efficacy claims.
One stakeholder voiced their displeasure with the ambitious requirements relating to
luminaire efficacy because they felt that it effectively excluded the use of amber-LED,
which they considered as the best lighting technology for overall environmental impact
and the least likely to raise complaints from residents and road users. A suggested
ambition level for amber-LED was 95 lm/W and for amber HID lamps, 50 lm/W.
An analogy was made between quicksilver (Mercury) based electronics and white LED
technology. Both are the most efficient in their field but have higher environmental
impacts elsewhere compared to available alternatives. However, while Mercury-based
electronics have been banned or are being phased out, white-LED is still being
promoted.
One stakeholder confirmed that the 120 lm/W ambition level for 2018 was similar to
what was being considered in Austrian GPP criteria for the procurement of LED
replacements. The same stakeholder added that Ecodesign might not end up with any
requirements on efficacy at the level of the luminaire but instead for individual
components (i.e. ballast and light sources). For this reason, they felt it was especially
important that EU GPP criteria did specify luminaire efficacy. The stakeholders who
had presented an analysis of the market data for luminaire efficacy confirmed that data
for the last 6 months showed continuing increases in efficacy at the same rate as before
and that increases also applied to amber-LED. They were willing to share excel
spreadsheets of the data they had gathered.
Another stakeholder criticised the ambitious requirements for luminaire efficacy
criteria in the sense that it misses the wider environmental benefits that can be achieved
by instead limiting the total lumen output and/or by increased shielding of the
luminaire. This argument was countered by another stakeholder who stated that it
should be understood that EU GPP criteria come into play once a decision to light a
road to a particular level has already been taken. Nonetheless, the same stakeholder
added that there may be some possibility for EU GPP criteria to make procurers aware
of different approaches such as performance contracting where a procurer asks a
tenderer to maintain the same peak hour lighting levels as before but whilst consuming
less energy overall.
One stakeholder felt that the criterion for luminaire efficacy was superfluous given that
it is also included in the criterion for PDI. JRC responded that PDI is applicable only in
cases where a redesign of the lighting installation is carried out whereas luminaire
efficacy could be used when a like for like replacement is carried out.
One point that was strongly emphasised was the success of the Slovenian approach to
put a maximum limit of the amount of electricity that was permitted to be consumed in
road lighting in any given municipality. A limit of 44 kWh/person/yr was set for
Slovenia and backed up by a national law. It has been a resounding success according
to the stakeholder. This approach requires a careful look at the AECI rather than just
the luminaire efficacy. A joint study prepared by Germany, Italy and Slovenia
concluded that adequate road lighting could have a specific electricity consumption as
low as 15 kWh/person/yr. JRC asks if details of this study can be shared. The same
stakeholder stated that compliance with the relevant lighting levels in EN 13201 could
lead to specific energy consumptions that were 5x higher, even with efficient
luminaires.
Dimming criteria (TS2, TS3, CPC3) The JRC presented the obvious environmental benefits that can be achieved by dimming
of light sources and the general relationship between dimming and power consumption
and between dimming and luminaire efficacy. The major change between TR 1.0 and
TR 2.0 is that now dimming is specified instead of merely compatibility with dimming
controls. Some basic dimming scenarios were presented that showed energy savings of
25-46%. Stakeholders were asked for input relating to their knowledge of dimming
control technologies and the options for programming dimming.
Strong support for obligatory criteria for dimming in EU GPP was expressed by some
stakeholders. The simplest dimming controls can be bought at a cost of around 1 Euro
per luminaire, so cost is not an issue. JRC requested some evidence of these cost claims
for dimming controls. Curfew dimming to 50% should be the absolute minimum
requirement since this can barely even be noticed by the human eye when looking at
the road before dimming and 5 minutes after the dimming. Further dimming to 10% is
also perfectly valid. The added advantage of dimming on LED chip lifetime was
highlighted – together with a suggestion that this may go against the interests of the
lighting industry.
Another stakeholder wanted switching off to be considered as a possible form of
dimming (i.e. 100% dimming) in EU GPP criteria. The same stakeholder later
confirmed that this practice is carried out in 6000 small villages and towns in France.
The rate of dimming should be gradual and continuous over a 15 minute period rather
than immediate or in large discrete steps. This way most people will not notice the
dimming effect at all.
