Record number of applications processed and participating manufacturers – 2,456 applications, with 571 manufacturers having a qualified product. Record.

Record number of applications processed and participating manufacturers – 2,456 applications, with 571 manufacturers having a qualified product.

Record number of products added to QPL—17,511

Very successful 2nd Annual Stakeholder Meeting

Development and implementation of Lab Policy

Development and implementation of requirements V2.0 and 2.1

Key Accomplishments

1

Applications Received by Type

2

2,456 applications received in 2013

93.85% of applications passed review

Applications Passed and Failed

3

4

Products Qualified by Application Type

5

17,511 products qualified in 2013

Products Qualified by Category

6

Total Qualified Products andManufacturers, 2012 and 2013

7

All questions were answered within 2 business days

Questions Received in the DLC Inbox

8

Updated Application Instructions

9

Added “Completing the Application Form” instructions

Updated General Application Instructions to include more detail

Created “Product Eligibility” section

Added additional notes to Technical Requirements Table

Added Tolerance Table

Updated Application Instructions

Updated Single and Product Family Application Forms

New validations limit information manufacturers need to provide

Product Family Application

Form resembles Single Product form to reduce confusion

Scaled Performance Table provides better data for Members

10

Qualified Products List Updated weekly, sometimes

more frequently

Qualified Products List –Updates

11

Qualified Products List – Maintenance

QPL Excel file updated to accommodate 7 new product categories

French translations added or updated for 15 categories

Manufacturer names consolidated to facilitate analysis for Version 2.0 transition

12

Analyzed QPL category by category to identify products that failed V2.0 requirements and their family members

18,950 total models identified

2,065 parent models identified

Alerted all 304 affected manufacturers, highlighted the products that failed and the reasons they failed, and provided instructions for resubmission

After processing resubmitted applications, 16,336 products disqualified

Version 2.0 Transition

13

Began September 2012

Continued until April 2013

Phase I: Non-efficacy metrics

Phase II: Efficacy

Specification Revision Overview

14

Phase I: Non-efficacy metrics

Goal: Get specs “right”• Ensure quality metrics are sufficient to provide consumer

satisfaction

Phase I process:

Discussions with advisors on outstanding issues (January/February)

Revised drafts distributed (February)

Comments received, commenters call held (March)

Finalized with TC Committee, final announced (April 5)

Specification Revision, Phase I

15

Phase I: Summary of key changes Aligned CRI, CCT for indoor and outdoor categories

Reclassified tube-shaped products as lamps

Aligned all retrofit kit and luminaire criteria

Amended light output, L70, and distribution requirements for troffers

Created Low-Bay category

Amended distribution requirements for wall-washers

Provided small uplight tolerance on outdoor luminaires

Eliminated bifurcation of horizontal case lighting

Specification Revision, Phase I

16

Phase II: Efficacy metrics Goal: Push the market• Ensure products will save energy relative to incumbent

Phase II: Process Conducted analysis on potential impacts of efficacy levels

on QPL (January/February)

Discussed goals and principles with TC (late February)

Distributed draft efficacy requirements (early March)

Comments received, commenters call held (late March)

Finalized with TC Committee, final announced (April 5)

Specification Revision, Phase II

17

Phase II: Summary of key changes Raised efficacy levels for all 32 categories• Raised 5-25 lm/W, depending on category

Better aligned similar categories (all troffers, all high/low-bay)

Pushed efficacies significantly in troffers to better compete with fluorescent

Had apparent attrition of 20%-40%+ from efficacy changes alone• Family effects estimated to be significant

Specification Revision, Phase II

18

Multi-step transition process:

Final announcement: April 5, 2013• Detailed transition guidance included

Webinars April 11, April 16

Grace periods• Products eligible under v2.0 requirements immediately

• Final day to submit products under v1.7 requirements: June 7

• All products on QPL meet v2.0 requirements: January 1, 2014

• (Products no longer qualified, still searchable)

Two sessions at Stakeholder Meeting dedicated to providing transition guidance

Full analysis and communication in September 2013

• Outreach to more than 300 affected manufacturers

Specification Revision, Transition

19

Category Development Process

#20

40+ categories on 2013 “wish list”

Prioritization process: Gave presentation to and held discussion with Members and Technical Committee on

monthly conference calls Assisted in development of member survey and analysis of results Analyzed estimated level of effort for development of each category Made recommendations for development, based on level of effort, member interest,

and market potential

Investigated and provided proposed category requirements for: Linear Ambient Lighting• Indoor Commercial Spaces; Strip Lighting

Replacement lamps• 2-foot and U-bend

Expanded Retrofit Kits• Pole/Arm Mounted Area, Decorative, Fuel Pump Canopy

Higher-lumen LED Area Lights• Splitting existing category by lumen output

Category Development Overview

#21

Development cycle – April-October Proposals for 8 new categories and 3 expanded

categories distributed mid-July

Feedback through open comment, Stakeholder Meeting session, commenters call, discussions with Membership and Technical Committee.

