DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICE REGULATION

BEFORE THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

 

*****

                                                                       )          UTILITY DIVISION

IN THE MATTER OF THE                        )         

PETITION FOR A RULEMAKING          )          Petitioners’ Motion & Reply to

OF RON TUSSING & DR. PAUL              )          Utility Comments

WILLIAMSON                                            )         

                        Petitioners.                            )          DOCKET NO. _ D2009.1.6_          

 

MOTION TO STRIKE

1)      Petitioners move to strike Attachments 1 & 2 to NorthWestern’s Comments from being considered during deliberation of this request for a rulemaking because:

a)      they are presented by the Seattle Lighting Design Lab, an organization to which both the Public Service Commission, NorthWestern and 130 other public utilities are members and therefore deny petitioners their constitutional due process right to an impartial decision-maker;

b)      the presentation from the Seattle Lighting Labs does not qualify as expert witness data;

c)      NorthWestern’s attachments lack foundation in that they do not sufficiently identify the lights tested or the specific manufacturer claims allegedly rebutted;

d)     Attachment 1 lacks foundation in that it does not date the tests presented;

e)      the Attachment 1 analysis is useless because the data was collected indoors in a 25’ x 40’ room, at a 15 foot height not simulating actual pole heights or distances between poles where most street lights are deployed;

f)       the Attachment 1 analysis is useless because it does not include consideration of both mesopic and scotopic light; and

g)      the Attachment 2 analysis is bias and useless because it falsely assumes there are no LED equivalents to a 100 watt HPVS available.

2)      As an alternative to the motion to strike, since the PSC is helping to pay for NorthWestern’s expert, petitioners request the Commission to order NorthWestern to defray petitioners’ costs of hiring an expert.

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION

The Seattle Lighting Design Lab’s presentation should not be considered to be data coming from qualified experts in this proceeding. The Lab is not contracting with DOE to do tests, and as of March 18, 2009 was not a certified CALiPER testing lab (See http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ssl/test_labs.html ). To be prequalified as an LED testing lab, Seattle labs would have to qualify under the criterion listed at this link http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/publications/pdfs/ssl/ssl_testing_open_pre-qual_final.pdf.

Further use of data from the Lab denies petitioners their constitutional due process right to an impartial decision-maker. Lab supporters include the Montana Public Service Commission, the decision-maker in this request, NorthWestern Energy and 130 other public utilities. The utility’s use of data from a group affiliated with the PSC as experts creates a conflict of interest.

If the conflict created by consideration of the Seattle Lab data is to be allowed, the Commission ought to at least require a corrective balancing measure. This balance is especially necessary since the Seattle Lab’s analysis is useless in addition to being inadmissible and bias as illustrated by the wholesale refusal of the Lab analysis to consider other more credible data and results.

Therefore if the Commission decides to not strike Attachments 1 & 2, Petitioners respectfully request as an alternative that since the Commission is helping to pay for the utility’s expert, the Commission also require the utility to pay for an independent qualified Lighting Design Engineer hired by petitioners, thereby balancing the access to experts.

            Discussion of the Seattle Lighting labs other flaws mentioned in Petitioners’ motion is found in Petitioner’s Reply to NorthWestern’s comments and will not be repeated here.

PETITIONERS’ REPLY TO NORTHWESTERN ENERGY & MDU COMMENTS

A.    PURPA requires a rulemaking proceeding: Amendments to the Public Utility Regulatory Act in 2007 require:

(16)[1] Integrated resource planning.--Each electric utility shall—
                   (A) integrate energy efficiency resources into utility, State, and regional plans; and 
                   (B) adopt policies establishing cost-effective energy efficiency as a priority resource. 
 
   (17) Rate design modifications to promote energy efficiency investments.—
                   (A) In general.--The rates allowed to be charged by any electric utility shall—
                                  (i) align utility incentives with the delivery of cost-effective energy efficiency; and 
                                  (ii) promote energy efficiency investments. 
                   (B) Policy options.--In complying with subparagraph (A), each State regulatory authority and each nonregulated utility shall consider—
                                  (i) removing the throughput incentive and other regulatory and management disincentives to energy efficiency; 
                                  (ii) providing utility incentives for the successful management of energy efficiency programs; 
                                  (iii) including the impact on adoption of energy efficiency as 1 of the goals of retail rate design, recognizing that energy efficiency must be balanced with other objectives; 
                                  (iv) adopting rate designs that encourage energy efficiency for each customer class; 
                                  (v) allowing timely recovery of energy efficiency-related costs; and 
                                  (vi) offering home energy audits, offering demand response programs, publicizing the financial and environmental benefits associated with making home energy efficiency improvements, and educating homeowners about all existing Federal and State incentives, including the availability of low-cost loans, that make energy efficiency improvements more affordable. 
 

Thus while federal PURPA law does not require adoption of the proposed rule, it does require a rulemaking proceeding. Petitioners contend that federal law supersedes state law in that regard and that the Commission does not have discretion to refuse to go forward with the requested rulemaking proceeding regardless of a state law provision that allows such summary denial in other administrative contexts. The Commission and the utilities must consider promoting “energy efficiency investments,” “removing the throughput incentive and other regulatory and management disincentives to energy efficiency” and other sections of the 2007 amendments. Conducting this rulemaking proceeding will meet the PURPA requirement.

B.     Rule implementation dates clarification: Montana Dakota Utilities (MDU) and the notice of the proposed rule misstate what is being requested with regard to when implementation of LEDs would take place. We reiterate what we wrote in our comments filed March 11, namely that the petition would require LEDs on new installations beginning immediately after when the proposed rule is promulgated and for retrofits beginning one year after the rule is effective and extending over a 12 year phase-in as older lights are replaced.

The reason for beginning immediately is to prevent the installation of outmoded technology. Every old-technology street light installed today commits customers to pay for energy waste for the depreciation life of the luminaire or longer. Or, when the outmoded technology has to be replaced before it is depreciated to address climate change, installing old technology now commits consumers to pay for sunk costs that could have been avoided.

C.     LED light quality issue: Northwestern Energy indicates that the “manufacturers and suppliers of LED offer claims of cost, performance, energy savings and lighting quality that are, in certain instances, inconsistent with NorthWestern’s analysis and observations.”

Petitioners’ response: All NorthWestern’s assertion underscores is “buyer beware”—exactly what petitioners cautioned in initial documents submitted with the petition. However, just because one should be wary does not mean we should reject qualified products. To do so would be acting like Mark Twain’s cat who sat down on a hot stove. It never sat down on another one. But it didn’t sit down on a cold one either.

