Minutes of the meeting

Transcription

1 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

2 Agenda Time 14:00-14:10 Connection and introductions. Agenda point 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.

3 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.

4 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.

5 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 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 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.

6 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 overlighting 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 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 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 minimum level of 50 lux). Again the JRC requested the stakeholder to share this data.

7 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

8 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

9 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 21 st October 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.

10 The European Commission s science and knowledge service Joint Research Centre EU GPP criteria for road lighting and traffic signals 2 nd Ad-Hoc Working Group meeting to present and discuss latest criteria proposals September 2017 Shane Donatello

11 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. 2

12 Sustainable Product Policy at the JRC No. of products worst Product "environmental performance" (e.g. emissions, energy consumption, hazardous substances, recycled content etc.). best 3

13 Sustainable Product Policy at the JRC Energy labelling EU GPP No. of products Eco-design BREF / BAT EU Ecolabel worst Product "environmental performance" (e.g. emissions, energy consumption, hazardous substances, recycled content etc.). best 4

14 20+ EU GPP Criteria Wall panels Water based heaters Waste water infrastructures Flushing Toilets & Urinals Imaging Equipment Roads Combined Heat & Power Street lighting and traffic signals Indoor lighting Sanitary tapware EEE Health care sector See all here:

15 Project stages and progress We are here 6

16 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. 7

17 Why are energy efficient criteria important? Can address from different angles 8

18 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. 9

19 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: 10

20 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 2016 EU GPP ambition level?? Core (102) Comp (112) 11

21 Luminaire efficacy-4 Efficacy is improving year on year for LED. How to reflect in EU GPP criteria? 8.6lm/W each year during period!!! 12

22 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 lm/W 112lm/W lm/W 130lm/W lm/W 147lm/W lm/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? 13

23 Dimming criteria-1 Why is dimming important? Dimming saves energy. Provides means for optimum control. More light when most needed Less light when least needed. But some caution needed: Dimming too low reduces efficacy (standby losses more significant). Not such a good idea in low power lamps (cost effective?). 14

24 Dimming criteria-2 In TR 1.0, we asked for compatibility with dimming controls How meaningful is that really in GPP TS? In TR 2.0, we are asking for dimming controls to be installed. i.e. TS2 if you only want compatibility, TS3 if you want actual dimming control! How much energy can you save? Depends on operation profile Middle scenario = 25% saving Bottom scenario = 46% saving 15

25 Dimming criteria-3 Different possible situations for GPP Central network dimming control Dimming control at level of lighting installation/sub-area Dimming control at level of individual luminaire. What technologies are available? Simple luminaire level controls based on astronomical clocks Feedback controlled dimming/lighting based on daylight sensors SCADA type remote system control Best option depends on individual situation, cost will vary too. Preliminary check recommended to see if beneficial. 16

26 Dimming criteria proposal Key points: Two TSs: one for compatibility, one for actual performance. Actual performance suggested is just that, a suggestion. CPC to check on claimed performance (e.g. power curve). Discussion points: What are the options for dimming control ranges of cost and flexibilities of programming? In what situations is dimming most/least justifiable? Would an AC be justified for "more sophisticated" dimming controls? 17

27 PDI criteria-1 What has changed since TR 1.0? Initially proposed a simplified "one-size fits all" solution. Not generally accepted. Obvious alternative is to make a closer link to existing standards. Embracing the PDI measures: Detailed examples of how to calculate PDI included (BE) Italian approach summarised. PDI broken down into easy to understand components: = 1 n lum F M U = luminaire efficacy = maintenance factor = utilance 18

28 PDI criteria-2 What is luminaire efficacy? As described earlier (lumens out per Watt in). What is the maintenance factor? A combination of light source depreciation and dirt accumulation. Typically ranges from 0.80 to The closer to 1.00 the better. Influenced by light source performance, local environment and cleaning cycles. What is the utilance? The fraction of total light output that lands on the target area. Best performance is 0.70 to 0.78 (i.e % landing on target). Lowers as road gets narrower 19

29 PDI criteria-3 What are the units of PDI? Watts per lux per m 2. Does a low value mean an energy efficient solution? That depends! The key is on the lighting level actually required. Powerful lights can tend towards lower PDI but maybe so much power was not needed The need to define a reference PDI value To prevent overlighting. For a particular road section, only major variable is luminaire efficiacy. Procurer should also specify min & max. light levels. 20

