UTILITY INCENTIVES RECOMMENDATION REPORT · Utility Incentives Recommendation Report FOA Name &...

PREPARED BY NEXTENERGYOCTOBER 2019

UTILITY INCENTIVES RECOMMENDATION REPORT

Utility Incentives Recommendation Report

FOA Name & Number: DE‐EE‐FOA‐0001385

Award Number: DE‐EE0007559

Prepared by NextEnergy October 2019

NextEnergy | 461 Burroughs Detroit, MI 48202 | www.nextenergy.org | 313.833.0100 Lighting Technology Energy Solutions Measurement & Verification Report

Acknowledgement This material is based upon work supported by the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Building Technologies Office under Award DE‐EE0007559.

Disclaimer This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of the authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof.

NextEnergy | 461 Burroughs Detroit, MI 48202 | www.nextenergy.org | 313.833.0100 Lighting Technology Energy Solutions Utility Recommendations Report

2

Table of Contents About NextEnergy ......................................................................................................................................... 4

About the Report .......................................................................................................................................... 5

Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................................... 6

1 Executive Summary & Key Findings ...................................................................................................... 7

2 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 9

2.1 LiTES Project Objectives ................................................................................................................... 9

2.2 LiTES Utility Program Incentives ...................................................................................................... 9

2.2.1 LiTES Utility Incentive Program Marketing & Outreach .......................................................... 10

2.2.2 LiTES Half‐Day Utility Trade Ally Training Sessions ................................................................. 10

2.3 Utility Incentive Report Scope of Work ......................................................................................... 11

3 Report Methodology ........................................................................................................................... 12

3.1 Methodology/Approach for Identifying Incentive Alternatives .................................................... 12

3.2 Utility Survey Methodology ........................................................................................................... 14

4 Advanced Lighting Controls System Utility Incentives ........................................................................ 15

4.1 Advanced Lighting Controls Utility Incentive Alternatives ............................................................ 15

4.2 LiTES Partner Utility ALC/NLC Incentive Programs ........................................................................ 15

4.2.1 Consumer Energy Advanced Lighting Controls Program ........................................................ 15

4.2.1.1 Consumers Energy Advanced Lighting Controls Program Incentive Structure ............... 16

4.2.1.2 Consumer Energy Advanced Lighting Controls Program Participation ........................... 17

4.2.2 DTE Advanced Lighting Controls Program ............................................................................... 18

4.2.2.1 2018 DTE Advanced Lighting Controls Incentive Program Structure ............................. 18

4.2.2.2 2019 DTE Advanced Lighting Controls Incentives Program Structure ............................ 19

4.2.2.3 DTE Advanced Lighting Controls Program Participation ................................................. 20

5 Utility Survey Findings ......................................................................................................................... 21

5.1 Utility Perceptions on Advanced Lighting Controls System Benefits/Market Barriers .................. 21

5.1.1 Utility Perceptions on Advanced Lighting Controls Systems Benefits..................................... 21

5.1.2 Utility Perceptions on Advanced Lighting Controls Systems Market Barriers ........................ 22

5.2 Rationale for Establishing Incentive Programs .............................................................................. 22

5.3 Setting Advanced Lighting Controls Incentive Levels .................................................................... 23

5.4 Advanced Lighting Controls Incentive Program Eligibility Criteria ................................................ 24

5.5 Advanced Lighting Controls Program Application Process ............................................................ 24


3

5.6 Advanced Lighting Controls Program Data .................................................................................... 25

5.6.1 Advanced Lighting Controls Program Participation ................................................................ 25

5.6.2 Characteristics of Advanced Lighting Controls Systems Incentives ........................................ 26

5.6.3 Characteristics of Incentives Paid ............................................................................................ 26

5.6.4 Incentive Payment Options ..................................................................................................... 27

5.6.5 Characteristics of Program Energy Savings Achieved ............................................................. 27

5.7 Utility Program Marketing, Outreach & Training........................................................................... 28

5.7.1 Provided Marketing Resources ............................................................................................... 28

5.7.2 Provided Training Resources ................................................................................................... 29

5.7.3 Recommended Additional Marketing & Training Resources .................................................. 29

5.8 Additional Utility Survey Comments .............................................................................................. 30

6 Utility Incentive Cost Benefit Analysis ................................................................................................ 31

7 Incentive Recommendations .............................................................................................................. 33

8 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................... 36

9 Appendix ............................................................................................................................................. 38

9.1 LiTES Utility Incentive Program Materials ...................................................................................... 38

9.2 Consumers Energy Advanced Lighting Controls Incentive Program Materials ............................. 39

9.2.1 Consumers Energy Advanced Lighting Controls Program Incentives ...................................... 39

9.2.2 Consumers Energy Advanced Lighting Controls Program Marketing Sheet ........................... 50

9.2.3 Consumers Energy Advanced Lighting Controls Incentive Look Book .................................... 51

9.3 DTE Advanced Lighting Controls Incentive Program Materials ..................................................... 63

9.3.1 2018 DTE Advanced Lighting Control Incentive Program Application .................................... 63

9.3.2 2018 DTE Advanced Lighting Controls Fact Sheet ................................................................... 74

9.3.3 2019 DTE Business Energy Efficiency Measures Catalog ........................................................ 76

9.3.4 2019 DTE Incentive Program Application ................................................................................ 92

9.3.5 2019 Advanced Lighting Controls Fact Sheet ........................................................................ 111

9.4 Utility Survey Questions ............................................................................................................... 113

10 Definitions & Acronyms ................................................................................................................ 121

10.1 Definitions .................................................................................................................................... 121

10.2 Acronyms ..................................................................................................................................... 122

11 Index of Tables & Figures .............................................................................................................. 124

11.1 Index of Tables ............................................................................................................................. 124

11.2 Index of Figures ............................................................................................................................ 124


4

About NextEnergy Founded in 2002 as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, NextEnergy works with innovators to accelerate

smarter, cleaner, more accessible solutions for communities and cities. Since its inception, NextEnergy

has worked with more than 400 companies, universities, federal agencies, and philanthropic

organizations to drive more than $1.5 billion in advanced energy and mobility technology investments.

Based in the center of Detroit’s growing innovation district with access to a microgrid, smart home,

electric vehicle charging infrastructure and an alternative fuels platform, we demonstrate and pilot

technologies in real‐world environments to gather data and diverse user‐experiences. This process helps

us to quickly scale and deploy solutions by accelerating commercialization with a specific focus on smart

mobility and smart grid.

Our depth of experience, technical knowledge and established network of partners have enabled us to develop effective programs and pilots and facilitate new relationships to help our clients achieve their commercialization goals.


5

About the Report

The Lighting Technologies Energy Solutions (LiTES) Program Utility Incentive Recommendations Report

is a collaborative effort between NextEnergy, Consumers Energy and DTE to evaluate the impact of

utility piloted advanced/networked lighting controls (ALC/NLC) system incentives.

The LiTES Program, funded by the US Department of Energy (DOE), sought to reduce energy use in small and medium commercial buildings (SMCB) by accelerating the adoption of ALC/NLC through contractor training and technology deployment. Leveraging recommendations already outlined by the Design Lights Consortium Commercial Advanced Lighting Controls (DLC CALC) project, NextEnergy, in coordination with our utility partners Consumers Energy and DTE Energy (DTE), lead an effort to pilot and evaluate current utility incentives and identify opportunities to align incentives with current advanced lighting controls technology. The LiTES Program piloted utility incentives for advanced/networked lighting controls specific to SMCB and sought to identify opportunities for improvement. The authors conducted the following utility incentive analysis and development tasks:

Partnered with utilities to pilot incentives for advanced/networked lighting controls projects

Coordinated with technology providers to identify participating demonstration sites

Reviewed utility incentives with a specific focus on how they apply to SMCB

Surveyed incentive program participants

Surveyed utilities offering advanced/networked lighting controls system incentives

Surveyed incentive program participants

Evaluated the impacts of utility incentives on participating advanced lighting controls projects

Identified incentive alternatives and offer incentive recommendations

This report shares results and recommendations, along with cost benefit analysis and outline of energy

and economic impacts of the provided incentive recommendations.


6

Acknowledgements This report was made possible through the generous support of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)

Building Technologies Office, with matching support provided by Consumers Energy and DTE Energy

(DTE), Detroit Joint Apprenticeship Committee (DJATC), MTD Marketing Group, and Robert Bosch, LLC. The authors also gratefully acknowledge the assistance of our additional program partners Clarus

Lighting and Controls, David Lawler, DNV GL, Design Lights Consortium and Efficiency Forward.

We also appreciate advanced lighting controls industry contractors, technology partners, trainees,

participating and non‐participating demonstration site stakeholders in the clean energy ecosystem who

generously shared their time and expertise in deploying projects, completing surveys, participating in

interviews, attending events, and/or providing other related information.

Lead project partners:


7

1 Executive Summary & Key Findings

The Lighting Technologies Energy Solutions (LiTES) Program Utility Incentive Recommendations Report is

a collaborative effort between NextEnergy, Consumers Energy and DTE Energy (DTE) to evaluate the

impact of utility piloted advanced lighting controls/networked lighting controls (ALC/NLC) system

incentives and to identify strategies for incentive improvements that will accelerate market adoption.

Figure 1: Percent of Buildings with Control Strategy

Source: 2012 Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey, US Energy Information Administration

While light‐emitting diode (LED) retrofit installations have seen at‐scale success in deployment to drive

‘low hanging fruit’ energy savings for customers and to help utilities meet energy savings portfolio

requirements, ALC/NLC adoption has been slow (see Figure 1 for low percentage of buildings with

control strategies) due to a number of perceived barriers including poor past experiences with 'first gen'

solutions, unfamiliarity with the technology, complexity, non‐standardization, high costs and weak value

proposition. Early adoption has been relatively greatest in larger commercial buildings, while smaller

buildings continue to struggle with overcoming these challenges.