The DOE/PG&E’s Oakland studies revealed some “cold ones.” There the LED fixtures outperformed the HPS fixtures in delivering better uniformity and distribution while reducing "hot spots" common with HPSs. To see this, please compare Figure 4 (HPS) with Figure 6 (LED) and compare Figure 7 (HPS) with Figure 9 (LED) below.

So even if NorthWestern’s light quality observation were not as misleading as some of the LED manufacturer’s claims it criticizes, NorthWestern’s assertion would not be admitted if it were made by a witness. That statement would be excluded even in an administrative proceeding where the rules of evidence are not as strict as in a court. The claim lacks foundation. It does not name the manufacturers and suppliers involved. It does not indicate what LED products were involved in NorthWestern’s so-called analysis or observations.

            Furthermore, the statement is qualified by saying that in “certain instances” the claims of manufacturers and suppliers are inconsistent with NorthWestern’s observations. That implies that in other instances the claims are consistent. Are those claims in the street lighting arena or indoor florescent or other arena? Northwestern does not elaborate. And it does not say how the claims differ from the analysis or observation. So there is no proof for the statement.

In addition, NorthWestern does not indicate whether it made any analysis or observation independent from the Seattle Lighting Lab’s material it attaches to its comments, and if so what that might have entailed.

NorthWestern fails to reveal to the Commission that the Seattle Lighting Lab is not certified by the DOE to test LED outdoor lighting and does not intend to seek such certification. The Commission will note that all of the Lab’s tests attached to NorthWestern’s comments were done indoors, not out of doors.

In the spring of 2008, I traveled to the Seattle Lighting Labs and listened to a presentation Mr. Strandberg made to a group seeking Lab guidance. I noted that the Lab’s 25’ x 40’ testing room’s ceiling limits test heights to 15 feet, a height and room dimension that is not consistent with the actual pole height and distance experienced in much street and area lighting.

Mr. Ed Smalley, from Seattle City Light was at that presentation. He acknowledged working with an LED manufacturer to achieve an acceptable lighting pattern in actual outdoor tests. Since that time such an acceptable pattern has been achieved according to Mr. Smalley. According to the Leotec supplier involved in the Seattle test, that pattern was achieved by using a lens that let some light that was focused more downward bleed over to other areas.

One of the benefits of LED is that unlike many HPS fixtures that emit light in many directions, LEDs can focus light only in needed directions (avoiding lighting areas like second story windows and the night sky where light is not needed) because each luminaire is made up of several points of light.

Actual outdoor tests at heights akin to those in everyday use performed by DOE’s Gateway demonstrations (like that in Oakland) give us a better indication of satisfactory lighting patterns achievable with current technology. In every demonstration user acceptance of the lights has been high and folks feel safer with the use of LED light. The links to those demonstrations have changed since they were quoted in the petition. Now they can be accessed at http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ssl/gatewaydemos_results.html

The most recent San Francisco study is superior to the Seattle Lighting Labs because it considers both mesopic illuminance as well as scotopic illuminance. The Seattle Labs did not measure both parameters. The San Francisco Study was done in conjunction with PG & E. The Lighting Performance from the Executive Summary of the San Francisco study found at http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/publications/pdfs/ssl/gateway_sf-streetlighting.pdf  is reproduced below. As one can see from the material in bold print that I inserted in the summary, two of the LED luminaires gave better light than the HPS fixture.

“Lighting Performance2

Illuminance measurements to evaluate HPS and LED performance were taken over a grid covering the roadway surface under each Test Area and illuminance metrics were calculated identically for each luminaire type over both luminaire spacings (150’ and 200’) and over the sum of the two spacings. Comparative metrics included maximum, minimum and average illuminance, uniformity values (Coefficient of Variation, Average-to-Minimum Uniformity Ratio, and Maximum-to-Minimum Uniformity Ratio), and the percentage of total Test Area grid points that were measurably illuminated (.05 footcandles or greater).

 

In order to compare illuminance levels from the HPS and LED sources, both photopic and scotopic illuminance levels were measured. Though standards for roadway lighting levels are currently written only for photopic levels, illuminance levels under nighttime roadway conditions typically fall under the mesopic range of visual perception, where both photopic and scotopic illuminance are important. For more information on mesopic illuminance, which is presently receiving more attention in the outdoor lighting design community, see Appendix B: Mesopic Illuminance.

 

When comparing lighting performance for LED outdoor retrofits, it is important to recognize that equivalent lumen output may not be necessary. This is because improvements in color rendering, lighting distribution, and enhanced nighttime lighting conditions (scotopic or mesopic vision advantages) may allow for a reduction in total lumen output from LED light sources relative to HPS. [Emphasis added.]

2 Though the four Test Areas chosen were largely similar in terms of street light locations, spacing, and layout, variation in conditions including baseline lighting levels is such that direct comparisons should not be drawn between the different manufacturer’s LED luminaires from measured results. Accordingly, measured lighting performance for each LED luminaire is compared only to base case HPS luminaire performance in that Test Area. However, computer modeling of a hypothetical Test Area of the same general dimensions as the field Test Areas was also carried out in order to allow for better comparison of lighting performance between LED luminaires. Summary results are provided in the Executive Summary; a more in depth discussion can be found in the Lighting Performance Section of this report.

[Page # of above quoted material.] ES - 2

Two of the LED options, luminaire types A and C, delivered lighting performance that was equivalent or better than the baseline HPS by most metrics, showing promise for broader installation in similar applications. Some increase in lumen output may be desired to improve average photopic illuminance levels, though lower average levels do not necessarily indicate worse lighting performance. In comparing lighting quality, it was observed that the lighting distribution of HPS luminaires was such that they typically over-lit the area directly beneath the luminaires, creating ‘hotspots,’ or areas of relatively high illuminance and contrast, that may have inflated the average illuminance calculations. [Emphasis added.] LED options B and D showed limited applicability for the site dimensions assessed in this study, though they may be appropriate for other types of installations. [Comment added: as in decorative globe street lighting]

 

Table II: Comparison of Measured Photopic Performance for LED Luminaire A, Entire Test Area

Luminaire

Grid Points Illuminated3

Average Illuminance (All Measured Points, footcandles)

Coefficient Of Variation

Average-to-Minimum Uniformity (Illuminated Points Only)4

HPS

85%

0.5

0.98

5.3 : 1

LED A

95%

0.3

0.82

3.4 : 1

 

LED luminaire A provided measurable illumination over most of the Test Area and was by most metrics more uniform than the base case HPS luminaires. While LED A provided slightly reduced average photopic values, average scotopic illuminance values were increased.