30 PDI criteria-4 What are typical light levels? Standard levels are in table. In general: M5 = C5 = P3 Depends on road surface too Procurer chooses! A planning issue. GPP recommends ALARA GPP only comes into play after light level is chosen. want to define best energy efficiency for each class May need to consider lower efficacies for low light classes 21

31 PDI criteria-4 Procurer effectively defines PDI ref : Minimum luminaire efficacy required. Maintenance factor specified (e.g. 0.85) Utilance factor specified as function of road width (e.g. 0.63). Procurer provides information for tenderer to consider actual PDI: Road profile and pole layout. Minimum maintained light level (and maximum). Road surface reflection coefficient (when luminance is specified). Tenderer can then demonstrate how they can meet/exceed requirements: E.g. better luminaire efficacy E.g. better maintenance factors PDI actual E.g. better utilance due to better directed optics 22

32 AECI criteria-1 Why important? An extra check against PDI criteria (overlighting is punished here). Of greatest direct interest to procurer Captures and quantifies any benefits caused by dimming Procurer to define the following (in addition to PDI conditions): Average dimming factor (e.g = 0% dimming and 0.10 = 90% dimming). Time that lighting installation is operational (e.g hours/yr). Any parasitic power consumption that is continuous (i.e hours/yr). Tenderer can then demonstrate how they can meet/exceed requirements: I.e. better PDI actual than PDI ref better AECI actual than AECI ref But any parasitic power consumption that is continuous needs to be accounted for too (across 8760 hours/yr instead of 4000 hours/yr). 23

33 PDI and AECI criteria proposal Key points: Trying to break it down into digestible pieces: 1 TS for PDI (with clear link to luminaire efficacy and assumptions in calc.) 1 TS for AECI (with clear link to calc. and influencing factors). 1 AC to encourage going beyond TS for AECI (indirectly encourages better PDI too). Discussion points: Is the methodology an improvement on the TR 1.0 proposal? Could it be made clearer? If so, in what way exactly? Do you think PDI and AECI criteria should be used together with a separate TS for minimum luminaire efficacy? 24

34 Metering criteria-1 Why important? Road lighting may be 1-2% of all electricity consumption in EU. But generally not metered! Metering can give tangible & positive feedback to good investment and management decisions It can highlight non-compliance of lighting performance claims Rough estimates possible with HID technology Not so simple now with rapidly evolving LED technology. At individual luminaire level problems with poor performance can be easily noticed and in case of dispute with supplier or installer, thee records are invaluable. 25

35 Metering criteria proposal Key points: When requested, has to be a TS. Not suitable as an optional AC. Core level: metering at the level of the lighting installation. Comp. level: metering at the individual luminaire. Which option is most suitable will depend on the individual contract. Discussion points: How significant a cost is metering (at luminaire or installation level)? Is remote reporting of consumption at individual luminaire level going to increase in the future? (i.e. shift to smart technology?) 26

36 Traffic signal criteria-1 Why important? Energy consumption from traffic signals < road lighting. But still can be significant (operating 24/7). E.g. in Chicago, 8% of road lighting consumption. E.g. in Graz, 20% of road lighting consumption. LED technology became cost competitive for traffic signals sooner than for road lighting already well established. But not everywhere Improvements continuing in LED bulb efficiency for traffic signals (e.g. Siemens 1-2W solutions). But what is the cost premium? 27

37 Traffic signal criteria-2 The suitability of LCC for traffic signals? Want to get the most efficient technology. But only if it saves money overall. LCC is the obvious way to go. Procurer needs to define some conditions: E.g. Time period (e.g. 8 years). E.g. When replacement needed. E.g. Signals to be provided E.g. Average duty cycle (not equal ) Electricity rates (future projections too). E.g. default purchase and installation costs 28

38 Traffic signal criteria proposal Key points: A TS that is based on carrying out an LCC. An AC that proportionally awards points to lower cost solutions. Also linked to a warranty TS Discussion points: Do you think an LCC approach is more suitable than maximum power consumption and minimum LLMFs? What timescale do you think would be suitable for an LCC for traffic signals? Any suggestions about how best to allocate points to different tenderers for the AC? Check current formula 29

39 Closing remarks and next steps Draft minutes of the meeting to be sent out ASAP. Then a 1 week period for any requested corrections to minutes. Then minutes uploaded on BATIS and JRC website. Written comments to be submitted on the html document on BATIS. Deadline for written comments: 21 st October Discussion amongst stakeholders also encouraged on BATIS forum. Next webinar in 2 days time! Light pollution and product lifetime aspects 30

40 Any questions? You can write to me at Project website: Stakeholder platform: 31