To help address the adoption barriers as reported in the Design Lights Consortium Commercial

Advanced Lighting Controls (DLC CALC) Project, NextEnergy led an effort to evaluate current utility

incentives and to then identify opportunities to align incentives with current advanced lighting controls

technology that would help accelerate the increased adoption within small and medium commercial

buildings (SMCB). We partnered with utilities to pilot incentives for advanced lighting controls projects,

reviewed utility incentives with a specific focus on how they apply to SMCB, surveyed utilities offering

ALC/NLC incentives, evaluated the impacts of utility incentives on participating advanced lighting

controls projects, and identified incentive recommendations for improving utility program marketing,

outreach and materials, eligibility requirements and incentive level strategies.

As an outcome to participating in the LiTES program, DTE elected to transition ALC/NLC incentives for

SMCB from a pilot program into their standard Energy Efficiency for Business Program incentive

offerings in 2019. Consumers Energy plans to do the same for SMCB NLC incentive offerings in 2020.


8

From the 16 utilities solicited for survey participation, we collected results from three investors‐owned

utilities and one municipal utility, providing us with intimately insightful feedback on their perceptions

of benefits and barriers that still exist for utilities and customers; ALC/NLC program structure including

control strategies incentivized and eligibility criteria; program customer participation with performance

results, and the effectiveness of marketing outreach and training resources utilized.

A cost/benefit analysis of 15 utility customers participating in LiTES SMCB ALC/NLC demonstration

projects resulted in incentives paid offsetting customer project costs by an average of 23%, with one

customer peaking at the incentive cap of 50%.

In addition to this report, the LiTES Program team captured ALC/NLC performance data and completed a

measurement and verification (M&V) analysis on ten selected demonstration sites within the

Consumers Energy and DTE service territories. M&V results demonstrated energy savings from ALC/NLC

to be a significant addition to the energy savings from the fluorescent bulb to LED bulb upgrades alone.

M&V performed at 10 select demonstration sites resulted in achieved energy savings ranging from

3.67% to 46.55% and an average 29.19% reduction in energy use attributed to the implementation of

ALC/NLC systems. Overall estimated energy savings of 515,968 kWh corresponded to greenhouse gas

emission reductions of 299.4 equivalent metric tons of avoided CO2. Full details on these findings can be

found in the LiTES Measurement & Verification Report (November 2019).

Finally, using the M&V performance data from demonstration sites and the survey feedback collected

from utilities providing SMCB ALC/NLC incentives, we concluded with an analysis to identify

opportunities for incentive improvements that will accelerate market adoption, categorized into

recommendations for changes to incentive levels, eligibility criteria and marketing outreach and training

resources. One key recommendation included standardizing on the kWh saved performance‐based

incentive structure; this would simplify the process for the customer to perform cost/benefit analysis

pre and post installation, encouraging greater adoption.

We invite you to review the full report detailing the research approach, findings and results that helped

inform the basis for how we arrived with our incentive recommendations to increase the market

adoption of ALC/NLC in SMCB.


9

2 Introduction

The Lighting Technology Energy Solutions (LiTES) program aims to reduce the energy footprint in small

and medium commercial buildings by accelerating the adoption of advanced/networked lighting

controls (ALC/NLC) solutions. To help address the adoption barriers as reported in the Design Lights

Consortium Commercial Advanced Lighting Controls (DLC CALC) Project, NextEnergy lead an effort to

evaluate current utility incentives, identify opportunities to align incentives with current advanced

lighting controls technology and accelerate the increased adoption within small and medium

commercial buildings (SMCB).

The LiTES Program was implemented via collaborative effort between NextEnergy, Consumers Energy,

DTE Energy (DTE) and Detroit Joint Apprentice Training Center (DJATC).

2.1 LiTES Project Objectives

Leveraging recommendations already outlined by the DLC CALC project, NextEnergy, in coordination

with our partners, lead an effort to train contractors and evaluate the experience of ALC/NLC

demonstration projects in SMCB. The LiTES Program also sought to evaluate ALC/NLC utility incentives

available to SMCB and identify how they could be altered to be more effective.

Over the course of a three‐year project period, the LiTES project team set out to complete the following

objectives:

1. Develop contractor training modules and deploy them to approximately 100 contractors

2. Successfully deploy advanced/networked lighting controls systems in 28 SMCB

3. Demonstrations resulting in estimated energy savings of ~650,000 – 13,000,000 kWh coinciding

with a reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of ~483.0 to 9,659.8 metric tons of carbon

dioxide (CO2‐e)

4. Capture data from a sample set of demonstrations

5. Produce a report outlining opportunities to improve utility incentives

6. Highlight demonstration successes at three contractor and customer network events

2.2 LiTES Utility Program Incentives

NextEnergy, in collaboration with utility partners Consumes Energy and DTE, initiated the task of the

developing LiTES program incentive levels in 2016 when Consumers Energy and DTE set out to draft

ideal building types and use cases (e.g., new or retrofit; type of use). In Early 2017, NextEnergy

conducted several meetings with Consumers Energy and DTE to review existing incentives, discuss the

scope of LiTES demonstrations for consideration, and how incentive levels might be adjusted. The

outcome of this work led NextEnergy to define project metrics released later in 2017, many of which

were aligned to support utility incentive level ROI analysis. Our collaborative efforts resulted in the initial

incentive levels being established by Consumers Energy and DTE at end of 2017. Incentive levels were

set to encourage building owners to adopt ALC/NLC and enabled our utility partners to move forward

with plans to develop outreach materials about the incentives to share with trade allies and building

owners.


10

Incentives offered by Consumers Energy and DTE took longer to launch than originally anticipated due to

a variety of factors. Throughout the process, it was very important that they consider the short‐ and

long‐term impacts of incentives offered, particularly with incentive portfolio budgets and ALC/NLC

cost/benefit performance goals. Our utility partners considered several iterations of incentives that

were vetted internally before being finalized and approved. After incentives were approved, each utility

needed to create application forms and outreach materials that also required internal approval of

marketing and branding.

2.2.1 LiTES Utility Incentive Program Marketing & Outreach

NextEnergy, in collaboration with the LiTES Program utility partners, developed and produced a

communication & outreach plan and marketing collateral to support the LiTES Program. The

communication and outreach plan was used throughout the LiTES Program to solicit participation and of

demonstration sites through contractor, industry and end‐user networks. Marketing collateral, including

a logo, print materials and a website, were used to support the program launch and create on‐going

awareness of the LiTES Program.

Additionally, both utility partners created utility branded incentive program materials, including

application forms, fact sheets and marketing materials available on their respective websites to promote

their available ALC/NLC incentives developed for SMCB.

LiTES Marketing materials, along with the utility branded incentive program materials can be found in

Appendices 9.1, 9.2 and 9.3.

2.2.2 LiTES Half‐Day Utility Trade Ally Training Sessions

Leveraging resources developed by the DLC CALC project, NextEnergy, in partnership with our utility

partners Consumers Energy and DTE, developed and deployed ALC/NLC training through the contractor

networks that existed through the utility trade ally programs. A total of twelve half‐day training sessions

were conducted, with each utility partner hosting six training sessions for their respective trade ally

networks.

Curriculum included an overview of ALC/NLC, installation requirements, sales tools for contractors,

discussion on value propositions for customers, and an overview of how contractors can use the

technology to act as a sole solution provider for their customer. The half‐day trade ally training sessions

complemented the more intensive Michigan Advanced Lighting Controls Training Program (MALCTP)

which was developed to certify licensed electrical contractors and state‐certified electricians in the

proper programming, testing, installation, commissioning and maintenance of ALC/NLC.

Over the course of the three‐year LiTES Program term, 175 individuals were trained through utility

provided half‐day trade ally training sessions. Both utility partners continue to provide on‐going training

on ALC/NLC for their respective trade ally networks.


11

2.3 Utility Incentive Report Scope of Work

Leveraging recommendations already outlined by the DLC CALC project, NextEnergy, in coordination

with technology providers that participated in the demonstrations, lead an effort to evaluate current

utility ALC/NLC incentives and identify opportunities to align incentives with current ALC/NLC

technology. The LiTES program evaluated current incentives for ALC/NLC specific to SMCB in order to

identify opportunities for improvement.

To meet LiTES Project Objective #5: “Produce Report Outlining Opportunities to Improve Utility

Incentives,” the LiTES project team performed the following tasks:

Reviewed current utility incentives focusing on how they apply to SMCB.

Leveraged measurement and verification (M&V) data captured on ten demonstration sites to

analyze the performance of networked lighting controls

Identified incentive alternatives and opportunities on how incentives can be altered and made

more effective for SMCB.

Offered specific incentive recommendations and a cost benefit analysis, outlining energy and

economic impacts of incentive recommendations

Initiated conversations with the Energy Optimization (EO) Collaborative on new prescriptive

measures for ALC/NLC within SMCB

Produced a report outlining ALC/NLC incentive recommendations


12

3 Report Methodology

In order to inform and provide advanced/networked lighting controls (ALC/NLC) utility incentive

recommendations, NextEnergy worked with our utility partners, Consumers Energy and DTE Energy

(DTE), to develop and pilot programs specific to small and medium commercial buildings (SMCB).

Additionally, NextEnergy identified and evaluated current ALC/NLC incentives offered by additional

utilities to further identify opportunities on how incentives could be altered and made more effective.

Applicants participating in the utility incentives programs through the partner utilities were included as

LiTES demonstration sites, with seven of these sites also participating as measurement & verification

(M&V) sites. The selected M&V sites were used to help inform the incentive cost benefit analysis to

outline energy and economic impacts of available incentives to help inform incentive recommendations.

Online surveys and in‐person interviews were also conducted with utilities to help inform utility

incentive recommendations. Both Michigan‐based investor‐owned utility (IOU) partners and two

additional utilities, including an additional IOU and one municipal utility, provided responses to inform

recommendations.

3.1 Methodology/Approach for Identifying Incentive Alternatives

The project task for identifying utility incentive recommendations was essentially broken down into

three stages that followed a linear process of investigation:

Stage 1. Baselining existing incentive alternatives

Stage 2. Conducting a utility survey campaign with follow‐on interview discussions to understand

incentive performance

Stage 3. Analyzing the results of both utility survey findings and M&V building demonstration

data collected

The output of this analysis resulted in a list of incentive recommendations that may help guide utilities

on ways to improve incentive programs and help accelerate the market adoption of ALC/NLC

technologies.