 

Table III: Comparison of Measured Photopic Performance for LED Luminaire B, Entire Test Area

Luminaire

Grid Points Illuminated

Average Illuminance (All Measured Points, footcandles)

Coefficient Of Variation

Average-to-Minimum Uniformity (Illuminated Points Only)

HPS

86%

0.5

0.84

5.5 : 1

LED B

56%

0.2

1.42

3.7 : 1

 

As compared to the base case HPS luminaires, LED luminaire B provided a smaller area of measurable illumination, mixed uniformity results, and lower average photopic illuminance, though average scotopic illuminance remained the same or slightly increased, depending on spacing.

  

Table IV: Comparison of Measured Photopic Performance for LED Luminaire C, Entire Test Area

Luminaire

Grid Points Illuminated

Average Illuminance (All Measured Points, footcandles)

Coefficient Of Variation

Average-to-Minimum Uniformity (Illuminated Points Only)

HPS

79%

0.6

1.08

7.5 : 1

LED C

83%

0.2

0.90

2.5 : 1

 

3 ‘Grid Points Illuminated’ is the percentage of grid points that were measurably illuminated (.05 footcandles or greater).

4 Average-to-Minimum Uniformity was calculated as the average of illuminance values for grid points that were measurably illuminated (.05 footcandles or greater), divided by minimum measured illuminance value.

[Page # of above quoted material.] ES - 3

Like LED A, LED C provided measurable illumination over most of the Test Area at uniformity greater than the base case HPS luminaires although both average photopic and scotopic values were reduced.

 

Table V: Comparison of Measured Photopic Performance for LED Luminaire D, Entire Test Area

Luminaire

Grid Points Illuminated

Average Illuminance (All Measured Points, footcandles)

Coefficient Of Variation

Average-to-Minimum Uniformity (Illuminated Points Only)

HPS

99%

0.5

0.96

5.0 : 1

LED D

66%

0.3

1.34

5.2 : 1

 

LED luminaire D, similar to luminaire B, provided a smaller area of measurable illumination, mixed uniformity results, and lower average photopic illuminance than the HPS luminaires, though scotopic averages increased slightly.

 

Due to variations between the Test Areas, direct comparisons should not be drawn on lighting performance between the different manufacturer’s LED luminaires based on the measured results. As a result, computer simulations were used to model photopic illuminance performance on a hypothetical street, thereby eliminating field variables associated with each specific installation site. The same metrics used for the measured results were calculated for these simulated results.

  

Table VI: Summary of Computer Modeled Photopic Lighting Performance Results at 150’ Spacing

Luminaire

Grid Points Illuminated

Average Illumination (All Modeled Points, footcandles)

Coefficient Of Variation

Average-to-Minimum Uniformity (All Modeled Points)

HPS

100%

0.63

0.87

9 : 1

LED A

99%

0.30

0.71

6 : 1

LED B

72%

0.34

1.31

165 : 1

LED C

100%

0.15

0.62

2 : 1

LED D

79%

0.35

1.07

22 : 1

            NorthWestern has not demonstrated the type of actual experience with LED lights that PG&E is willing to share. Nor has NorthWestern demonstrated analysis by a credible third party. That in itself demonstrates the need for the Commission to order the utility to participate in quality testing under the guidance and with cost measurement help from DOE as requested in the petition. The proposed rule is written so that persons may petition the Commission to opt out of the mandatory retrofit requirements if certain economic and other criteria are met as a result of that or other experience.

            Further, the inefficient luminaire that houses LED bulbs is very different from the efficient housing for HPS. More on luminaire efficiency can be found in section K.

Whether manufacturer’s claims meet observation is only relevant if the specific product is discussed as is done in Consumer Reports evaluations. This blanket characterization libels an entire industry and leaves NorthWestern and the Seattle labs open to litigation for defamation by high performers within the industry.

D.    LED product life issue: NorthWestern claims “the Lighting Design Lab has seen claims of LED lamp life nearing 100,000 burn hours, but their testing indicates this value is closer to one-half that, of a maximum of 50,000 burn hours, before lumen depreciation becomes too great for the lamp to yield sufficient light.”

Petitioners’ response: With proper thermal design, LEDs can achieve 60,000+ hours of life while maintaining 70 percent of original light output.

The number one reason that properly manufactured LEDs fail prematurely is overheating. Note that we say “properly manufactured” because not all LEDs are the same, and there are certainly some very low-quality products out there. However, given a top-shelf LED product, it is vitally important to manage the junction temperatures in order to maximize the lifetime.

So the LED itself may be rated at 100,000 hours, but unless it is housed in a proper fixture to dissipate heat properly, some of the bulb life will be sacrificed. That is why LEDs blubs are not generally made to replace bulbs in exiting cobra head street lighting fixtures. The Ann Arbor project with decorative globes is an exception because of the way the replacements were engineered. Since we do not know which manufacturer the Lighting Design Lab observation applies to, its observation should be discounted because it lacks foundation. It also is immaterial if you are only assuming a life in the 50,000 to 65,000 hour range.

The fact that one manufacturer overstated claims may cast some doubt on the industry. However, assuming life spans in the range the Seattle Labs have noticed does nothing to discredit the payback numbers noted in the San Francisco study for example, which noted:

Each manufacturer also provided information regarding LED rated lifetimes and product warranties. Warranties range from two to seven years, while LED lifetimes of 50,000 to over 100,000 hours were reported. While it is likely that well designed luminaires with quality components can last beyond the minimum reported LED life of 50,000 hours, industry standard methods to verify these lifetimes are still in development. Additionally, as a luminaire consists of multiple components (LEDs, driver, housing, coating, etc.), the expected useful life of the luminaire may not be the same as that of the LEDs. Instead, the lifetime should be considered to be limited by the first of all the components comprising the luminaire to fail.

In the San Francisco study, LEDs B & C were rated at 50,000 hours by the manufacturer. LED A was rated at 117,000 hours. For consistency, the study assumed the rated life would be 16 years or 65,500 hours. This assumed the cost comparison would underrate some lifetimes and overrate others.

E.     LED standards issue: MDU would have the Commission believe “This [LED] technology is so new that the standards for comparison are not yet designed and the companies that manufacture the fixtures make their own determination as to what lights are comparable.

Petitioner’s response: It is true that some standards are still being agreed upon. However, there are sufficient standards to be able to evaluate LED luminaires. The product failure standard on LEDs has been established by the International Engineering Society (IES) LM-70 & LM 79 as the output equal to 70 percent of the rated light at the original rated power draw. This criterion recognizes the failure mode of LEDs as being one of a slow fade versus a sudden burn-out. This offers some good safety advantages in that a dim light is usually preferable to no light at all which happens when HPS bulbs cycle (i.e., fail). A listing of standards is found at http://www.lighting-facts.com/resources , which contains:

 

Industry Standards and Test Procedures for Solid-State Lighting

 

In addition another standards listing is found at http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ssl/performance_standards.html . It provides:

Product Performance and Measurement Standards

ANSI Standards

ANSI oversees the creation, promulgation and use of thousands of industry norms and guidelines, including the following key standards of relevance to SSL products.