Final criteria announced September 27 Added 4 categories of linear ambient lighting, including

strip lighting and 2-foot replacement lamps

Expanded retrofit kits for Outdoor Area, Decorative, and Fuel Pump Canopy

Announced to industry that Outdoor Area category will be split by light output in 2014

Category Development Results

#22

Final criteria announced September 27

Webinars on October 2 and 8

Updated web content

Updated application forms

Updated administrative database tools

First products qualified in new categories October 23

Category Development Rollout

#23

DLC Category Development

24

Weekly meetings with key staff

Discuss ongoing activities

Identify priority issues

Track status of deliverables

Bi-weekly program management check-in meetings

Discuss performance under contract

Discuss contract funding

Identify areas for improvement where necessary

Meetings with NEEP

25

Meetings with NEEP

26

FAQ Development

FAQ review process began in January 2013

Completed review and revision of 27 existing FAQs

and brainstormed FAQ additions to address common

areas of confusion

Sent 17 new FAQs to NEEP for review

Updated FAQs on website27

FAQ Development

28

Need to evaluate policy identified at DLC Stakeholder

Meeting (October 2012) Interim LM-79 policy adopted in response (December 17, 2012)

Initial review of entire policy (January – June 2013)

1st Proposal released (July 2013) Discussion at Laboratory Accreditation Concurrent Session at 2013 Stakeholder

Meeting Industry comment period through August 8 Presented proposal and feedback to Technical Committee and Members

2nd Proposal released (September 2013) Industry comment period through October 4

Final requirements and implementation timeline released

(October 2013) Informational webinar (October 29)

Laboratory RequirementsOverview

29

Laboratory RequirementsRevision Process

30

Identified policy evaluation needs Update requirements to reflect industry development Ensure impartial requirements

Guiding principles Stakeholder needs• Data integrity• Adequate access to testing services

Industry consistency

Process Research into accreditation organizations and requirements of similar

programs Discussion with industry experts• Testing laboratories and OSHA NRTLs

Review and incorporation of industry feedback

Laboratory RequirementsLM-79 & LM-80 Proposal and Feedback

31

Proposed references to similar program

requirements

LM-79 Adoption of Interim Policy: Laboratory listed in LED Lighting Facts

Approved Labs List

LM-80 Require laboratory be accredited for LM-80 testing Reference ENERGY STAR Recognized Laboratories for LM-80 Testing

list

Feedback generally supportive Industry identified need for laboratory proficiency testing and

qualified product verification testing

®

®

Laboratory RequirementsISTMT Proposal and Feedback

32

Proposed expansion to requirements Additional allowance for laboratories participating in OSHA NRTL data

acceptance programs

Industry feedback required revised proposal Supportive of data acceptance expansion, but not existing NVLAP LM-

79 accreditation option• Suggestions to review specific accreditations to relevant temperature

measurement methods

Second proposal replaced NVLAP LM-79 Accreditation to relevant temperature measurement methods• UL 1598, CSA C22.2 No. 250.08 accreditation through ILAC-MRA Signatory

Feedback generally supportive Suggestions for additional temperature test methods determined less

relevant than second proposal

Laboratory RequirementsFinal Requirements and Implementation

33

Manufacturer’s Guide

DLC’s first Manufacturer’s Guide

Published July 19, 2013

Announced at Stakeholder Meeting

3 revisions made since original release

34

Manufacturer’s Guide - Updates

35

Reviewer’s Handbook

Reviewer’s Guide -- to ensure program integrity and consistency with every application that goes through the review process

36

37

Agenda development March - July

Participated in 18 agenda planning conference calls with

NEEP Provided brainstorming ideas for sessions, recommendation on

breakout structure, etc.