The discussion about dimming drifted to the actual natural full moonlight levels (where
light levels are considered sufficient for recognition). This is equivalent to 0.1 lux,
which is well below the levels in the EN 13201 standard, whose lowest levels are 0.4
lux for P6-class roads, 7.5 lux for C5-class roads and around 5 lux for M6 class roads.
Some further analysis about how important dimming can be in road lighting
procurement should be considered using LCC analysis. Guidance for appropriate
dimming in different scenarios for road lighting was requested. Procurers may not
always be aware of this and yet it is important that all tenderers are competing on an
even playing field by using the same dimming scenarios. JRC asked for future dialogue
regarding putting together guidance for procurers regarding dimming.
Power Density Indicator (PDI) and Annual Energy Consumption Indicator (AECI) (TS4, TS5, AC2) The JRC presented the general criteria proposal for PDI and how it was broken down
into three key variables, namely luminaire efficacy, maintenance factor and utilance. A
brief explanation of what each of these variables actually means was provided. How a
procurer should actually define the reference PDI was briefly described. The main
limitation of PDI as a standalone indicator (i.e. that it doesn’t guarantee against over-
lighting and somewhat encourages it) was also highlighted.
The formula behind calculating the AECI value was also explained. The AECI is
considered as an important check and balance against PDI, and effectively prevents
solutions with over-lighting obtaining a good value. It also allows for dimming to be
directly reflected in better AECI values.
Two TSs were specified (one for minimum PDI and one for minimum AECI) together
with and AC to encourage even lower AECI values.
One stakeholder stated that to encourage the best AECI, it was suggested that lower
power LED lighting should be promoted. They considered lower power LED lighting
to not only be more efficient but also to last longer (even up to 100 years) due to fewer
problems with overheating. JRC was not convinced about the greater efficacy of low
power LED, pointing to the spread of data on one of the slides where lumen output was
plotted against luminaire efficacy. Claims about poorer lifetime of higher power LEDs
ultimately come down to product design choices, i.e. to use sufficiently large cooling
devices or not. A closer look at LED luminaire efficacy as a function of power rating
will be necessary.
The publication of the table with the EN 13201 lighting classes was heavily criticised
by the same stakeholder. Several other stakeholders echoed this opinion. They added
that this standard was put together to suit the best interests of the lighting industry and
electric utilities because it promotes excessively high levels of light on roads. Some 15
years after its first publication, it was claimed that some 99% of roads in Europe do not
comply with the corresponding EN 13201 light levels and/or uniformity requirements
for their particular class (which is defined according to factors such as speed limits,
road geometries and traffic volume). Germany is a particularly strong example of lower
light levels on roads being used. This conclusion was based on actual measurements
taken by the stakeholder in 12 European countries. JRC asked for the stakeholder to
share this data. The same stakeholder added that they recently took light measurements
in a C0 class road on a pedestrian crossing in the middle of Las Vegas and found that
the light level was 2 lux (as opposed to the EN 13201 minimum level of 50 lux). Again
the JRC requested the stakeholder to share this data.
Another stakeholder speculated that the average levels of 2 or 3 lux for P2 and P1 class
roads may be related to the fact that decades ago the best light meters could only
measure down to these levels and no more. However, today lux meters can measure
down to 0.01 lux and with good reliability above 0.05 lux. Now that best technologies
can achieve better utilance (up to 0.80) and with lower power lamps (e.g. 35W)
available, it is realistic to start specifying much lower road lighting levels.
One stakeholder asked why the procurer should bother to define a reference PDI. This
is potentially complicated, while GPP criteria should be simple. Why not simply specify
a light level and then ask for a maximum AECI criterion? JRC accepted that this is a
potentially simpler approach that would also be valid but that the same general
calculation should be followed and agreement would need to be reached about what is
a suitable minimum ambition level for AECI would be and if and when to nuance that
ambition level.
Another stakeholder helpfully provided some arguments that would support the trends
shown in one of the slides, where LED luminaire efficacy lowered as the power rating
lowered. One key factor is that the impact of losses in the ballast, which are almost
constant, become more and more significant as the power rating of the light source
reduces. Another factor is that with more LED modules in a lamp (i.e. more power), it
is easier to get optimum performance of optics. Furthermore, it is possible that lower
wattage LED is not typically used in road lighting but in one-off architectural lighting
applications where market demands are not particularly strong for efficacy.
