Presentation to Pittsburgh City Council February 9th, 2009 Robert Koenig [email protected] [email protected] Please consider the.

Presentation to Pittsburgh City Council

February 9th, 2009

Robert [email protected]

Please consider the environment before printing this document

mailto:[email protected]

2

The Clinton Climate Initiative (CCI)

Mission

Make a difference in the fight against climate change in practical, measurable, and significant ways.

Philosophy• Think Big

• Move Quickly• Use Markets• Create Partnerships• Get Results

Approach• Generate Political Will

• Convene Stakeholders• Stimulate Markets• Remove Barriers to Scale-Up• Organize Partners• Mobilize Resources• Share Best Practices• Measure Results

Introduction

3

CCI Strategic Partnerships

• C40 Climate Leadership Group

• U.S. Conference of Mayors

• U.S. Green Building Council

• American College & University Presidents Climate Commitment

• Technical Partnerships

• Corporate Partnerships

CCI serves as the implementing partner of the C40 Climate Leadership Group, an association of 40 large cities and 14 affiliate cities around the world. CCI is assisting these cities to implement large scale projects that reduce energy use, increase the use of clean energy, and reduce GHG emissions.

Introduction

4

CCI Programs & Supporting Infrastructure

SUPPORTING INFRASTRUCTURE

PurchasingAssistance

FinancingMeasurement

ToolsTechnical

Assistance

Program Teams

City Teams

Clean Energy

Water & Wastewater

Ports

Airports

Developing Countries InitiativeTransportation

Solid Waste Management

Building Retrofits

Outdoor Lighting

FOCUS AREAS

Introduction

5

CCI Outdoor Lighting Program: Two Focus Areas

Advanced Public LightingStimulate the market for advanced, energy-efficient public lighting equipment among cities around the world

LED Traffic SignalsAccelerate the conversion of traffic signals from incandescent or halogen to LED

• Improve Quality of Outdoor Lighting Infrastructure

• Reduce System Energy & Maintenance Costs

• Lower GHG emissions

Introduction

6

Services to Cities

Technical Assistance

• Cost justification – ROI, TCO, lifecycle

• Energy & GHG abatement analyses

• Technology and market insight

• Product specifications

Purchasing and Financial Advisory Services

• Vendor introductions

• Project finance advisory services

Project Assistance

• Stakeholder engagement

• Stakeholder coordination

• Project coordination

City-City Best Practice Sharing

Introduction

An Outdoor Lighting Project is an Investment in City Infrastructure

CCI’s Focus is on Cost-Effective, Positive-ROI Projects that Enhance Quality of Service Rendered

Street Lighting

8

Street Lights: Energy Use & Emissions

• 1.3% of all end-use electricity in the EU25, or 35 TWh per year1

• 1% of all end-use electricity in the USA2

• 10% to 38% of a municipal government’s electricity consumption and greenhouse gas emissions3

1: P. Van Tichelen, “Final Report Lot 9: Public Street Lighting,” 2007.

2. Navigant Consulting, “National Lighting Inventory and Energy Consumption Estimate,” 2002.

3: i. City of Boston Climate Action Plan, “2005 Boston Greenhouse Gas Inventories,” January 2008.

ii. Australian Greenhouse Office in the Department of the Environment and Heritage. “Public Lighting in Australia,” 2005.

iii. Grow, Robert T. “Energy-Efficient Streetlights — Potential for Reducing Greater Washington’s Carbon Footprint,” 2008.

Outdoor Lighting Program

9

Street Light Retrofits: Potential for 35%-70% Energy Savings and Significant Emissions Reductions• Greater energy efficiency from advanced luminaires and integrated

control systems

– 35-60% savings vs. high-pressure sodium vapor streetlights

– 70%+ savings vs. mercury vapor streetlights

– additional 10-20% savings with integrated system controls

• Lower maintenance costs

– Luminaire life expectancies significantly longer

• Short payback

– 3-7 years, depending on replacement technology and pre-existing infrastructure

• Reduced GHG emissions– For a city with 150,000 streetlights, potential to avoid >40,000 tons of

CO2 emissions per year, assuming US average .600kg CO2/kWh


10

Advanced Street Lighting Deployments


City Technology Project Description

Ann Arbor, Michigan

LED In 2007 installed 1,400 56W LED street lights to replace 100W HPS streetlights; each LED unit cost $460; energy savings of >50%; payback in 4.4 years

Anchorage, Alaska

LED, Induction In 2008 initiated replacement of all 16,500 City street light fixtures with LED; Expected energy savings of >50% from a full retrofit of all 16,000 street lights; $2-3MM annual O&M savings forecast. Simple payback of <7 years for retrofit.

Oslo, Norway Intelligent Control System and Electronic Ballasts

In 2007 began to equip its 55,000 HPS streetlights with an intelligent control system and electronic ballasts; has achieved 62% energy savings to date

These are only three of many successful projects; CCI will help its partners leverage these cities’ experiences in lighting retrofit projects.