C78.377-
2008

Specifications for the Chromaticity of Solid State Lighting Products
• Specifies the recommended chromaticity (color) ranges for white light LEDs with various correlated color temperatures (CCTs).

C82.SSL1†

Power Supply
• Will specify operational characteristics and electrical safety of SSL power supplies and drivers.

C82.77-2002

Harmonic Emission Limits – Related Power Quality Requirements for Lighting
• Specifies the maximum allowable harmonic emission of SSL power supplies.

IESNA Documents

IESNA is the recognized North American technical authority on illumination.

TM-16-05

IESNA Technical Memorandum on Light Emitting Diode (LED) Sources and Systems
• This technical memorandum provides a general description of LED devices and systems, and answers common questions about the use of LEDs.

RP-16-05
Addendum a

Nomenclature and Definitions for Illuminating Engineering
• This document provides industry standard definitions of lighting terms, including all lighting technologies. The document is currently being updated to include definitions of solid state lighting terms.

LM-79-08

IESNA Approved Method for the Electrical and Photometric Measurements of Solid-State Lighting Products
• Specifies procedures for measuring total luminous flux, electrical power, luminous efficacy, and chromaticity of SSL luminaires and replacement lamp products.

LM-80-08

IESNA Approved Method for Measuring Lumen Maintenance of LED Light Sources
• Specifies procedures for determining lumen maintenance of LEDs and LED modules (but not luminaires) related to effective useful life of the product.

† Currently under development.

Standards Organizations

CIE Reference Publications

13.3-1995

Method of Measuring and Specifying Colour Rendering Properties of Light Sources
• The official document defining the CRI metric. Will be referenced by ANSI C78.377.

15:2004

Colorimetry, Third Edition
• The official document defining various CIE chromaticity and CCT metrics. Referenced by ANSI C78.377.

127:2007

Measurements of LEDs
• Addresses LED luminous intensity measurement; applies only to individual LEDs, not to arrays or luminaires.

S 009/E:2002

Photobiological Safety of Lamps and Lamp Systems
• Specifies measurement techniques to evaluate optical radiation hazards and eye safety risks of LEDs and LED clusters.

F.      Exaggerated manufacturer’s claims issue: Northwestern is concerned that some manufacturers make exaggerated claims about their product.

Petitioners’ response: Even though exaggerated claims exist, DOE has learned from past product introductions, and has created a number of programs to help users separate the wheat from the chaff. These include the CALiPER testing program, as well as the Gateway Demonstration program http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ssl/gatewaydemos.html , to provide the public with good LED information. Tests of Five LED street lights were issued in January of 2009 using the CALiPER protocol http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/publications/pdfs/ssl/caliper_round_7_summary_final.pdf

DOE has also recently established SSL Quality Advocates at http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ssl/advocates.html . It also introduced the Lighting Facts ™ label, similar to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Nutrition Facts label. The Lighting Facts label provides a quick and simple summary of product performance data as measured by the new industry standard for testing photometric performance, IESNA LM-79-2008. The Lighting Facts label reports product performance results in five areas: lumens, efficacy, watts, correlated color temperature (CCT) and color rendering index (CRI). This is what the label will look like:

The fact that the Montana utilities and the Seattle Lighting Design Lab continue to ignore these tests and developments suggests that not only do consumers and the Commission need to be wary about manufacturer claims, but utility and Seattle Lab claims as well.

G.    Technology acceptance issue: MDU asserts “This proposed rulemaking would require employment of a lighting fixture that has not gained a high level of commercial support, does not have a proven reliability track record and is not generally in service.”

            Petitioners’ respond: For years utilities have fought to preserve their markets, often opposing energy conservation measures unless they could make money by decoupling, etc. MDU & NorthWestern are employing a delaying tactic in this proceeding not to save consumers money, but because they stand to lose money if this rule goes into effect. Why else would MDU make the outlandish and unsubstantiated claim that LED street lights will increase costs for Montanans fourfold? Under this proposed rule nighttime lighting requirements will be cut by 50-60% as demonstrated by the technology. Some existing LED luminaires have been shown in credible joint tests conducted by the government and a utility to have positive 15-year net present values of $305 to $512 (depending on whether the fixtures are for retrofit or new applications). And maintenance schedules will be reduced by 2 to 4 times less than current levels.

LED technology has evolved for 28 years since patents were issued in 1980 (http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/4211956/description.html ); while the white light LED refinement in technology has evolved for more than 5 years. That time frame is similar to the time frame over which High Pressure Sodium developed. So MDU’s attempt to create a distinction about the circumstances surrounding the PSC’s order requiring transition to HPS after that technology had been around for awhile is not apposite. LED technology has been used and proven in traffic signals and brake lights where reliability is a life and death matter.

MDU does not define what it means by “a high level of commercial support.” Would Ann Arbor, Michigan’s decision to install 1000 lights in its downtown area after extensive product testing and consultation with other cities be called going with what Ann Arbor believes is “a proven reliability track record?” What about Anchorage’s decision to replace 16,000 of its cobra heads—is that enough to be called a high level of support? Los Angeles will replace all 140,000 of its street lights with LEDs over the next 5 years. Does that qualify its fixtures as being “generally in service?”

Many cities around the world have committed to LED lighting after product tests as demonstrated in the initial documents filed with this petition. Since the petition was filed, more than 14 large and small cities from the US, Canada, Germany, Ireland, and India have announced plans to install LED street lights. See http://www.newworldwindpower.com/LED%20update.htm . It is not widely known yet, but Boulder, Colorado, has contracted to spend $400,000 on LED fixtures to retrofit lights in its parking garages. Surveys indicate people feel safer in garages lit with LEDs and they can be switched on an off with motion sensors as needed enabling light only when it is needed.

H.    Cost issue: MDU indicates, “The average fixture cost of this new technology as quoted by its suppliers is $944.”

Petitioners’ response: If these cost figures are true, MDU’s suppliers may be overcharging MDU and its customers for street light luminaires. So supply cost should be examined by the Commission and any excess eliminated from operating costs or rate base, or both.

MDU did not provide references for where it obtained the cost data it alludes to here so the assertion cannot be accepted in evidence since it is unreliable hearsay. While hearsay is sometimes admitted in administrative proceedings, it still has to pass the test of reliability. And the hearsay has to be stated with enough specificity so that its truth can be tested by others in the proceeding. This summary does not meet that standard.