Figure 2: Report Methodology Stages

NextEnergy’s research methods for identifying incentive alternatives included both quantitative and

qualitative approaches consisting of secondary and primary research. As of 2017, the United States had

over 3,000 electric utilities across the 50 states1. Due to project budget and resourcing constraints, we

focused our research on the state of Michigan.

1 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=40913


13

Our first method consisted of secondary research to identify and baseline existing incentive programs.

Even within Michigan, there are nearly 40 electric utilities; 11 cooperative electric utilities, 8 investor‐

owned utilities2, and 20 municipal electric utilities3. Again, we were faced with a decision to determine a

sub‐set of how many Michigan utilities would be included in the baselining research. We ultimately

drew a boundary to our efforts that narrowed our selection down to two well‐known investor‐owned

utilities: Consumers Energy and DTE. Combined, these two utilities serve most Michigan electric utility

customers, and as seen in the diagram below their service coverages span most of the more densely

populated lower peninsula.

Figure 3: Michigan Electric Utility Service Areas4

On a national scale, as recent as 2017, investor‐owned utilities represented about three out of every

four electric customers served5. We felt that Consumers Energy and DTE combined represented the

national scale in terms of percentage of customers served, versus cooperative and municipal utilities.

The results of our research, and ultimately SMCB incentive recommendations, would have the greatest

impact baselining incentive programs from these two electric utility companies. We ultimately

2 https://www.michigan.gov/mpsc/0,9535,7‐395‐93308_93325_93423_93500_94218‐503159‐‐,00.html 3 https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/eia861/ 4 https://www.michigan.gov/mpsc/0,9535,7‐395‐93308_93325_93423_93500_94218‐504617‐‐,00.html 5 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=40913


14

partnered with them to develop and evaluate the results of offering incentives for ALC/NLC under the

LiTES branded three‐year initiative. Section 4 of this report goes into more depth on the results of

baselining existing incentive alternatives.

3.2 Utility Survey Methodology

To facilitate the review and analysis of utility incentives and to collect feedback from utility program

representatives, NextEnergy, with support from the Department of Energy (DOE), developed a four‐

stage plan for conducting a survey campaign.

Stage 1. Develop survey questions: In May 2019, NextEnergy drafted a list of preliminary survey

questions based on the understanding of how utility incentive programs are structured. This list was

peer reviewed with the NextEnergy team and then shared in June 2019 with utility partners for further

refinement. A mid‐June 2019 meeting resulted in a final draft of survey questions grouped to collect

relevant data from utility companies.

Stage 2. DOE review and concurrence: Proposed survey questions were submitted to the DOE for

review and concurrence, which was received in late June 2019.

Stage 3. Make‐ready survey tool: The final survey questions were then added to an online survey portal

called SurveyMonkey. NextEnergy has used SurveyMonkey in past projects to collect and analyze

feedback and felt this tool would provide respondents with a convenient and easy‐to‐use way to capture

quantitative and qualitative feedback related to their experienced working with ALC/NLC incentive

programs.

The final utility survey questions can be found in Appendix 9.4.

Stage 4. Utility outreach and interviews: NextEnergy then performed outreach communications with

prospective utility survey participants using a shareable web link to the survey, introducing the LiTES

program goals and explaining the survey objectives to collect feedback on their existing incentives

program for ALC/NLC. NextEnergy solicited feedback from 16 national utilities with ALC/NLC incentive

programs, including our two partner utilities Consumers Energy and DTE. Both Michigan‐based partner

utilities and two additional utilities, including one investor‐owned utility and one municipal utility

completed the online survey. NextEnergy reviewed the results of each survey; scheduling and

conducting follow‐up phone/in‐person interviews with each of the survey respondents to discuss the

results, solicit additional incentive program details, clarify partial or missing answers, and to address

questions respondents may have had about the survey questions, LiTES program specifics, etc. This

follow‐on interview approach worked well, increasing value to the overall survey results and including

an additional layer of trust between NextEnergy and the utility. We felt it increased their willingness to

share additional information, especially with non‐partner utilities, where perhaps prior to meeting us

that may not have been the case. In our outreach efforts we ensured that utility names would be kept

confidential in the form of aggregated results and generic utility references and that, should the DOE

make this report publicly available, we would follow up with the utility to share access in exchange for

their survey contribution.


15

Survey feedback and findings from the surveys were then aggregated and assessed for opportunities to

align ALC/NLC incentives with current advanced lighting controls technology and accelerate the

increased adoption within SMCB.

4 Advanced Lighting Controls System Utility Incentives

NextEnergy researched and identified national utilities that offered advanced/networked lighting

controls (ALC/NLC) incentive programs. Available utility incentives were evaluated to identify various

utility incentive structures, incentive levels and incentives available to small and medium commercial

buildings (SMCB) to further identify opportunities on how ALC/NLC incentives could be altered and

made more effective for SMCB.

4.1 Advanced Lighting Controls Utility Incentive Alternatives

Upon researching incentive programs, NextEnergy identified that utilities primarily provide incentives

for ALC/NLC structured primarily in one of following five ways shown in Table 1 below. For each

identified incentive strategy, the provided range for identified programs across utilities is also provided.

Table 1: Identified Utility Incentive Alternatives

Incentive Strategy Incentive Range

Set Incentive/Watt Controlled $0.185 ‐ $0.80/Watt

Set Incentive/kW Reduced $150 ‐ $185/kW

Set Incentive/kWh Saved $0.18 ‐ $0.25/kWh

Set Incentive/Sq. Ft. Design Area Controlled $0.05 ‐ $0.75/sq. ft

Set Incentive/ ALC/NLC Fixture Installed $15 ‐ $45/NLC Fixture installed

4.2 LiTES Partner Utility ALC/NLC Incentive Programs

NextEnergy partnered with two Michigan‐based investor owned utilities, Consumers Energy and DTE, to

develop, deploy and evaluate ALC/NLC incentives and the impact on increasing technology adoption

within SMCB. Consumers Energy is based in Jackson, MI and serves 1.8 million electric customers

throughout the state of Michigan, while DTE is based in Detroit and serves 2.2 million electric customers

within Southeast Michigan.

Details on both the Consumers Energy and DTE ALC/NLC incentive programs are provided in the sections

below.

4.2.1 Consumer Energy Advanced Lighting Controls Program

While Consumers Energy has offered ALC/NLC incentives to larger commercial and industrial (C&I)

customers, ALC/NLC incentives for SMCB were piloted through the LiTES Program beginning in 2018. By

developing pilot incentives, Consumers Energy was able to offer increased incentives to participating

customers with facilities less than 100,000 square feet to help offset the installation costs and

encourage increased adoption in SMCB.

In addition to offering incentives, Consumers Energy hosted six half‐day trade ally training sessions and

trained 81 individuals on ALC/NLC within their trade ally network within the scope of the LiTES Program.


16

The Consumers Energy training dates, locations and number of trade ally participants trained are

reflected in Table 2 below.

Table 2: LiTES Consumers Energy Trade Ally Training Sessions

# Training Date Location # of Attendees

1 2/20/2018 Grand Rapids, MI 11

2 8/21/2018 Okemos, MI 12

3 8/22/2018 Okemos, MI 9

4 10/4/2018 Okemos, MI 12

5 10/5/2018 Grand Rapids, MI 26

6 2/27/2019 Okemos, MI 11

Total Trade Allies Trained 81

4.2.1.1 Consumers Energy Advanced Lighting Controls Program Incentive Structure

The Consumers Energy pilot ALC/NLC incentives are available to SMCB of less than 100,000 square feet.

Incentives for SMCB customers were set at $0.25/kWh of annual savings.

Participation in the Consumers Energy program required customers to obtain a pre‐notification as well

as sign a memorandum of understanding (MOU) before project incentives are reserved. To qualify for

incentives, ALC/NLC must be DLC‐listed and meet the following requirements:

Ability to provide complete programing and control from a central location

Have occupancy sensing and operational reporting capability

Ability to report energy use with 15‐minute kWh monitoring intervals

Ability to store and deliver raw data for energy use, for at minimum one‐year

Provide remote interface and controls, such as BACnet, LONworks, etc.

At a minimum must include:

o Step dimming capacity

o Small zone control capability of 16 fixtures or fewer

Must actively use at least three of the following six qualifying ALC/NLC control strategies:

o Time scheduling

o Daylight harvesting

o Occupancy/vacancy sensing

o Task tuning

o Load shedding

o High‐end trim

All available Consumers Energy incentives available for lighting controls are shown in Table 3 below,

including incentives for non‐networked technologies.


17

Table 3: Available Consumers Energy Incentives

Lighting Controls Incentive Unit

Interior Lighting Occupancy Sensors** $15 Sensor

Interior Lighting Occupancy Sensors** $.08 Watt Controlled

Central Lighting Controls* $0 Square Foot

Interior Stairwell Controls* $.40 Watt Controlled

Exterior Multi‐Step Dimming Occupancy Sensors* $0 Watt Controlled

Exterior Multi‐Step Dimming Timer Controls* $.09 Watt Controlled

Exterior Lighting Occupancy Sensors* $0 Watt Controlled

Advanced Lighting Controls*

Commercial, Hospitals, Schools/Universities $.25 kWh Savings (annual)

Manufacturing, Industrial, Warehouses $.18 kWh Savings (annual)

Small Business Facilities less than 100,000 sq.ft. $.25 kWh Savings (annual) *Pre‐Notification Required ** Pick one or the other per space controlled

Additionally, the simple payback period for projects must be equal to or greater than one year and less

than or equal to eight years. Incentives awarded may not exceed 50% of the project cost or the annual

customer limit of $2,000,000 across all facilities. In 2020, Consumers Energy plans to transition the pilot

ALC/NLC incentives for SMCB into their standard Business Energy Efficiency Solutions Portfolio offering.

The relevant pages of the Consumers Energy Business Energy Efficiency Program catalog, application

form, and fact sheet can be found in Appendix 9.2.

4.2.1.2 Consumer Energy Advanced Lighting Controls Program Participation

Through the LiTES Program Consumers Energy provided ALC/NLC incentives to six SMCB on 11 total

demonstration site projects as shown in Table 4 below.