Some to and fro discussion then followed which centred on the perceived intentions of
the lighting industry to not provide energy efficient drivers for low wattage LED road
lighting. It was claimed that a 94% efficient driver could be used for a 1W LED lamp
but that now it is very difficult to find such efficient drivers for anything less than 40-
70W rated LED lamps. Another claim, which was disputed, was that in one European
project it was not possible to find a road luminaire with less than 18W LED lamp.
Another stakeholder agreed that while it was easy to find a wide range of LED power
ratings for indoor lighting, low wattage outdoor lighting, which could really be used to
provide low level road lighting, was not really available (ratings of 3-12W were
specifically mentioned). JRC encouraged all stakeholders to provide them with any
information that would help improve the understanding of the current market reality for
outdoor LED lighting.
Metering (TS6) The JRC highlighted the importance of metering, it’s potential for providing direct feedback relating to investment and management decisions and the usefulness as a
monitoring tool at the level of the lighting installation, or even at the individual
luminaire level. In particular, individual luminaire data would avoid any disputes
about product performance due to poor installation or rapid changes in performance
due to a single event. The proposal was for a single TS only when the procurer actually
wants metering.
One stakeholder requested that a sticker should be placed on LED luminaires for the
power rating and flux codes etc. It was added that this has become standard practice for
some other energy using products (e.g. washing machines) and would help provide
information to the public. Another stakeholder emphasised that they support metering
because it would provide procurers with the capability to monitor the benefits (or not)
of any modifications to the lighting installation.
In terms of costs, metering at the level of the lighting installation is not considered as
significant whereas metering at the level of the individual luminaire would be much
more significant and currently excessive for the benefits it may impart. JRC requested
any specific cost data and ranges of difference so as to better inform procurers.
Another stakeholder moved back to the per capita electricity consumption for road
lighting, stating that they felt that this was more important than metering. They went
on to add that the consumption rates were:
100 kWh/person/yr in Italy, Spain, France and Croatia
50 kWh/person/yr in Germany
20 kWh/person/yr in Berlin
20 kWh/person/yr in Graz, Austria
These limits should be defined at the level of the municipality. One Italian stakeholder
wished to highlight the achievement of a consumption rate of 34.5 kWh/person/yr in an
Italian municipality thanks to the use of LED technology. This discussion prompted
another stakeholder to bring up the Covenant of Mayors initiative, a group of some
8000 municipalities with common goals for 2020 and 2030 (e.g. greenhouse gas
emission reduction targets). It would be really interesting if this metric (kWh/person/yr
for road lighting) could be adopted by this initiative. The main benefit of this metric is
that it not only encourages energy efficiency but also reducing light levels. JRC
encouraged stakeholders to explore the possibility of this idea and would see how this
could perhaps be promoted in EU GPP criteria. The metric certainly cannot be applied
at the level of smaller lighting installations in larger networks (how to precisely estimate
the “public” population that one road section serves?). Maybe a separate subject matter
for tender would be the calculation of this metric for a municipality! Regardless, the
question remains over how can this be accurately estimated if metering is not widely
used?
Life Cycle Cost for Traffic Signals (TS1, AC1) The JRC presented the criteria proposal for traffic signals, showing that total energy
consumption with traffic signals was typically less significant than road lighting at the
municipal level (e.g. 8% of road lighting in Chicago and 20% of road lighting in Graz).
It was pointed out that LED technology was already widely used in traffic signals but
that major advances in energy efficiency were still foreseeable in the next few years
(i.e. shift from 6-9W to 1-2W technology). Due to the unknown cost of these more
efficient technologies, it was felt that an LCC approach would be most appropriate.
Key parameters that would need to be defined by the procurer in order to ensure a fair
comparison of different LCCs were mentioned. The proposal was a TS to actually carry
out the LCC analysis and an AC for the lowest LCC.
A number of stakeholders expressed concern about the excessive brightness of LEDs
in traffic signals at night-time, even to the point where safety could be compromised. It
was assumed that the lumen output does not vary so much between the day and night.
It should be reduced during the night-time. This was considered as an important green
criterion for traffic signals (i.e. dimming to be inversely related to background light
levels). JRC would need to check the standards and consult further.