In addition, this assertion lacks foundation. That is, we do not know whether the cost figure relates to 250 watt equivalent of High Pressure Sodium or smaller fixtures. We also do not know the date when the economic data was gathered.

Also average cost figures are irrelevant because they are not accompanied by a range of costs. Thus they do not tend to prove or disprove anything of use here since the average is not a reflection of the lowest cost. As pointed out to you from the San Francisco study two of the best performers in the 100 watt equivalent range had a low initial cost and a positive net present value, while two other fixtures were not price competitive.

If we assume that MDU obtained data for the 150 HPS equivalent mention later in the draft opposing the petition, then the suggested retail luminaire cost of the BetaLED LEDway would be $530, not the average $944 claimed by MDU. Here is a table of other suggested LEDway costs and pole ratings:

100W HPS

Input watts 120

30 LED LEDway

525mA

60 watts

LEDway cost $450

EPA .565

HPS/EPA .6

150W HPS

Input watts 183

40 LED LEDway

525mAa 84 watts

LEDway cost $530

EPA .685

HPS/EPA .6

200W HPS

Input watts 221

60 LED LEDway

526mA 117 watts

LEDway cost $750

EPA .685

HPS/EPA .8

250W HPS

Input watts 305

80 LED LEDway

525mA 159 watts

LEDway cost $995

EPA .82

HPS/EPA 1.2

400W HPS

Input watts 455

120 LED LEDway

525mA 234 watts

LEDway cost $1298

EPA .82

HPS/EPA 1.4

 

 

 

I.       Lamp interchangeability issue: Contrary to the MDU assertion, some LED fixtures are a modular design. The LEDway fixture for example has light bars that can be exchanged if necessary. The Commission can see these interchangeable bars in the Beta LED fixture that appears in the upper right-hand corner of the “Outdoor LED Luminaires” graphic on page 1 of the material supporting the petition. A light strip currently costs about $70. That price should come down by the time replacement is necessary.

J.       Life expectancy issue: MDU asserts that the LED fixtures which it mistakenly claims are all non-modular, “are all listed to degrade to 70% lumen output in ten years. The listed life and modular design of these products means that the entire fixture would require replacement in ten years.”

Petitioners’ response: MDU fails to add that the lumen depreciation in High Pressure Sodium degrades to 70% of its lumen output within 5 years. See http://tristate.apogee.net/lite/lhihplm.asp

 

Explaining life expectancy testing, the San Francisco study indicates:

Since LED sources tend toward rare catastrophic failure, the commonly accepted metric for determining rated life is the amount of time the LED source takes to depreciate to 70% of its initial lumen output (known as L70). However, the most relevant currently established industry-standard testing procedure, IESNA LM-80, does not specifically provide a method for measuring depreciation at the whole luminaire level. It is instead a component (package, module or array) level test, which then must be correlated to overall performance based on the thermal and electrical properties of the luminaire. Additionally, there is not currently an accepted standard for extrapolating from the depreciation measured during LM-80 testing (6,000 hours) to depreciation over the useful life of a luminaire. The IESNA is currently working on development of a standardized method (TM-21) for extrapolation of LM-80 data, but this has not been finalized. As a result, there is no unprejudiced methodology to properly verify manufacturers’ claims for lumen maintenance. Additionally, as a luminaire consists of multiple components (LEDs, driver, housing, coating, etc.), the expected useful life of the luminaire may not be the same as that of the LEDs. Instead, the lifetime should be considered to be limited by the first of all the components comprising the luminaire to fail.

 

That having been said, at least one manufacturer is sticking by its long life projections because it believes it has properly extrapolated from the LM-80 standard based on the unique ability of its fixture to dissipate heat efficiently from LED chips. Keeping heat cool lengthens LED life.

The life of the BetaLED LEDway fixture (where 30% lumen depreciation is reached) has been predicted in accordance with the IESNA Approved Method for Measuring Lumen Maintenance of LED Light Sources: the IESNA LM-80 Standard. This predicted life is referred to as L70  life. L70  life. It is dependent on the design of the entire fixture and the manner in which the fixture manufacturer is able to control the junction temperature that is reached inside each individual LED chip. L70  life is also dependent upon the expected life of the solid state driver that powers the LED’s and the temperature at which it operates. Average ambient operating temperature also affects the life of LED fixtures since it affects the entire fixture thus the temperature that is reached inside each LED chip.

In light of the above, the following L70  life expectancy is published for the BetaLED fixtures listed, at an average ambient temperature of 15C (59F) and 11 hours of operation per night:

100W HPS

30 LED LEDway

525mA

60 watts

L70  Life

29 Years

150W HPS

40 LED LEDway

525mA

84 watts

L70  Life

30 Years

200W HPS

60 LED LEDway

525mA

117 watts

L70  Life

20 Years

250W HPS

80 LED LEDway

525mA

159 watts

L70  Life

25 Years

400W HPS

120 LED LEDway

525mA

234 watts

L70  Life

17 Years

Note that these numbers assume the fixture will be powered at 525 mA. These fixtures can be run at higher milliamperes (mA) (e.g. 700). When that happens, the light output goes up. However, unless the temperature is controlled the expected life will be less. These watt/temperature curves are established and used in the industry to rate luminaire life. LEDway warranties the LEDs and driver for 5 years and the fixture and fixture finish for 10 years.

So it is just flat out false for MDU to assert that the entire LED fixture would have to be replaced in 10 years. In the case of the LEDway, light strips could be replaced. In the San Francisco Study PG&E/DOE used a password protected California Energy Commission/PUC database (that this author does not have access to) in assuming a 16 year (65,600 hrs) luminaire life[2] saying, “It should be understood that this assumption will likely overstate the life of some LED luminaires, while understating the life of others.” Thus it is acknowledged that a 16 year life likely would be understating the life of products like the LEDway which has been rated by independent tests according to stated parameters following existing protocol.

K.    Lumen efficiency issue: MDU asserts that “From a pure energy case, LED’s are not an energy saving device. The LED will produce and average of 42 lumens per watt of power compared to the existing HPS lights that produce 82 lumens per watt of power. Lumen for lumen, the HPS is a much more efficient light.”

Petitioners’ response: Who knows which hat these MDU numbers came from? They certainly do not reflect recent technology. DOE’s Jim Brodrick summarizes LED progress, “If you look at performance trends over the last five years, you'll see a steady upward progression from 20 to 100 lm/W lamp efficacy.”[3] Note MDU’s use of the average. Averages may be used when measuring the industry as a whole. However, they are not what goes into a decision to require implementation of the best a technology has to offer. One doesn’t mandate or buy the average because it includes the worst and the best. One mandates the best LED luminaires and sets standards as the proposed rule does. The proposed rule also allows for automatic inclusion of new or amended standards when they are adopted. The MDU analysis should have indicated what was at the top of the range where people will be doing most of the purchasing rather than giving the average pulled down by less qualified products.