Table 4: Consumers Energy Incentives Paid to ALC/NLC Demonstration Projects

Building Type City State Project Cost

Incentive Paid

ALC Project Area

Controlled

(Sq. Ft)

Manufacturing Clare MI $14,250 $6,204 8,000

Education/School Concord MI $92,150 $17,819 80,000

Manufacturing Grand Rapids MI $165,400 $82,700 80,000

Manufacturing

(6 Facilities) Jackson MI $506,637 $240,141

38,000

48,000

57,000

65,000

67,000

95,000

Education/School Ottawa Lake MI $160,000 $77,130 85,000

Manufacturing Spring Lake MI $408,558 $153,304 78,000


18

4.2.2 DTE Advanced Lighting Controls Program

While DTE has offered ALC/NLC incentives to larger C&I customers, ALC/NLC incentives for SMCB were

piloted through the LiTES Program beginning in 2018. By developing pilot incentives, DTE was able to

support customers with facilities less than 100,000 square feet by offsetting installation costs and

encouraging increased adoption in SMCB. In 2019, DTE elected to transition ALC/NLC incentives for

SMCB from a pilot program into their standard Energy Efficiency for Business Program incentive

offerings.

In addition to offering incentives, DTE hosted six half‐day trade ally training sessions and trained 94

individuals on ALC/NLC within their trade ally network within the scope of the LiTES Program. The DTE

training dates, locations and number of trade ally participants trained per session trained are reflected

in Table 5 below.

Table 5: LiTES DTE Trade Ally Training Sessions

# Training Date Location # of Attendees

1 2/21/2018 Troy, MI 18

2 5/16/2018 Troy, MI 14

3 9/26/2018 Detroit, MI 12

4 10/3/2018 Troy, MI 21

5 11/7/2018 Detroit, MI 14

6 1/30/2019 Detroit, MI 15

Total Trade Allies Trained 94

4.2.2.1 2018 DTE Advanced Lighting Controls Incentive Program Structure

In 2018, DTE set pilot ALC/NLC incentives available to SMCB less than 100,000 square feet at $0.12/kWh

annual savings. Participation in the DTE program required customers to submit a reservation application

as well as sign a MOU before project incentives are reserved. To qualify for incentives, ALC/NLC must be

DLC‐listed and meet the following requirements:

Ability to provide complete programing and control from a central location

Have occupancy sensing and operational reporting capability

Ability to report energy use with 15‐minute kWh monitoring intervals

Ability to store and deliver raw data for energy use, for at minimum one‐year

Provide remote interface and controls, such as BACnet, LONworks, etc.

Maximum zone control of 24 fixtures

Must actively use at least three of the following six qualifying ALC/NLC control strategies:

o Time scheduling

o Daylight harvesting

o Occupancy/vacancy sensing

o Task tuning

o Load shedding

o High‐end trim

The DTE 2018 ALC/NLC Application Form is provided in Appendix 9.3.1 and the Fact Sheet is provided in

Appendix 9.3.2.


19

4.2.2.2 2019 DTE Advanced Lighting Controls Incentives Program Structure

In 2019, DTE elected to transition the pilot incentives for SMCB into their standard Energy Efficiency for

Business Program incentive offering. DTE also elected to shift their SMCB offering from $/kWh annual

savings to a $/kW reduced tiered incentive structure. DTE adopted the tiered incentive structure, as well

as elected to provide additional incentives for occupancy sensors and combination occupancy/photocell

controls, only if they are being implemented as part of an ALC/NLC system.

To qualify for a Tier 1 incentives, ALC/NLC must be DLC‐listed and actively use at least three of the

following seven qualifying ALC/NLC control features:

Networking of luminaries and devices Continuous diming

Daylight harvesting/photocell control Occupancy sensing

High‐end trim/task tuning Zoning

Luminaire and device addressability

To qualify for Tier 2 incentives, customers must fulfill Tier 1 requirements and actively use at least two

of the following additional qualifying ALC/NLC control features:

Device monitoring/remote diagnostics Energy monitoring

Load shedding (demand response) Scene control

External system integration (BMS, EMS, HVAC, API)

Zoning

The simple payback period for projects must be equal to or greater than one year and less than or equal

to eight years. Incentives awarded may not exceed 50% of the project cost or the annual customer limit

of $1,000,000 across all facilities. Available DTE incentives for ALC/NLC are shown in Table 6 below.

Table 6: Available DTE Incentives for Networked Lighting Controls

Lighting Controls (*Pre‐Notification Required) Incentive Unit

Interior LED lighting under 15’ with networked lighting controls

Tier 1 $185 KW Reduced


Interior LED lighting 15’ or above with networked lighting controls



Networked lighting controls additional incentives

Occupancy sensors $20 Sensor

Combination occupancy & daylight harvesting controls $25 Sensor

The relevant pages of the DTE 2019 Energy Efficiency for Business Incentive Program Catalog can be

found in Appendix 9.3.3, The Application Form in Appendix 9.3.4, and Fact Sheet in Appendix 9.3.5.


20

4.2.2.3 DTE Advanced Lighting Controls Program Participation

Through the LiTES Program, Consumers Energy provided ALC/NLC incentives to six SMCB on eleven total

demonstration site projects as shown in Table 7 below.

Table 7: DTE Incentives Paid to ALC/NLC Demonstration Projects

Building Type City State Project Cost

Incentive Paid

NLC Project

Area

Controlled

(Sq. Ft)

Manufacturing Auburn Hills MI $74,643 $10,271 25,000

Office Detroit MI $30,000 $2,600 10,000

Manufacturing Farmington Hills MI $61,897 $10,313 20,000

Hospital Lapeer MI $470,521 $40,620 55,000

Hospital Mt Clemens MI $733,959 $82,097 95,000

Food Service (Distribution) Novi MI $60,070 $2,457 10,000

School Orchard Lake MI $43,529 $4,708 42,000

Office Troy MI $19,700 $2,683 22,000

Office Troy MI $98,000 $8,000 12,000


21

5 Utility Survey Findings

NextEnergy solicited feedback from 16 national utilities with advanced/networked lighting controls

(ALC/NLC) incentive programs, including our investor‐owned utility (IOU) partners, Consumers Energy

and DTE Energy. Both partner utilities and two additional utilities, including an additional IOU and one

municipal utility provided survey responses. All four utilities completed the online survey. NextEnergy

also scheduled and conducted follow‐up interviews with each of the utilities to further discuss the

results, solicit additional details, complete partial or missing answers, and address questions

respondents may have had about the survey questions, program goals, etc.

Feedback and findings received from surveyed utilities are detailed in the sections below. Comments

provided by responding utilities are attributed to Utility 1, Utility 2, Utility 3 and Utility 4.

5.1 Utility Perceptions on Advanced Lighting Controls System Benefits/Market

Barriers

The LiTES Program sought to identify ALC/NLC market benefits and barriers, as well as identify

opportunities for increased adoption and scaling of installations in SMCB. Through solicited surveys,

utilities were asked to provide feedback on perceived ALC/NLC system benefits and market barriers to

help inform opportunities to better align incentives with current advanced lighting controls technology

and accelerate the increased adoption within SMCB.

5.1.1 Utility Perceptions on Advanced Lighting Controls Systems Benefits

The responding utilities largely reported energy savings from energy conservation as a key benefit to

both the utility and customer. From the utility perspective, achieving energy savings from new

innovative and advanced technologies like ALC/NLC is becoming increasingly more attractive to meeting

their energy savings portfolio goals, as LED adoption reaches saturation within SMCB.

Cost savings was also noted as a key benefit to reducing customer bills for ALC/NLC installation and

ongoing energy use, however Utility 2 was quick to point out that cost savings for standalone ALC/NLC

controls might not be effective for a retrofit project on an existing buildings and may instead be ideally

suited for major renovations and new construction of C&I facilities. As such, Utility 2 has elected to

provide additional incentives for standalone ALC/NLC controls (i.e. occupancy sensors and combination

occupancy/photocell controls, only if they are being implemented as part of an ALC/NLC system.

The full list of benefits included:

Energy savings

Lower installation and operating costs

Lower impact to environment/reduced carbon emissions

Increased customer satisfaction

Better control of lighting (e.g. dimming vs on/off)

Brand attribution: utility seen as a customer education resource to help customers set and reach

their own goals

Helping to meet broader utility incentive portfolio program goals

Increased likelihood of incorporating SMCB into utility demand response programs


22

5.1.2 Utility Perceptions on Advanced Lighting Controls Systems Market Barriers

In terms of challenges/barriers to increasing ALC/NLC market adoption, utility respondents largely

reported ALC/NLC system costs as being the primary concern for the following reasons:

Pricing varies widely across different ALC/NLC technology solutions

Cost can be prohibitive for retrofit project unless it is part of a broader renovation

Intelligent controls can be perceived as an unnecessary expense when standalone sensors can

provide most of the lighting controls needed

The full list of challenges/barriers included:

Technology issues/interoperability of ALC/NLC with existing building systems

ALC/NLC system provider’s brand differentiation

Customer confusion on ALC/NLC technologies and system capabilities

Being careful not to overinvest into underperforming areas of the utility inventive portfolio.

Lack of awareness/education on ALC/NCL technologies for customers and trade allies

Lack of customer trust in contractor energy savings reported

Challenges integrating ALC/NLC systems with customer IT security protocols

System pricing varies significantly by manufacturer and to some extent contractor markup

5.2 Rationale for Establishing Incentive Programs

Utility 1 and Utility 2 largely reported finding additional “streams” of energy savings measures to add to

their incentive portfolio as the key motivation for adding ALC/NLC to their available options for

incentives. The motivation to seek and incentivize the adoption of new energy savings measures is

driven by the decreasing benefit of achieving energy savings from LED retrofits within utility incentive

program portfolios as LEDs have largely achieved at‐scale adoption. Other reasons were related to the

benefits reported earlier such as increased energy savings, lower customer costs, increased customer

satisfaction and the opportunity to incorporate SMCB into demand response programs.