Planned and recruited speakers for: One pre-conference educational session Two topical and Technical Panels Two highlighted Concurrent Sessions Four repeating Concurrent Sessions

Stakeholder Meeting Agenda Development

38

Presentations given at the Stakeholder Meeting: One pre-conference educational session (sole presenter) One Technical Panels (presenter, moderator) Two highlighted Concurrent Sessions (presenter, moderator) Four repeating Concurrent Sessions (sole presenter)

Stakeholder Meeting Presentations

39

Answered member requests throughout the year 13 member utilities made 29 requests

• 9 concerned product qualification status

• 5 related to accessing the QPL on the new website

• PG&E made 9 requests

• NYSERDA made 4 requests

Stakeholder Value

40

41

Logo Violations

Formalized logo violations process with NEEP

Developed and implemented Logo Violations Tracker to document each manufacturer’s logo violations

Incorporated logo violations review into each application review; manufacturers required to correct incorrect usage of DLC logo in product spec sheet prior to adding products to the QPL

Expanded Logo Guidelines, included Style Guide

Addressed logo violations in person at LightFair

Held weekly calls with the DLC Product Logo Team to discuss outstanding violations and new developments 42

Updated policy content and application documents Revised and new FAQs for updated policies

Updated product category definitions

Developed Qualification Confirmation and Rejection letters for distribution following application review

Updated new Self-Certification Statement with acknowledgement of:• Application instructions• Technical requirements• Logo Guidelines

Developed new application forms• Single product form with LED Lighting Facts requirement information

• Family Grouping form to formalize process and reduce workload on reviewers

Website

43

®

Reviewed program information and application instructions

Revised flow of instructions to follow step-by-step process• Created navigation mimicking the previous website• Created individual pages for single product applications, family grouping applications,

private labeling applications, and LED Lighting Facts® information

Updated “About NEEP” page with icons linking to various NEEP social media efforts

Incorporated member logos into website at NEEP request

Updated information throughout the year as new policies and requirements were introduced

Website

44

Attended eight conferences in support of DLC: DOE SSL R&D (250 attendees)

DOE SSL Market Intro (200)

LightFair International (26,000)

IES Street and Area Lighting Conference (600)

International Energy Program Evaluation Conference (450)

Intertek Lighting Technical Seminar (50)

E-Source Annual Forum (400)

DLC Stakeholder Meeting (200)

Regional and National Conferences

45

Hosted two “New DLC Website Orientation” webinars Highlighted improvements from previous website and

provided navigation instructions Searchable database• Appropriate use of search criteria

• Understanding search results

• Ability to save, share, and download searches and results

Updated resources• Finding category definitions, application instructions, application forms, and FAQs

Identified upcoming additional functionality Improved online application process, including all application

types and easier supporting documentation upload

Application status tracking

Website Webinars

46

Second Annual Stakeholder Meeting successful on many levels 179 attendees (excluding D&R and NEEP staff)

Significant increase in sponsors and sponsorship dollars• 20 sponsors in 2013 (up from 7 in 2012)

• $40K increase in sponsorship funds raised

Overall rating for 2013 meeting was even higher than for 2012 meeting (4.1/5 in 2012, 4.35/5 in 2013)

Made a profit

2013 Stakeholder Meeting –Highlights

47

Held in Chicago, July 22 – 25, 2013 179 attendees (excluding DLC staff)

• Increase of 49% from 2012

• Included representatives from DLC member programs, other utility programs, DLC manufacturer partners, ESCOs, and testing labs

• 59% of organizations that attended in 2012 also attended in 2013

Overall financial goals met

Agenda included• CEU courses

• Topical panel discussions

• Concurrent sessions

2013 Stakeholder Meeting –Background

48

• Keynote panel

• Structured Networking

• Unstructured networking time

Meeting planning and logistics Recommending and contracting with hotel

Recommending and contracting with off-site reception location

Recruiting sponsors

Managing registration

Managing meeting finances

Staffing the meeting

Agenda development Recommending topics and speakers

Organizing panels and recruiting speakers

Organizing and managing Structured Networking sessions

2013 Stakeholder Meeting – Key Tasks

49

2013 Stakeholder Meeting – Detailed Financial Results

50

23 topics addressed (some topics were repeated)

45 speakers 20 separate Structured Networking sessions

included 14 manufacturers Topics included:

• DLC: DLC 101, Advanced DLC, DLC Lab Policy, DLC Specs, DLC Manufacturers Guide, DLC Logo Guidelines

• Technologies: Outdoor lighting; LED Tubes

• Topics: Safety

• CEU Courses: Lighting Controls; Light, Sight and Vision

2013 Stakeholder Meeting – Agenda Details

51

2013 Stakeholder Meeting –

Attendees

52

New web-based portal for the DLC program Access to online qualified

product database that provides enhanced search features

Updated DLC policies, procedures, and news

Online application and payment submittal

Members-only section

New DLC Online QPL and Website

53

Site launched on July 19, 2013 Included online QPL, new DLC website, and enhanced

search features

Did not include online application and payment submission or back-end administrative functionality