Even with proper numbers MDU’s discussion is based on a misunderstanding about how usable light is measured. Lighting engineers don’t just consider lumens produced. They also consider the usable light output from the entire fixture. This was amply illustrated with the following table reproduced here from page 12 of the original supporting material petitioners filed with the Commission.

 

One can see immediately that the cobra head may produce 91 lumens/watt (not 82 as MDU claims) when compared to the early generation LED which produced 70 Lumens/watt (not 42 as MDU asserts). But check out fixture efficiency and usable lumens per watt. The LED fixture is almost twice as efficient (90%) as the 150 watt cobra head (50%). This gives a “64 usable lumens per watt” figure for the LED compared with “46 usable lumens/watt” for the cobra head.

Further, this chart is old now so that LEDs in the lab have exceeded 100 lumens/watt. Thus, even without the much greater fixture efficiency of LED luminaires, because of recent improvements in technology, MDU’s claim that HPS is a more efficient light is no longer true.

Therefore, comparing the Lumen output of LEDs to that of a high intensity discharge (HID) source like HPS is not an accurate way of measuring effective light output of a Luminaire. In HID lamps lumens are measured spherically, counting all the lumens being produced over 360 degrees. The discharge arc tube is NOT a point source and is difficult to optimize optically, making for poor light collection efficiency and utilization. Many HID light fixtures, especially type 2 and 3 with a cutoff rating have to redirect most of the lumens produced by a bulb, losing as much as 50% of the output.

LEDs on the other hand are directional; essentially point sources and have practically no wasted lumens. Virtually every LED Lumen is directed and placed to maximize efficiency. A better and more accurate evaluation is to measure actual foot candles or LUX on the ground. In addition the industry is examining whether the lumens needed for the type of light produced by LEDs is as great as that needed for other types of traditional lighting. The following chart illustrates how LED fixtures actually produce more usable light than metal halide fixtures that may still be in use in some Montana utility service areas.

Source: http://www.netl.doe.gov/ssl/PDFs/Portland_2008/Day2_Ruud.pdf

With respect to light output, it has to be measured according to the standard developed by the Illuminating Engineering Society (IES). This standard is LM79. The best way for LED street light purchasers to protect themselves is to request a test result from the manufacturer, requiring results from an independent laboratory. All laboratory results based on LM 79 will provide credible information.

Because LEDs products have changed the lighting industry, lighting engineers are working on coming up with new standards. However, for the time being, one can apply the same LM 79 metrics of outdoor lighting (uniformity ratio, minimum lumen level, maximum lumen level, etc.) to LED fixtures as one would with any other fixtures. For more on standards see section E.

L.     Retrofit timing issue: MDU contends it records “indicate the average age of light fixtures in Montana is between 30 and 35 years. Under the proposal, 85% of the lights in Montana would need to be changed out in the first five years….”

Petitioners’ response: MDU’s records underscore a need for the utility to provide the box and whisker plot displaying fixture age that would be required by the proposed rule. MDU gives no median to show whether half the lights are older than the period used for depreciation purposes.

In this proposed proceeding, neither MDU nor NorthWestern has provided the Commission with an accounting of how many years its street lights are depreciated over. Nor have they provided a cost basis indicating what percentage of the bill is applied to retiring the principle and interest on the original cost of those fixtures. Under the proposed rule, fully depreciated lights and lights 12 years or older would be retrofitted.

For lack of data, we’ll assume the average age of MDU lights is roughly equal to the median. If that is approximately true, 50% of the lights fall in the 30 or older (fully depreciated?) category. And 35% of the lights will be older than 12 years within the next 5 years. That is likely getting close to the time when the costs of the existing luminaires will have been recovered and the phase in will allow for retrofit jobs to be available over time and for consumers to take advantage of any increases in productivity or improvements in technology. One would need a box and whisker plot indicating quartiles to be precise.

MDU’s revelation also underscores the need to require utilities to develop two tariffs, one that is applicable to luminaires where the fixture costs have not been recovered in what consumers are paying and another that reflects only maintenance and energy changes. Consumers who have already paid for their fixtures should not be paying under the same tariff applied when the fixtures were not depreciated. To the extent that is happening, some customers are subsidizing the installation of newer lighting districts and therefore distorting the cost of new installation by keeping that cost lower than it otherwise would be without the intra-customer class subsidization.

This petition presents an opportunity to eliminate any subsidization that exists while affording consumers an opportunity to save money while saving our environment. Eliminating that subsidization is something PURPA requires the Commission to consider.

M.   Monthly energy cost issues: MDU says the monthly energy cost for a 150 watt fixture is $6.40 and that acknowledges LEDs will save at least 50% of that cost which it calculates as a $2.25/month saving. Wouldn’t 50% of $6.40 be $3.20?

            Neither MDU nor NorthWestern use the DOE’s CALiPER method of calculating payback. MDU does not include the cost of avoided maintenance which is a major part of the DOE cost studies. The Seattle Lighting Lab calculation of payback period assumes a $70 cost of maintenance for HPS every 6 years (25,000 hours). The PG&E/DOE San Francisco study assumes that HPS lasts 30,000 hours (roughly 7 years). That assumption should make the payback period calculation result longer for LEDs in the San Francisco study than in the Lighting Labs calculation. However, it does not because the CALiPER method includes savings not considered by the utilities. The San Francisco study still resulted in the two best LEDs demonstrating 3.7 year to 6.3-year paybacks for new construction and 7.4 to 10.8-years paybacks for retrofits compared to 25 to 61 year retrofit payback periods calculated by the Lighting Lab in its analysis and 18 year retrofit payback calculated by MDU.

San Francisco roadways were lit with four different LED products. Light quality was quite good in the two least expensive products. As indicated in Table XXIII from that study, the cost of a 100 watt equivalent fixture was $400 and $310 for LED A and C respectively. Although more expensive when compared to $107 for a traditional fixture, there would be at least $55.43 saved per year if LED C were used.