CCI Retrofit Model

ExampleModel Input

ExampleModel Output

Payback (yrs, NPV)MV (With Labor Savings) MV (No Labor savings)

7 7HPS (With Labor Savings) HPS (No Labor savings)

6 7

Energy Savings (GWh/yr) CO2 Reduction (K Tonnes/yr)92.53 55.521

Equipment (NPV) Installation (Labor + Vehicle, NPV)47,058,986 13,406,144

PAYBACK

ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT

TOTAL INVESTMENT

MV HPSLamp Watts System Watts Total # Lamp Watts System Watts Total #

1000 1075 0 400 485 20000360 390 0310 360 0

400 420 20000 250 280 20000215 258 0200 240 0

250 274 20000 150 174 20000175 200 0 100 118 20000125 142 40000 70 82 20000100 125 0

80 96 40000 50 68 0


Total Street Lights: 16,500• MEA: 30• ML&P: 3,403• CEA: 4,568• MOA: 8,200• MOA Decorative: 299• Utility maintained lights are Metered

or on flat rate schedules

Fixture Wattages (HPS)• 150W — Residential• 250W — Collector Roadway• 400W — Arterial Roadway

Executive Summary of Anchorage Street Lighting

City of Anchorage Retrofit

QuickTime™ and aTIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

Street Lighting Retrofit Project — Phase I

Total Capital Outlay $2,199,471

Annual Savings $350,000

Energy Efficiency >50%

Payback Period 7 Years

Net Cumulative Cost Savings $2,837,390

Phase I Retrofit• 2,221 150W HPS Fixtures• 1,775 250W HPS Fixtures

Phase I Key Figures




Fixture Specification Requirements—Sole Source Justification

• An attractive, slim design that reduces wind and snow loading

• A proven heat management system• IESNA Type II & III light distribution, with 80%

optical efficiency• Must be International Dark Skies Certified, full

cutoff fixture• A CCT below 4400 Kelvin• Wet Listed, Class 1 Fixture• Tool-less entry for maintenance and installation• Availability of House-Side Shield• Modular Design for both the LEDs and the

Fixture Driver• Min. 5 year warranty on Fixture Driver, Min. 5-

year warranty on LEDs, Min. 10-year warranty on finish and paintLEDway fixture from Ruud Lighting




Resident Survey of New FixturesTwo Resident Surveys: March and December 2008• 130 Male and Female

Residents • Ages Ranging from age 17-71• Tested Two Kinds of White

Light Technology• Also Tested Dimming Systems /

Centralized Control

Findings » Local Residents overwhelming approved White Light over Existing High Pressure Sodium System







17

Additional Slides


I. Obstacles Particular to Street Light Retrofits

II. Fixture Technology Options, Pros & Cons

III. Common Steps Toward Enacting A Retrofit Project

IV. Extra Photo from City of Anchorage

18

Obstacles Particular To Street Light Retrofits

Obstacle Way To Resolution

Concerns about efficacy of new technology

• Share experiences of early-adopters, including equipment specifications and operating data, to demonstrate technology viability• Present several energy-efficient alternatives with sound warranties to enable choice from a menu of options

Misaligned incentives to retrofit– Utilities own assets– Utilities set rates

• Involve lenders to propose alternative project financing structures and equipment ownership structures that untangle conflicting incentives

Limited budget for large project • Again, involve lenders to propose project financing structures to minimize debt burden on city• Encourage consolidation of project onto one contract to enable scale-up beyond a single year’s budget

Standards do not fully capture benefits of new technology

• Optimize street lighting system according to current lighting standards—reduce over-lighting, and prioritize quality of light over quantity of light• Encourage reevaluation of current lighting standards through projects enacted by early adopters


19

Fixture Technology Options, Pros and ConsTechnology Mercury Vapor High Pressure

Sodium VaporInduction New Ceramic

Metal HalideLED

Relative Age

Description Older, very common high-intensity discharge (HID) technology that generates a bluish-white light

Orange-hued HID light source commonly used to displace less-efficient mercury vapor street lights.

White-light electrodeless light source with long operating life

White-light HID technology; new CMH fixtures with electronic ballasts are >35% more efficient than previous CMH systems

New, white-light technology that uses arrays of LEDs — small, directional light sources — to illuminate areas.

Pros • Low initial cost• Longer lamp life (~24K hrs)• White light• Sudden failures are uncommon

• Low initial cost• Longer lamp life (~24K hrs)• High lamp efficacy (~115 lumens/watt)

• Long life (100K hrs)• White light• Low maintenance cost• High fixture efficiency due to electronics

• White light• High lamp efficacy (~115 lumens/watt)• High fixture efficiency due to electronics and tighter optics around smaller lamps

• Long life (>50K hrs)• White light• High uniformity• High fixture efficiency due to electronics and directional LEDs

Cons • Poor lamp efficacy (~40 lumens/watt)• Lower fixture efficiency

• Lower fixture efficiency• Orange light

• High initial cost• Lower lamp efficacy (~75 lumens/watt)

• High initial cost• Shorter lamp life (~20K hrs)

• High initial cost• Lower LED efficacy (~75 lumens/watt)

oldest newest

Other technologies not profiled include linear fluorescent, compact fluorescent and incandescent street lights


20

Common Steps Toward Enacting a Retrofit Project


Define High-Level Project Goals

Survey Staff Resources &

Expertise

Conduct System Audit

Prepare and Vet Economic Model

Communicate Project Opportunity

Receive and Review Proposals

Approvals Process

Identify lighting engineers with system expertise and interest in a retrofit project

Collect data on street lighting system inventory, ownership structure, incentives to retrofit, stakeholders,

This model will capture the complete economics of a retrofit, to help decision-makers determine whether a

project is feasible

Share economics with lending institutions, contractors and manufacturers (if appropriate under local

procurement rules) to generate proposals

Analyze various proposals for financing and realizing a retrofit

Begin defining project proposal for internal approval; generate final requirements and purchasing

specifications

Prioritize among improved safety, enhanced performance, reduced energy use, many others







Presentation to Pittsburgh City Council February 9th, 2009 Robert Koenig [email protected] [email protected] Please consider the.

Documents

street lighting slide

public street lighting

outdoor lighting project

energy use emissions

cci outdoor lighting

energy efficiency50

led expected energy

use of clean energy