Additional functionality went live in November 11/1 – Administrative tools - user, organization, product, attribute, and

category management

11/22 – Application process tools – manufacturer user account creation and management, manufacturer application creation and status review, application fee payment system, and administrator application review management

Though delayed, site is now functional but continuing to be optimized

New DLC Online QPL and Website

54

Improvements More granular, flexible search of the

QPL

Real-time updates to QPL – reflects new products as they are processed

Easier online application and payment submission process for manufacturers

Still offers the full Excel file of the QPL,

but QPL now much easier to use

Easier to post news items for DLC stakeholders

Site has better look and feel and is more stable

New DLC Online QPL and Website

55

56

Provided projections and level-of-effort estimates to assist 2014 planning process:

Provided 3 projections for product submissions and revenue for 2014:

• Base case of 2,259 submissions, $1.964 million in revenue

• Conservative case of 1,993 submission, $1.728 million in revenue

• High-growth case of 2,479 submissions, $2.150 million in revenue

Provided level-of-effort estimates for 2014 program activities:

• Verification testing/QA – Scoping and Planning (~0.25 FTE)

• Tier QPL – Scoping and Planning (~0.15 FTE)

• Delisting of old products – Scoping (~0.025 FTE) and Development of System (~0.15 FTE)

Planning for 2014

57

Satisfaction Metrics

#

Contract between NEEP and D&R identifies two key performance metrics related to stakeholder satisfaction

85% of industry stakeholders are satisfied with technical support provided by Contractor in the application review process and in response to individual requests

90% of DLC members are satisfied with technical support provided

by Contractor in response to individual requests or through

contractor participation in member meetings and webinars

NEEP surveyed members and stakeholders to gather data to address these issues 22 members responded to the member survey 75 stakeholders responded to the stakeholder survey

59

Reaction to DLC Staff

Member Satisfaction

Overall, these responses indicate that DLC members have a very high level of satisfaction with DLC staff with room for improvement.

60

Member Satisfaction

61

Reaction to DLC Resources

Survey indicates that Most respondents asked multiple questions of the DLC staff

84% received a prompt response from DLC staff

95% say DLC staff understood the issue

77% received a complete response to their request on the first reply

Only 10% indicated they were not satisfied with the service they received from DLC staff.

Stakeholder Satisfaction

62

Summary of issues addressed and errors corrected Modified the QPL to make it more user-friendly and easier to

view on small screens

Corrected or revised performance metrics

Corrected typographical errors or misplaced values

Improved French translations for product categories

Qualified Products List –Maintenance

63

Developed requirements for 8 new categories and 3 expanded categories during 2013 Category Development Cycle: Linear Ambient:

• Indirect• Indirect-Direct

Replacement Lamps• 2-foot linear replacement lamps• U-bend linear replacement lamps

Outdoor Area Lighting• Light output >10,000 and <25,000 lumens• Light output >25,000 lumens

Expansions to Retrofit Kit Categories:• For Outdoor Decorative Lighting• For Outdoor Area Lighting• For Fuel Pump Canopy Luminaires

Category Development

64

• Direct-Indirect• Direct

1,900+ submissions processed to date 57% completed within 14 days of receipt

Average time (for all submissions) from initial receipt of submission to completion -- 18 days• Note: this is turnaround from initial receipt, not from receipt of complete

and accurate submission

42% of submissions had at least one issue for manufacturer to resolve (e.g., missing or incorrect test data)

No legal challenges to review results in 2013

Submission Review Timeliness and Accuracy

#65

Responded to more than 4,800 inquiries (through October) sent to [email protected] in 2013

Responsiveness

#

Info@ Responses by Month

66

D&R established protocols for communication and to ensure inquiries are handled properly: D&R phone number on DLC website

D&R phone system hunt group; D&R DLC-specific voicemail box

Direct all inquiries to info@designlights if possible, multiple monitors

Explicitly tracking of all application submissions

Staying in communication with Lighting Facts on specific submissions

(LF processing affects total turnaround time)

Defined lines of communication based on experience within review team

Vacation and out-of-office protocols

Additional requirements for follow-up with upset stakeholders established by NEEP: Do not apologize unnecessarily in writing

Keep NEEP program managers on cc: line

Responsiveness

#67

Application Projections

68

Original contract was for $291,500 An additional $80,000 was provided in

September 2013 Initial budget estimate did not include several key deliverables

included in 2013 Scope of Work• Lab Accreditation Policy

• Manufacturers Guide

• Reviewer’s Guide

• Annual Report

Significantly increased number of applications for QPL requires significantly higher level of support to manufacturing partners

Additional Funding

70

Financial Performance

71

Financial Performance

72