Table XXIII: New Construction Economics

A

B

C

D

E

F

Luminaire Type

Initial Investment

Incremental Cost

Annual Savings

Simple Payback (Years)

15-Year NPV

HPS

$107.00

-

-

-

-

LED A

$400.00

$293.00

$46.47

6.3

$306.72

LED B

$675.00

$568.00

$42.77

13.3

-$16.09

LED C

$310.00

$203.00

$55.43

3.7

$512.34

LED D

$725.00

$618.00

$40.41

15.3

-$96.43

 

So, for example LED C would cost $203 more to install than HPS but would save $55.43 a year. The savings would cover the increased costs in 3.7 years. After that each LED would save at least $55.43/year—1000 fixtures would save at least $55,430/year.[1]

If a city waits for a lower price and newer technology to install an LED street light, they will be losing money unless the price drops by at least $55.43 a year over the next 4 years (18% in the first year, 22% in the second year, 28% in the third year, and 34% during the final year). Roadway lighting engineers presenting at the Roadway lighting conference in the fall of 2008 indicate that kind of a price drop or increase in technology is probably not going to occur. A 25% per year price drop has been predicted by some. However, that is more likely to occur in the top price brackets than in the bottom brackets which are not driven by competition to reduce prices.

In the San Francisco demonstration, the 15-year Net Present Value is $306.72 to $512.34. The study concluded, “This is the equivalent of an internal rate of return of 18% to 30% for new construction and 9% to 15% for retrofit.”

Given the difference in energy cost one might expect the MDU payback to be 43% longer than that in California and the payback period in NorthWestern’s service area to be 26% longer. However, those payback periods would likely be shortened because presumably it would cost more to maintain luminaires in a large rural area compared to the compact urban scene in San Francisco. That is, every Montana town doesn’t have a bucket truck so present maintenance and travel to maintain costs are higher in rural Montana than in San Francisco. The need to make half to a quarter of the maintenance trips with LEDs adds significantly the attractiveness of LEDs when calculating cost comparisons.

            Also, since cities can get federal grants to defray the entire upfront cost of transitioning to lights that cut their carbon footprint, the economic analysis only applies to entities that cannot take advantage of the federal Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grants. An analysis of these grants is discussed elsewhere.

            It is respectfully suggested that the PSC work with the Governor’s office to have the State apply for a large Block grant on behalf of many Montana cities and counties. Then a group purchase can be contracted for in order to get the best US made bulk price. (There is a US made requirement clause in the stimulus package). To the extent that the block grant does not cover retrofitting all street and area lighting in a city, the state could then provide sub-grants to pay for say 75% of the installation with the local governments providing the other portion from the savings they should enjoy under a properly cost-based tariff as a result of lower electric usage. That would leverage the stimulus funds in a way envisioned by Congress and the administration to stretch them to more projects.

Neither utility indicated whether they follow a group relamping or individual relamping process or a hybrid of those maintenance cycles depending on whether the lamps are in rural or urban areas. Neither utility provided a chart indicating the types of lamp and wattage rating on their system. Without that information precise economic data about the initial costs and benefits of retrofits cannot be calculated. That is another reason to go forward with the rulemaking—to require the precise information needed to evaluate the proposal to require retrofits.

For example, MDU does not indicate the type of yard light on its system. Are they metal halide, mercury vapor, or HPS? It does however provide data to indicate the initial cost of retrofitting its 2250 yard lights would be $1.5 million or $588 per light. That is considerably less than the $944 cost MDU estimates for 150 watt equivalent LEDs. So it is possible that replacing yard lights would be replacing a more energy intensive technology resulting in a greater savings. It is also likely that since the cost of replacing 150 watt LEDs is 78% overstated that the cost of replacing yard lamps would be similarly inflated.

MDU and Northwestern cost analyses do not trend the cost of energy forward. Doing that would shorten the payback periods calculated.

Neither utility calculates the savings consumers will gain because a 50-60% in the street lighting energy load will reduce the early evening and early morning peak loads in winter months and the late evening air-conditioning peak load in summer months.

Since neither utility mentioned it, it is assumed that neither economic analysis calculated in the costs of treating HPS and certain other bulbs as toxic waste (because they contain mercury) at the end of their 30,000 hour (roughly 7-year) lifespan.

            MDU claims the monthly cost of LEDs would be $41 before adding what it asserts is a $2.25 energy cost. Assuming MDU’s $41/month number, we plainly see that the properly priced (e.g., $530 LEDway) luminaires would be paid for in roughly 13 months—not the inflated 18-year payback MDU claims. (13 * $41 = $533).

            MDU’s municipal lighting tariff (found at http://www.montana-dakota.com/RatesTariffs/MTElectric41.pdf ) indicates “6.819¢ per kWh computed according to the total rated capacity of the lamps in use.” Payment for a contractual minimum of 4000 hours annually is required. Thus the tariff does not provide incentives for towns or areas that could shut off the lights in the middle of the night and run them on a motion sensor or via a cell phone connection when needed as can happen with LEDs. The smart technology to do that has been in use in Germany for some time as is pointed out in the public comments by Ben Brouwer on behalf of the Montana Alternative Energy Resource Organization (AERO).

Municipalities that own their own lights only receive an 8 mill/kWh reduction for having purchased their own light. That ought to change as well because of the intra-customer-class subsidization.

In addition, in “In municipally-owned street lighting systems, an additional charge will be made to cover lamp replacements, materials and labor whenever such services are supplied by the Company.” Since the tariff serves as a disincentive for municipalities to own their own lights and shut them off when they are not needed, it is more important than ever for the PSC to require new technology that will lower rates after the payback period.

N.    Color change issue: MDU asserts, “The purported efficiency gains are realized only by accepting less light output and in a different color. There are no defined standards to compare the difference in actual light output based on color perception.”

Petitioners’ response: So what is wrong with changing to a color of light that helps us see better? Actually there are standards in the form of a color rendering (CRI) index commonly used. All five LED street lights in DOE’s Round 7 Product Tests had a CRI that was more than 3 times greater (i.e., better) than that for HPS. See page 9 of http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/publications/pdfs/ssl/caliper_round_7_summary_final.pdf . That is likely because light in the LED wave length range generally score higher on the CRI.

Some revisions are now being considered in how these CRI standards are being applied to white light. However, they are largely irrelevant and immaterial to the issue of whether or not LEDs ought to be mandated for street and area lighting. That is, the proposed revisions have more to do with rating LEDs where it is critical to be able to compare subtle fabric color variations in daylight and indoors than with outdoor lighting. Anyone wishing to read about that and how some LEDs (not HPS) that have a CRI 3 times less than those in the Round 7 tests can still give pleasant light that one would not expect from a low rating can check at http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ssl/cri_leds.html Since the recently tested outdoor LEDs had a high CRI, the claim that low CRI for some LEDs with a lower color is not a good measure of pleasant light does not apply in this proceeding.

That site recommends visual appraisal of the light until a revised standard is agreed on. With the following visual appraisal, one doesn’t need the CRI to be able to tell that LED light is better. Look at the following picture. You can tell from it why the police like LED light--because they can actually tell the color of cars they have to identify at night.