Utility 1 and Utility 4 have an additional proactive approach to their motivation, anticipating that

ALC/NLC will see greater standardization into future versions of the American Society of Heating,

Refrigerating and Air‐Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) 90.1, Energy Standard for Buildings Except Low‐

Rise Residential Buildings code. Effective September 20, 2017, Michigan adopted ASHRAE standard 90.1‐

2013 for its Michigan Energy Code. ASHRAE 90.1 sets standards for design affecting energy use in

commercial buildings including lighting and controls. Major renovations/retrofits to lighting spaces

greater than 5,000 square feet and all new construction spaces must comply with ASHRAE 90.1‐2013 for

installing a lighting controls system that includes one or more of the following:

Local on/off control

Manual on restriction

Partial automatic on (occupancy/timer based)

Partial automatic off (occupancy/timer based)

Automatic full off (occupancy/timer based)

Bi‐level control available to occupant

Scheduled automatic shutoff


23

Daylight control (continuous dimming or multi‐step)

In terms of setting incentive levels, strategies include setting a tiered dollar value incentive by what is

controlled, versus occupancy, versus daylighting, so one or more measures for

control/occupancy/daylighting/high‐end‐trimming/scheduling can be combined for greater incentive

amounts. Some utilities require only one measure be implemented, while others require multiple to

receive any form of incentive.

Utility 4 incentive structure, unique to the other utilities surveyed, does not allow customers to combine

their $0.08/sq. ft controlled ALC/NLC incentive with additional incentives for occupancy sensors even

when implemented together as one project. Customers must resort to evaluating the cost/benefit

effectiveness upfront to apply for either $0.08/sq. ft controlled ALC/NLC incentive, or $20/ea. occupancy

sensor incentive, but not both. Utility 4 customers so far have selected occupancy sensors.

Factors considered in establishing what measures would be incentivized revolved mostly around

balancing cost effectiveness with anticipated energy savings.

When asked what additional factors respondents believe would be helpful for other utilities considering

ALC/NLC incentives, respondents largely reported that ALC/NLC needs more incentives to drive

adoption. It was also suggested to integrate/blend with other legacy technology incentive programs so

ALC/NLC is not left to stand on its own, but to do so carefully enough to balance the relatively lower

cost/savings ratio ALC/NLC has compared to LED.

Once programs were established, Utility 2 did adjust incentive levels while the other three utilities

surveyed did not. Utility 3 and 4 reasoned that that their programs are too new at this time to consider

implementing adjustments. Utility 2 increased incentive levels for ALC/NLC and daylighting to increase

adoption of these measures, especially in incorporating them into the system level design of new

construction and multi‐faceted projects, versus as a standalone lighting controls project.

5.3 Setting Advanced Lighting Controls Incentive Levels

Utilities were asked to share what criteria they considered and how they established setting the

available ALC/NLC incentive levels for their customers.

Utility 1 and 2 reported cost effectiveness of the installed controls system as a key consideration in

establishing incentive levels, attempting to balance the incentive level with the anticipated energy

savings levels. Once established, Utility 1 raised the level somewhat higher in order to promote more

adoption but knowing that participation volume was still going to be relatively low consisting mainly of

‘early adopters’ and consequently the inflated incentive level could be absorbed by the utility’s overall

program portfolio performance targets. Utility 1 and 4 reported that large utilities can afford to offer

more incentives and greater incentive levels through their incentive portfolio than smaller utilities such

as cooperatives and/or municipals.

The ALC/NLC utility incentives available to SMCB from the responding utilities are shown in Table 8 on

the following page.

More detailed information for incentives available and incentive applications for our participating utility

partners, Consumers Energy and DTE are also provided in Appendices 9.2 and 9.3.


24

Table 8: ALC/NLC Incentives Provided by Utility Survey Respondents

Utility Surveyed Utility Type Incentive Details

Utility 1 Investor Owned $0.25/kWh Saved

Utility 2 Investor Owned $185/kW Reduced

Utility 3 Investor Owned $.40/Watt Controlled

Utility 4 Municipality $0.08/Sq. Ft Controlled

5.4 Advanced Lighting Controls Incentive Program Eligibility Criteria

Utilities were asked a series of questions about their program eligibility criteria, including who was

eligible to apply for incentives (customers, contractors, or both).

As incentive programs are funded through customer surcharges on utility rates, all four utility

respondents reported that the customer can apply directly for incentives. Utility 1, Utility 2 and Utility 3

shared that designated and approved contractors/trade allies could also apply on behalf of the customer

but the customer always needs to sign the application.

The customer, whether applying directly or indirectly through a contractor/trade ally, must be a

business customer of the utility. Additional specific eligibility rules shared through the survey included:

qualifying for a ROI payback period between 1 and 8 years, implementing multiple measures together,

and incentive levels not exceeding 50% of the project cost.

Full eligibility criteria for the LiTES partner utilities is provided in program structure sub‐sections within

Section 4.2: LiTES Partner Utility ALC/NLC Incentive Programs, as well as reflected in their respective

program materials found in Appendices 9.2 and 9.3.

5.5 Advanced Lighting Controls Program Application Process

In terms of the application process, eligibility is typically evaluated as one of the first steps in a multi‐

step process that begins with customer/contractor/trade ally submitting the application. Utility 1

reported an additional step to execute a MOU required to accompany the application, so the customer

understands upfront what ALC/NLC strategies qualify and what participation is expected from the

customer through the rest of the incentive process.

Once the application is submitted, the utility performs a technical review and pre‐assessment of planned

equipment including specifications and validating designed control strategies, and if/when approved,

provides a notice to the applicant to proceed with the work. When the work to install the system is

completed, the applicant sends the utility the final application paperwork for the installed solution. The

utility may perform a final technical review/assessment and if/when approved, the utility finally issues a

payment check. Utility 3 and Utility 4 do not validate the as‐built, post‐installation work. Instead, the

customer signs to acknowledge that they have met the program eligibility, control strategy thresholds

and DLC qualifying equipment, with the caveat that Utility 3 conducts M&V on 10% of random incentive

program projects. This may include ALC/NLC but is very unlikely. Utility 1 and 2 reported an extra step

during the final inspection phase to include a site visit to walk through the job location to collect


25

pictures and validate equipment installed. Utility 1 also included in their final inspection a validation

step to have the customer provide requested sample data from the manufacturer’s software dashboard.

This is to ensure a base level of training has been completed by the customer to become familiar with

gathering and interpreting performance data.

Respondents reported that the final technical review and assessment involved a site walkthrough,

sometimes including a review of sample energy‐use data. Respondents did not report how long this part

of the application process takes, but once it is completed, the final step to issue a payment check can

take between one and six weeks to complete.

Once application criteria and process were established, one utility did eventually adjust certain

requirements. Utility 1 made a change to no longer require energy reporting for SMCB less than

100,000/sq. ft. Utility 3 and Utility 4 did not adjust requirements for SMCB ALC/NLC incentives as they

are a newer component to the energy savings portfolio.

5.6 Advanced Lighting Controls Program Data

Within the utility surveys, NextEnergy sought to collect feedback on the participation volume,

characteristics of ALC/NLC systems installed, incentives paid, and energy savings achieved within utility

ALC/NLC incentive programs. Overall program participation for SMCB was limited across utility

programs, thus information on characteristics of systems installed was also limited. Information on

incentives paid and energy savings achieved varied drastically for projects installed. Findings from

information shared on utility program data is provided in the sections below.

5.6.1 Advanced Lighting Controls Program Participation

Respondents reported between 2 and 18 SMCB projects having received, or that are allocated to

tentatively receive incentives since the inception of their ALC/NLC incentive program. Utility 4 indicated

that while they have available ALC/NLC incentives, they have not had any participation in the program to

date. This utility believes incentive levels may not be high enough to encourage participation, yet as a

municipal utility they are limited in the dollars they can invest in energy savings and are unable to

increase at this time. With the exception of Utility 4, respondents said contractor participation has been

well balanced across providers.

Table 9 below reflects the ALC/NLC incentive program participation by responding utility.

Table 9: ALC/NLC Incentive Program Participation by Utility

Utility

Surveyed

Utility

Type Incentive Available

# Participating SMCB Projects

# Participating

Contractors

Utility 1 Investor Owned $0.25/kWh

Saved 11 5

Utility 2 Investor Owned $185/kW Reduced

18 11

Utility 3 Investor Owned $.40/Watt Controlled

5 Not Provided

Utility 4 Municipality $0.08/Sq. Ft Controlled

0 0

Utility 1 and Utility 2 represent the LiTES Program Partner Utilities


26

5.6.2 Characteristics of Advanced Lighting Controls Systems Incentives

Utilities were asked to share if they had information on whether ALC/NLC systems were installed solely

on their own, or in combination with additional energy savings measures. Specifically, utilities were

asked if they were aware of the percentage of ALC/NLC installed in combination with LED retrofits.

Utilities were also asked if they were aware of any ALC/NLC projects installed in combination with

BMS/EMS, HVAC, whole‐building, windows/insulation, and/or other upgrades.

Utilities 1, 3 and 4 said most customers/contractors participating in incentive programs for LED upgrades

did not pair the LED lighting upgrades with an ALC/NLC system. However, Utility 2 was the exception

with two of four ALC/NLC incentive projects in 2018 (100% of 2018 SMCB applicants) also completing

LED project upgrades. All ALC/NLC projects allocated to Utility 2 in their 2019 program were combined

with LED to meet greater tier 2 incentives.

When asked if additional energy savings measures are being installed in combination with ALC/NLC,

Utility 1 and 2 reported coupling installations with HVAC upgrades are relatively common. Utility 3 and 4

could not answer the question since they do not track whether additional energy savings measures are

also being installed on their ALC/NLC applications. Utility 4 added that due to their one‐person team

they do not have time to market ALC/NLC while they stay busy with LED retrofit incentives.

5.6.3 Characteristics of Incentives Paid

Utilities were asked to share information on the overall amount of incentives paid for all projects, as

well as the average, minimum and maximum ALC/NLC incentives paid on projects within their programs.

Tables 10 ‐ 12 below reflect the smallest, average, largest and overall volume of incentives paid for

SMCB demonstration projects by our two utility partners, and the one additional responding utility that

had paid ALC/NLC incentives.