A Slovenian stakeholder shared the example of excessive lighting used in traffic signals
in Ljubljana that actually goes beyond red, amber and green. They added one particular
case of a flashing traffic light causing safety concerns, but instead of simply dimming
the traffic light, they invested 2.2 million Euros to increase background light levels…a waste of taxpayers’ money.
One stakeholder accepted the approach to going towards a LCC approach if there is a
clear lack of market data relating to the costs of LED light sources of different
efficiencies. JRC encouraged stakeholders to check if they have any contacts who have
market knowledge for traffic signal products.
Closing remarks and next steps JRC thanked the participants for their input and urged them to submit their comments
in writing using the html version of the TR 2.0 that is available on BATIS. Any
stakeholders not registered on BATIS will be invited to do so. Comments need to be
submitted by the 21st October 2017.
The comments will then be taken into account a new TR published by the end of
January. Following publication, there will be a 6 week written consultation during
which stakeholders can submit their written comments.
The European Commission’s science and knowledge service
Joint Research Centre
EU GPP criteria for road
lighting and traffic signals
2nd Ad-Hoc Working Group meeting to present
and discuss latest criteria proposals
September 2017
Shane Donatello
2
The Joint Research Centre
at a glance
3000 staff Almost 75% are scientists and researchers. Headquarters in Brussels and research facilities located in 5 Member States.
3
Sustainable Product Policy at the JRC
No.
of pro
ducts
Product "environmental performance" (e.g. emissions, energy consumption,
hazardous substances, recycled content etc.).
worst best
4
Sustainable Product Policy at the JRC
No.
of pro
ducts
Product "environmental performance" (e.g. emissions, energy consumption,
hazardous substances, recycled content etc.).
worst best
Eco-design
BREF / BAT
EU Ecolabel
EU GPP
Energy labelling
20+ EU GPP Criteria
Sanitary tapware
EEE Health care sector
Combined Heat & Power
Flushing Toilets & Urinals
Wall panels
Imaging Equipment
Waste water infrastructures
Street lighting and traffic signals
Indoor lighting
Water based heaters
Roads
See all here: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/gpp/eu_gpp_criteria_en.htm
6
Project stages and progress
We are here
7
Structure of presentation
1. Why energy criteria are important?
2. Luminaire efficacy criteria.
3. Dimming control criteria.
4. PDI and AECI criteria.
5. Metering criteria.
6. LCC criteria for traffic signals (and in general)
• Discussion session after each criteria.
• Please keep discussion concise and on topic.
• If insufficient time, written comments on relevant parts of html file on BATIS.
8
Why are energy efficient criteria important?
• Can address from different angles…
9
Luminaire efficacy-1
• How many lumens come out of the luminaire per watt consumed?
• Influencing variables: • Light source efficacy
• Luminaire design and optics
• Losses in control gear.
• Relatively easy to obtain market data (e.g. US Lighting Facts).
• LED efficacies are improving year on year.
• Efficacies in HID lamps are not improving as much.
• Good luminaire efficacy does not guarantee efficient lighting solution
• But bad luminaire efficacy prevents an efficient lighting solution.
10
Luminaire efficacy-2
• What is a suitable ambition level for EU GPP criteria?
• Should ambition level be nuanced based on application?
• Should ambition level be nuanced based on power rating?
• Italian approach does this:
11
Luminaire efficacy-3
• Efficacy is more influenced by power rating for HID than LED.
• But at very low power – seems to be a universal trend…
Core (102)
Comp (112)
2016 EU GPP
ambition level
??
12
Luminaire efficacy-4
• Efficacy is improving year on year for LED.
• How to reflect in EU GPP criteria?
8.6lm/W
each year
during
2012-16
period!!!
13
Luminaire efficacy criteria proposal
Key points:
• Tiered approach to TS (+17lm/W/2 yrs).
• Moving goalposts.
• AC to encourage going beyond TS.
• CPC to check on claimed performance.
Period Core Comp.
2016-2017 102lm/W 112lm/W
2018-2019 120lm/W 130lm/W
2020-2021 137lm/W 147lm/W
2022-2023 155lm/W 165lm/W
Discussion points:
• Opinions about ambition levels proposed…
• When could/should lower efficacies be specified? How much lower & why?
• What supporting evidence should be provided to back up claims?
• Is a criterion for light source efficacy needed too?