Color Comparison LED & HPS

In addition, as the Commission can discern from the public comments filed by LEED Accredited lighting design engineer, Nancy Clanton, PE, FIES, IALD, LC that in Anchorage’s 16,000 LED light demonstration results will be published in April indicating they “are finding an advantage of white light in better visibility.”

O.    Seasonal change in light output issue: MDU claims LEDs “produce more light in winter than summer due to the heat variables.”

Petitioners’ Response: This allegation is new to me. It has not been mentioned in the literature on trials that I have read. Therefore, one would have to conclude it is not a significant concern observed by persons who have tested LED street lights in hot and cold weather in either California or Alaska. Lighting research indicates that it takes a 30% decrease in lumens for the eye to pick up a loss of light. So unless MDU can demonstrate that happens with LEDs, this assertion must be considered to be an irrelevant red herring drug across the path of energy conservation progress.

P.      Haste issue: MDU “suggests that haste in employing new technologies can make for a bad decision.”

Petitioners counter that is not true in this case. Procrastination by a few recalcitrant utilities in employing new technologies that are being adopted on a large scale will exacerbate global warming and cost utility customers millions.

Prominent leaders from every nation, religion, and political ilk are imploring us to cut carbon emissions by up to 80% and do it quickly. To date, without being forced to address this challenge, MDU has not done much except for a few things like its laudable involvement with using landfill gas in Billings.

Since the most recent credible outdoor demonstrations and product tests of LED street and area lighting have been overwhelmingly positive, there is absolutely no reason for the utility to drag its feet if as it claims, it truly is concerned about “low cost service to its customers.”[4]

Q.    Federal financing of transition to LEDs: As indicated in comments Petitioners’ filed on March 11, the 2009 Federal Stimulus Package makes available $4.2 billion in Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grants. Those grants may be used to retrofit existing street lights but not for new development. However, the savings from the retrofits can be banked for use in financing other conservation including installation of LED street lights in new developments. The utility financial analyses do not take into account the fact that these are grants that do not have to be repaid. Thus to accomplish rapid energy conservation and combat climate change, the utility is no longer in charge of the progression to more efficiency. In this case there is less need to incentivize the utility to do what’s right with decoupling. The federal government is incentivizing local governments to be somewhat out from under the grasp of energy monopoly power, both domestic and foreign.

            Therefore the block grants are for government, not the monopolies, so governments can own a piece of the infrastructure and reduce their budgets. However, to the extent that utilities own the street lights, and overcharge for them long after the depreciation periods expire, local governments cannot take advantage of these Block grants. Thus the outmoded tariffs, like the one just described for MDU, will stand in the way of energy conservation and the battle against global warming unless the tariffs and infrastructure ownership are changed.

So to the extent that existing street lights have become fully depreciated, the Commission should allow municipalities to use federal grants to purchase LED luminaires and to be served under a tariff that reflects only the true costs of energizing and maintaining them. It is essentially the same as the system we now have where the utility supplies the wires to the house where we own the lamp and light bulb. The only difference would be that the utility supplies the wires and pole to the luminaire we own.

Further for retrofits of street lights that have not been fully depreciated, the Commission can allow the utility to recoup that reasonable stranded cost during the phase in period unless a local government elects to do a complete phase in and pay for the stranded costs from what it would otherwise be spending to continue wasting money paying for energy from inefficient street lights if it were not for the block grants. The Commission can easily design a stranded cost tariff for this purpose. Under it, the utility should receive nothing more than stranded costs. It should get nothing for loss of sales. Do we pay more to OPEC because we drive less? And the utility should receive nothing for recalcitrant adherence to wasteful technology. Do we pay more to GM for—oops the analogy broke down there, but you get the idea.

The phase in to retire stranded costs will be covered by the savings that accrue from consumers not having to continue funding the cost of already depreciated lights and the excessive maintenance necessary on outmoded technology.

R.     Conclusion: Overstate LED costs by 76%, understate LED life by six years, understate LED lumens per watt by 100%, ignore recent developments in technology, ignore or minimize maintenance and increasing energy costs in their economic analysis, claim there are no standards when several exist, and the utilities make it look like LEDs are a bad idea.

Since these claims have been rebutted by more credible and more recent demonstrations, the Commission has a solid record on which to decide that a rule requiring rapid transfer to LED street lighting is a good idea whose time has come because it is in the public interest, will conserve energy and resources, will save money, and perhaps even help preserve life on earth.

MDU’s web site indicates:

We take pride at Montana-Dakota in our efforts to be good stewards of the land and its resources. We live and work in the communities we serve and taking care of the environment is important to us.

 

One of MDU’s “goals in regard to the environment” is to “minimize waste and maximize resources.” Supporting this rule is yet another “good steward” effort MDU and NorthWestern can take pride in. It is unfortunate that it sometimes takes statutory and regulatory mandates to produce change within these companies that they can eventually be proud of.

Please initiate this requested rulemaking so Montana utilities can be as proud of their LED lighting conservation projects as they say they are of the mandated construction of the Diamond Willow and Judith Gap Wind Farms.

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

______________________                            March 19, 2009

Russell L. Doty

Attorney at Law

3878 N. Tanager Ln

Billings, MT 59102-5916

Phone: 406-696-2842

 

LEDs on new I-35W Bridge in Minneapolis

 

 

I certify that copies of Petitioners’ Motion & Reply toUtility Comments have been served by US mail on:

 

Joe Schwartzenberger

Directory of Regulatory Affairs

NorthWestern Energy

40 East Broadway St.

Butte, MT 59701-9394

 

John Alke

Attorney for MDU

Hughes, Kellner, Sullivan & Alke, PLLP

40 W Lawrence, Suite A

Helena, MT 59604-1166

 

By: __________________________________         March 19, 2009

            Russell L. Doty


[1] Sections 16 & 17 (text in blue block) were added by the Energy Independence And Security Act of 2007, SEC. 532, 121 STAT. 1666 Public Law 110–140—DEC. 19, 2007, amending Section 111(d) of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2621(d))

[2] The Database for Energy Efficient Resources (DEER) is a California Energy Commission and California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) sponsored database; available at http://www.energy.ca.gov/deer .

[3] Source 3/18/2009 email sent generally to a list from Postings from Jim Brodrick [postings@lighting-facts.com]

[1] http://www.netl.doe.gov/ssl/PDFs/gateway_sf-streetlighting.pdf

[4] It would be easier to believe that MDU’s opposition to this rule results from concern for its customers if Mr. Alke, the attorney who penned that concern, had not prevented a $16 million/year rate reduction for Qwest customers by stalling it in the courts for five years.