Table 10: ALC/NLC Incentives Paid by Consumers Energy (11 Projects)

Smallest Incentive Paid $6,203

Average Incentive Paid/Project $96,217

Largest Incentive Paid $240,143

Overall Amount of Incentives Paid $577,300

Table 11: ALC/NLC Incentives Paid by DTE (9 Projects)





Table 12: ALC/NLC Incentives Paid by Utility 3






27

5.6.4 Incentive Payment Options

Utilities were asked if incentive payments were made directly to customers or contractors. All

respondents said incentives are for customers only, with the option to designate sending their incentive

payments directly to a third‐party contractor. Utility 2 indicated in the case of such a third‐party

arrangement, the contractor is required to be a designated and approved trade ally to receive the check.

5.6.5 Characteristics of Program Energy Savings Achieved

Utilities were asked to share information on overall energy savings achieved for all projects, as well as

the average, minimum and maximum energy savings achieved on ALC/NLC projects within their

programs.

Investor‐owned Utility 1 and Utility 2 both reported overall (annual) program savings at about 2,500,000

kWh, while Municipal Utility 3 reported overall program savings at about 24,800 kWh.

Investor‐owned Utility 1 reported average energy savings per project at about 416,000 kWh, while

investor‐owned Utility 2 reported average energy savings per project at about 278,000 kWh. Municipal

Utility 3 reported average energy savings per project at about 16,000 kWh

Investor‐owned Utility 1 reported a range of energy savings from 24,814 kWh to 960,570 kWh and

investor‐owned Utility 2 reported a range of energy savings from 41,656 kWh to 1,198,036 kWh.

Municipal Utility 3 reported a range of energy savings from 1,179 kWh to 65,179 kWh.

Table 13 and Table 14 below reflect the energy savings achieved for the participating projects in the

LiTES Partner Utility Programs for Consumers Energy and DTE, respectively.

Table 13: Consumers Energy Achieved Energy Savings for ALC/NLC Demonstration Projects

Building Type Location Energy Savings

(kWh)

ALC Project Area

Controlled

(Sq. Ft)

Manufacturing Clare, MI 24,814 8,000

Education/School Concord, MI 71,272 80,000

Manufacturing Grand Rapids, MI 520,770 80,000

Manufacturing

(6 Facilities) Jackson, MI 960,570

38,000

48,000

57,000

65,000

67,0000

95,000

Education/School Ottawa Lake, MI 308,528 85,000

Manufacturing Spring Lake, MI 613,215 78,000


28

Table 14: DTE Achieved Energy Savings for ALC/NLC Demonstration Projects

Building Type Location Energy Savings

(kWh)

NLC Project Area

Controlled

(Sq. Ft)

Manufacturing Auburn Hills, MI 191,006 25,000

Office Detroit, MI 41,656 10,000

Manufacturing Farmington Hills,

MI 190,677 20,000

Hospital Lapeer, MI 585,620 55,000

Hospital Mt Clemens, MI 1,198,036 95,000

Food Service (Distribution) Novi, MI 45,495 10,000

School Orchard Lake, MI 92,886 42,000

Office Troy, MI 50,652 22,000

Office Troy, MI 105,695 12,000

Table 15: Utility 3 Achieved ALC/NLC Energy Savings

Smallest kWh Achieved 1,178

Average kWh Achieved 16,000

Largest kWh Achieved 65,179

Overall kWh Achieved 80,000

In addition to this report, the LiTES Program team captured ALC/NLC performance data and completed a

measurement and verification (M&V) analysis on ten selected demonstration sites within the

Consumers Energy and DTE service territories. M&V results demonstrated energy savings from ALC/NLC

to be a significant addition to the energy savings from the fluorescent bulb to LED bulb upgrades alone.

M&V performed at 10 select demonstration sites and resulted in achieved energy savings ranging from

3.67% to 46.55% and an average 29.19% reduction in energy use attributed to the implementation of

ALC/NLC systems. Overall estimated energy savings of 515,968 kWh corresponded to greenhouse gas

emission reductions of 299.4 equivalent metric tons of avoided CO2. Full details on these findings can be

found in the LiTES Measurement & Verification Report (November 2019).

5.7 Utility Program Marketing, Outreach & Training

Utilities were asked to share information their respective marketing, outreach and training programs for

ALC/NLC incentives offered. They were also asked to distinguish if marketing and training resources

were provided for solely for customers, contractors or both parties. Feedback received on marketing,

outreach and training programs is provided in the sections below.

5.7.1 Provided Marketing Resources

Respondents reported providing the following marketing resources publicly accessible to customers

through the utility incentive program web site and to contractors installing ALC/NLC:

Fact sheet: A one/two‐page flyer providing a summary of the incentive program including goals

& benefits, incentive levels, eligibility & requirements, application process, qualifying

equipment, workshop trainings, and contact information


29

Case study: A booklet consisting of example ALC/NLC project deployments describing the

building type, control strategies used, project cost and incentives paid

Catalog: The application process including rules and eligibility described, as well as a detailed

specification of eligible prescriptive (pre‐defined) energy efficiency measures including each

measure’s qualifying equipment type, efficiency/control requirements and incentive levels

Application form: A package of documents typically consisting of the base application form

which captures general project and contact information, along with supplemental

documentation including equipment per measure specifications in the catalog, equipment

specification sheets, and measure worksheets for incentives requested. This package is provided

upfront during the beginning of the application process prior to installation and updated as

appropriate to reflect the as‐built project and re‐submitted post‐installation before incentive

payment is made

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU): A formalized non‐binding agreement between the

utility and customer, provided up front during the pre‐installation application process that

outlines requirements and responsibilities for what the utility agrees to provide, and what the

customer agrees to provide

5.7.2 Provided Training Resources

When asked if they provided training specific to ALC/NLC, all respondents said yes. Utility 1 and 2

provided the training to customers and contractors/trade allies, with Utility 1 providing demo days

between customers and manufacturers. Utility 2 also reported training for designers, hosting workshops

and developing case study material. Utility 1 also reported plans to consider expanding training for next

year to include manufacturers and/or customer roundtables.

The list includes:

Directing and encouraging customers and installation contractors to participate in available DLC

and/or manufacturer training programs

Hosting an annual trade ally training

Hosting customer/contractor lunch‐and‐learn events

5.7.3 Recommended Additional Marketing & Training Resources

Respondents were asked what additional training and/or resources they thought were needed to

support increased adoption of ALC/NLC at SMCB.

Results included:

Additional education/trainings

Manufacturer materials

Case studies

Brochures

Product benefits information

Working more closely with USGBC on training and resources for new construction stakeholders

Standardized calculations (e.g. cost savings)

During training, encourage more systems‐level design approach to training


30

Customer/trade ally/manufacturer roundtables and/or demo days

Peer‐to‐peer knowledge sharing (e.g. addressing IT security concerns through field trips to

spotlight completed project locations)

Tailoring training and resources to meet customer‐driven needs

5.8 Additional Utility Survey Comments

When asked about the value of providing ALC/NLC incentives to customers, Utility 1 and Utility 2

reported “extremely valuable” while Utility 3 and 4 reported “average value.” Utility 1 and Utility 2 have

seen at least some customer participation in ALC/NLC incentives while Utility 3 and Utility 4 have not.

Both Utility 1 and Utility 2 said customers would not have implemented ALC/NLC without the incentives.

It follows suit that Utility 1 and Utility 2 then indicated ALC/NLC incentives are helpful to increasing

market adoption while Utility 3 and Utility 4 did not answer this question due to little or no

participation.

Regardless of the value of incentives to customers, and helpfulness toward increasing adoption, all

respondents said they will continue to provide ALC/NLC incentives in future years. Reasoning included:

ability to leverage increased customer experience with IoT for future utility programs, keeping up with

future revisions to building standards, and additional energy saving streams via ALC/NLC when LED has

saturated their portfolio.

We ended the survey by asking respondents to share any other information they felt might be helpful to

pass along to other utilities considering implementing an ALC/NLC incentive program:

Collaborate with distributors, manufacturers and contractors/trade allies on education and

marketing resources

Don’t limit ALC/NLC to existing buildings; expand to include incentives on new construction

ALC/NLC might be best suited for new construction

Designate a staff resource knowledgeable in ALC/NLC as outreach point of contact

Small business is a challenging market for ALC/NLC adoption; more potential for success in large‐

to medium‐sized businesses

Begin or continue state legislation to support funding ALC/NLC pilots

Know your market and its potential to adopt a technology. For example, an industrial‐focused

market may be heavy on the use of air compressors, and much less so on ALC/NLC. Utilities have

a lot of power to transform a market if they are willing and able to pay for it


31

6 Utility Incentive Cost Benefit Analysis

Based on advanced/networked lighting controls (ALC/NLC) system costs and utility incentives paid, a

cost benefit analysis was produced, outlining the energy and economic impacts of incentives. For the 15

small and medium commercial building (SMCB) customers who received LiTES Program utility incentives

for demonstration projects, the average installed ALC/NLC system cost/sq. ft. controlled was $3.41. The

lowest installed cost was $0.52/sq. ft. controlled, and the highest installed cost was $8.55/sq. ft.

controlled.

The average installed cost/kWh energy saved was $0.60. The average installed cost/kWh energy saved

for a LiTES demonstration project was $0.66/kWh saved, whereas the lowest installed cost/kWh saved

for a LiTES demonstration project was $0.32/kWh saved and the highest installed cost/kWh saved was

$1.32/kWh saved.

Energy savings achieved per incentive dollar invested in the project by the utility was also analyzed by

the LiTES Program team. The average kWh/incentive dollar invested on LiTES demonstration projects

was 11.91 kWh saved/incentive dollar paid. The highest achieved energy savings/incentive dollar paid

for a demonstration was 19.73 kWh, whereas the lowest achieved savings/incentive dollar paid for a

demonstration was 4.00 kWh.

While utility incentives are capped at 50% of project cost, incentives offset project costs by an average

of 22.77% for LiTES demonstration projects. One project received an incentive capped at 50% and was

the largest project cost offset for a demonstration project incentive. The smallest project cost offset by

an incentive for a LiTES demonstration project was 4.09%.

Table 16 on the following page provides a cost‐benefit analysis of the LiTES demonstration projects.


32

*Customer installed ALC/NLC Systems at 6

SMCB Facilities

Table 16: ALC/NLC Cost Benefit Analysis

Building TypeType of ALC/NLC System

InstalledLocation

ALC/NLC

Area Controlled

(Sq. Ft.)

ALC/NLC

Project Cost

($)

ALC/NLC

Incentive Paid

($)

ALC/NLC

Energy Savings

(kWh)

ALC/NLC

Cost/Sq Ft.

Controlled

($)

ALC/NLC Cost

/kWh Energy

Savings

($)

ALC/NLC

Energy Savings

/$ Incentive

(kWh)

% ALC/NLC

Project Cost

Offset/Incentive

Manufacturing Phillips Spacewise Auburn Hills, MI 25,000 $74,643 $10,271 191,006 $2.99 $0.39 18.60 13.76%

Manufacturing RAB LightCloud Clare, MI 8,000 $14,250 $6,204 24,814 $1.78 $0.57 4.00 43.53%

Education/School Lutron Vive Concord, MI 80,000 $92,150 $17,818 71,272 $1.15 $1.29 4.00 19.34%

Office Cree Smart Cast Detroit, MI 10,000 $30,000 $2,600 41,565 $3.00 $0.72 15.99 8.67%

Manufacturing Cree Smart Cast Farmington Hills, MI 20,000 $61,897 $10,313 190,677 $3.09 $0.32 18.49 16.66%

Manufacturing Acuity nLight Grand Rapids, MI 80,000 $165,400 $82,700 520,770 $2.07 $0.32 6.30 50.00%

Manufacturing* Legrand Wattstopper Jackson, MI 973,000 $506,637 $240,143 960,571 $0.52 $0.53 4.00 47.40%

Hospital Cree Smart Cast Lapeer, MI 55,000 $470,521 $40,620 585,620 $8.55 $0.80 14.42 8.63%

Hospital Cree Smart Cast Mt Clemens, MI 95,000 $733,959 $82,097 1,198,036 $7.73 $0.61 14.59 11.19%

Food Service (Distribution) Acuity nLight Novi, MI 10,000 $60,070 $2,457 45,495 $6.01 $1.32 18.52 4.09%

Education/School Digital Lumens SiteWorks Orchard Lake, MI 42,000 $43,529 $4,708 92,886 $1.04 $0.47 19.73 10.82%

Education/School Crestron Zum Ottawa Lake, MI 85,000 $160,000 $77,132 308,528 $1.88 $0.52 4.00 48.21%

Manufacturing Magnum OPUS Spring Lake, MI 78,000 $408,558 $153,304 613,215 $5.24 $0.67 4.00 37.52%

Office Acuity nLight Troy, MI 22,000 $98,000 $8,000 105,695 $4.45 $0.93 13.21 8.16%

Office Lutron Vive Troy, MI 12,000 $19,700 $2,684 50,652 $1.64 $0.39 18.87 13.62%

Total 1,595,000 2,939,314 741,050 5,000,802 $51.14 $9.86 $178.71 3

Min 8,000 $14,250 $2,457 24,814 $0.52 0.32 4.00 0.04

Average 106,333 $195,954 $49,403 333,387 $3.41 0.66 11.91 0.23

Max 973,000 $733,959 $240,143 1,198,036 $8.55 1.32 19.73 0.50


33

7 Incentive Recommendations

NextEnergy conducted research into existing utility incentive programs for advanced/networked lighting

controls (ALC/NLC) in small and medium commercial buildings (SMCB), engaged with utility companies

through a survey campaign to collect feedback and findings on these programs, and through The LiTES

Program collected ALC/NLC M&V performance data from demonstration sites.

Using these sources of information listed above, NextEnergy then completed a review and analysis to

outline opportunities for how incentive programs and levels could be altered to make them more

effective for SMCB with the end goal to accelerate increased market adoption of ALC/NLC in SMCB.

There are many factors influencing the ALC/NLC incentive levels established by utility companies:

Market rates: Utility rates vary be state/region/city, influenced by dynamic competitive

wholesale pricing of electricity, cost of utility transmission and distribution infrastructure, and

the competitive landscape of with other electric utility companies offering service

Incentive program budgets: Larger utility companies tend to have larger budget amounts

allocated to programs with incentives for ALC/NLC in SMCB. On the other hand, smaller utility

companies tend to have a much smaller budgeted amount

Energy efficiency and conservation program portfolio: Depending on the success of their

overall energy efficiency incentive programs and the makeup of the utility’s customer profiles,

the amount budgeted specifically for SMCB ALC/NLC incentives using the five ways of incentive

structuring (see Section 4: Advanced Lighting Controls System Utility Incentives) can vary

significantly to meet supply and demand in helping the utility achieve overall program portfolio

incentive performance targets

ALC/NLC system costs: ALC/NLC system costs alone are not standard, changing from

manufacturer to manufacturer, system installer, designed solution and control strategies

implemented

Considering these factors, we sub‐categorized our recommendations into three groups: Marketing

Outreach and Training, Eligibility Criteria and Incentive Levels:

Marketing Outreach and Training Recommendations

Expand training and marketing resources to increase sales cycle engagement with existing

ALC/NLC project customers that can more directly explain the ALC/NLC value, benefits and

what’s involved. Peer‐to‐peer measures include case studies, roundtables and even field trips to

tour completed project site solutions. However, existing ALC/NLC customers need incentive to

participate (see incentive levels recommendations below for financially motivating existing

ALC/NLC customers to more directly participate in the sales cycle)

Encourage utilities to share marketing and training resources with ALC/NLC value and benefits

information gathered from participating projects in their respective programs to increase

exposure and likelihood of customer participation. For example, fact sheets or workshops as a

standard practice could explain both the benefits of LED retrofits and ALC/NLC.


34

Streamline utility incentive application processes so building owners/property managers

(customers) could apply for incentives for installations at multiple sites via one application.

Develop a standardized calculator tool that customers and contractors can use to compare

what‐if scenarios calculating energy savings, total cost of ownership for implementing a

combination of energy saving measures and tiered ALC/NLC control strategies. Calculators

should also include an input for utility incentives available.

o Where possible, integrate with utility databases, via an API to use utility‐specific

information (electricity rates, incentive levels and size limits, tiered incentive structures,

etc.) to make scenario results relevant and more accurate to the user’s project site

location.

o Flag eligibility conditions real‐time to the user that may need further adjustment, such

as a payback period greater than eight years or a tiered incentive level that does not

qualify all control strategies selected.

o Include the tool in training workshops with contractors so they may use it during the

sales cycle to inform customers on relevant strategies making the most sense for their

building type, occupancy patterns, operational schedules, lists of equipment, etc.

Expand marketing and training resources and tools, such as case studies and fact sheets, to

begin with overall savings but also include the range of savings for specific control strategies.

Eligibility Criteria Requirements

Continue to require the following:

o ALC/NLC ability to provide complete programing and control from a central location,

report energy use with 15‐minute kWh monitoring intervals and store and deliver raw

data for energy use, for a minimum of one‐year

o Payback period equal‐to or greater‐than one year and less‐than or equal‐to eight years

o Incentives awarded not to exceed 50% of the project cost

Require incentives paid to be based on performance of actual energy savings, i.e. kWh

Allow SMCB new construction to be eligible for ALC/NLC incentives

Allow building exterior lighting including parking lot lighting to be eligible for ALC/NLC

incentives. Opportunity to collaborate with the International Dark Sky Association (darksky.org)

to qualify dark sky friendly lighting certified fixtures and expand on the benefits of ALC/NLC

adoption through Dark Sky Association developed marketing and training resources

Utility 2 reported that newer advanced lighting technologies, such as lamps, are starting to

provide built‐in support for multiple networked control strategies and may provide a lower total

cost of ownership. Further evaluation is needed to investigate the cost effectiveness of these

emerging controls‐integrated fixtures to inform utilities on potential adjustments to ALC/NLC

eligible equipment and tiered control strategies

In addition to investor‐owned utilities, allow cooperative and municipal utilities to also receive

state funding to be used for ALC/NLC incentives. This may require changes to state regulations

and/or billing rates but could increase both volume and geographic diversity of ALC/NLC market

adoption beyond the service territories of dominant investor‐owned utilities.


35

Incentive Levels Recommendations

Our utility research indicated five standard methods used to set the ALC/NLC incentive

structure: watt controlled, kW reduced, kWh saved, square feet design area controlled, and

ALC/NLC fixture installed. Through this research, including feedback from utilities surveyed on

ALC/NLC incentive portfolio results, we recommend standardizing the kWh saved performance‐

based incentive structure. This would simplify the process to perform cost/benefit analysis pre

and post installation, encouraging greater adoption.

Include an optional added incentive level that encourages existing ALC/NLC customers to more

directly participate in the sales cycle (see marketing outreach and training recommendations

above for added participation measures). For example, customers who have already received

incentives for ALC/NLC projects and have met certain eligibility/requirements for energy savings

measures and/or control strategies implemented, could receive an additional incentive payment

check for hosting one or more field trip tours to explain their project to prospective visiting

customers. Additional optional incentive checks could be offered for combining multiple peer‐

to‐peer participation measures

Encourage customers to implement more ALC/NLC control strategies, by provide increasingly

higher incentive tiers for the greater number of control strategies implemented. For example:

o Incentive level Tier 1 – Baseline ALC/NLC installation with minimal control strategies

o Incentive level Tier 2 – Meets Tier 1 Strategies + 3 additional control strategies

o Incentive level Tier 3 – Meets Tier 2 + 2 additional control strategies

Consider including offering a “bonus” incentive to customers for reporting on ALC/NLC energy

savings throughout the first year. This would allow utilities and the market to gain a better

understanding of annual savings, as incentive payments are currently paid on savings which are

validated for a short period following the installation to support providing customers rebates in

a timely manner.

o This would also encourage customers to continue to monitor ALC/NLC strategies, refine

operations and implement lessons learned. This may also encourage customers to

implement additional lighting control strategies as they familiarize themselves with their

systems.

Incentives for implementing a baseline ALC/NLC system should not exclude the customer from

receiving additional incentives for implementing control strategies. For example, the incentive

levels should be set to allow for some incentives to be paid for an ALC/NLC system, and

additional incentives for one or more controlling strategies such as high‐end trim, scheduling,

etc.

Develop a standardized utility incentives calculator tool that could be used to build what‐if

scenarios for incentive level participation, incentive portfolio budgets, and deferment of capital

improvements in power generation investments by increasing incentive levels that drive greater

adoption of energy savings measures and control strategies.


36

8 Conclusion

Advanced/networked lighting controls (ALC/NLC) market adoption has fallen short within the small and

medium commercial building (SMCB) space and there are many perceived barriers. Through the work

we completed with our Michigan‐based utility partners Consumers Energy and DTE to pilot and capture

performance data, as well as our research into ALC/NLC utility programs and incentive alternatives, our

analysis identified several strategic incentive improvements to address the market barriers towards the

overall goal of accelerating ALC/NLC adoption in SMCB. As an outcome to participating in the LiTES

program, DTE elected to transition ALC incentives for SMCB from a pilot program into their standard

Energy Efficiency for Business Program incentive offerings in 2019. Consumers Energy plans to do the

same for SMCB ALC/NLC incentive offerings in 2020.

We leveraged M&V data captured from 10 demonstration sites to analyze the performance of SMCB

ALC/NLC with the results showing an average of 30% energy savings, including a minimum of 16%

savings, and a maximum of 46.5% savings. Factors influencing these results are primarily system and

device manufacturer choices, building space type and design, occupancy patterns and control strategies

implemented.

NextEnergy performed a detailed analysis of Consumers Energy and DTE ALC/NLC program incentive

structures. Both large investor‐owned utilities had a detailed application process that shared many

similarities including: the reservation application form, MOU, prescriptive measures catalog, pre and

post installation inspection, engineering reviews, as‐needed data logger validation steps, and payment

steps. Both utility partners shared other incentive program requirements including: DLC‐listed

equipment, payback between one and eight years, and incentives paid capped at 50% of project cost

with set annual customer limits. We observed that the smaller investor‐owned utility and municipal

utility that responded to our survey had relatively simpler program incentive structures including the

application process steps.

National utilities that offered ALC/NLC incentive programs were researched, identified and evaluated.

Through our assessment of available utility incentives, we identified five incentive level strategies: watt

controlled, kW reduced, kWh saved, square feet design area controlled, and ALC/NLC fixtures installed.

Feedback from 16 national utilities with ALC/NLC incentive programs was solicited, including our two

partner utilities. Both Michigan‐based partner utilities and two additional utilities, including one

investor‐owned utility and one municipal utility, provided survey responses. Through their responses

and follow up interviews, we collected insightful feedback on ALC/NLC benefits and barriers, incentive

program structures and incentive levels, performance results, marketing outreach and training

resources, and recommendations for program improvements.

A cost benefit analysis was performed for the 15 customers receiving LiTES utility incentives for ALC/NLC

demonstration projects. Analysis results included: installed ALC/NLC system cost/sq. ft. controlled,

installed cost/kWh energy saved, kWh energy saved/incentive dollar invested, and percentage ALC/NLC

project cost offset/incentive. While utility incentives are capped at 50% of project cost, incentives for

the 15 LiTES customers offset project costs by an average of 22.77%, including a minimum of 4.09% and

a maximum of 50.00%.


37

The conclusion of our research report identified opportunities for incentive improvements that will

accelerate market adoption, categorized into recommendations for changes to incentive levels,

eligibility criteria, and marketing outreach and training resources. One of the key outcomes of our

research into utility incentive programs, including feedback from utilities surveyed, is to recommend

standardizing on the kWh saved performance‐based incentive structure. This would simplify the process

for the customer to perform cost/benefit analysis pre and post installation, encouraging greater

adoption.


38

9 Appendix

9.1 LiTES Utility Incentive Program Materials


39

9.2 Consumers Energy Advanced Lighting Controls Incentive Program Materials

9.2.1 Consumers Energy Advanced Lighting Controls Program Incentives


40


41


42


43


44


45


46


47


48


49


50

9.2.2 Consumers Energy Advanced Lighting Controls Program Marketing Sheet


51

9.2.3 Consumers Energy Advanced Lighting Controls Incentive Look Book


52


53


54


55


56


57


58


59


60


61


62


63

9.3 DTE Advanced Lighting Controls Incentive Program Materials

9.3.1 2018 DTE Advanced Lighting Control Incentive Program Application


64


65


66


67


68


69


70


71


72


73


74

9.3.2 2018 DTE Advanced Lighting Controls Fact Sheet


75


76

9.3.3 2019 DTE Business Energy Efficiency Measures Catalog


77


78


79


80


81


82


83


84


85


86


87


88


89


90


91


92

9.3.4 2019 DTE Incentive Program Application


93


94


95


96


97


98


99


100


101


102


103


104


105


106


107


108


109


110


111

9.3.5 2019 Advanced Lighting Controls Fact Sheet


112


113

9.4 Utility Survey Questions


114


115


116


117


118


119


120


121

10 Definitions & Acronyms

10.1 Definitions

Advanced lighting controls (ALC): Capabilities for sensors and luminaires to automate the execution of

one or more pre‐programmed energy saving strategies (e.g. occupancy, daylight harvesting, task tuning).

ASHRAE: A global membership society focused on building systems, energy efficiency, indoor air quality,

refrigeration and sustainability within the industry. Through research, standards writing, publishing and

continuing education, ASHRAE shapes tomorrow’s‐built environment today. ASHRAE was formed as the

American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air‐Conditioning Engineers.

Carbon emissions: A colorless, odorless, non‐poisonous gas that is a normal part of Earth's atmosphere

but also a product of fossil‐fuel combustion as well as other processes. It is considered a greenhouse gas

(GHG) as it traps heat (infrared energy) radiated by the Earth into the atmosphere and thereby

contributes to the potential for global warming. The global warming potential (GWP) of other

greenhouse gases is measured in relation to that of carbon dioxide, which by international scientific

convention is assigned a value of one (1).

Commercial & industrial (C&I): Classification of economic activities including but not limited to stores,

offices, schools, churches, gymnasiums, libraries, museums, hospitals, clinics, warehouses, and jails

(commercial), as well as manufactured production and storage/distribution of goods (industrial).

Daylight harvesting: The capability to automatically affect the operation of lighting or other equipment

based on the amount of daylight and/or ambient light that is present in a space, area, or exterior

environment. This capability is typically called daylight harvesting for interior systems, and photocell

control for exterior systems.

Energy: The capacity of a system to do work, energy is the amount power used over a time period,

typically reported in watt‐hours (Wh), kilowatt‐hours (kWh) or British Thermal Units (BTU).

Energy savings: A reduction in energy use resulting from efficiency improvements to technology and/or

service control strategies.

High‐end trim: The capability to set the maximum light output to a less‐than‐maximum state of an

individual or group of luminaires/lamps at the time of installation or commissioning. High‐end trim must

be field reconfigurable. This capability is distinct from automatic compensation for lumen depreciation,

which automatically increases output as a system operates over time. *While the DLC specifically

requires “High‐end trim”, some manufacturers refer to this capability as “task tuning” or “tuning” within

their system interfaces. Refer to NEMA LSD 64‐2014 for definitions of lighting controls terminology

Incentive: A cash incentive offered by utilities to their customers for 1) purchase and installation of new

energy efficient equipment (e.g. fixtures, sensors, etc.) and/or 2) control strategies implemented (e.g.

high‐end trim, scheduling, daylight harvesting, etc.) that result in energy savings (i.e. reduced kWh).

Load shedding (demand response): The capability to selectively reduce the energy consumption of a

system, such as lighting, in a pre‐defined way, on a temporary basis, in response to a demand response


122

signal. A building manager or management system may utilize load shedding to avoid peak pricing or to

avoid a condition where electricity demand exceeds supply.

Measurement and Verification (M&V): The process of using measurements to reliably determine actual

savings created within a facility by an energy management program.

Networked lighting controls (NLC): Uniquely addressable sensors and luminaires that are

interconnected through a wired or wireless communications interface to enable greater granularity in

capabilities controlled and monitored with additional capabilities that may be available at the system

level such as energy reporting and integration with other building systems (e.g. HVAC and data centers).

Occupancy/vacancy sensing: The capability to affect the operation of lighting equipment based upon

detecting the presence or absence of people in a space or exterior environment. Related traffic sensing

operates in the similar way but for moving vehicles in an area.

Task tuning: The capability in which the light output of an individual or group of luminaires is set to

provide the desired amount of light for a space, task or area. While tuning is sometimes accomplished

using high‐end trim, the light levels are generally lower utilizing tuning than the high‐end trim levels.

Time scheduling: The capability to automatically affect the operation of lighting equipment based on

time of day. Interior systems are scheduled according to building programming, while exterior systems

typically follow sunrise and sunset programming based on geographical location and time of year.

10.2 Acronyms

ALC/NLC – Advanced Lighting Controls/Networked Lighting Controls

API – Application Program Interface

ASHRAE ‐ American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air‐Conditioning Engineers

BMS – Building Management System

C&I – Commercial & Industrial

CO2 – Carbon Dioxide

DJATC – Detroit Joint Apprentice Training Center

DLC – Design Lights Consortium

DLC CALC – Design Lights Consortium Commercial Advanced Lighting Controls

DOE – Department of Energy

DTE – DTE Energy

EMS – Energy Management System

EO – Energy Optimization

GHG – Greenhouse Gas


123

GWP – Global Warming Potential

HVAC – Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning

IT – Information Technology

IOU – Investor‐Owned Utility

kW – Kilowatts

KWh – Kilowatt Hours

LED – Light Emitting Diode

Lbs – Pounds

LiTES – Lighting Technology Energy Solutions

MALCTP – Michigan Advanced Lighting Controls Certification Program

MOU – Memorandum of Understanding

M&V – Measurement and Verification

NEMA LSD – National Electrical Manufacturers Association Lighting Standards Document

ROI – Return on Investment

SMCB – Small and Medium Commercial Buildings

W – Watt

Wh – Watt Hours


124

11 Index of Tables & Figures

11.1 Index of Tables

Table 1: Identified Utility Incentive Alternatives ........................................................................................ 15

Table 2: LiTES Consumers Energy Trade Ally Training Sessions .................................................................. 16

Table 3: Available Consumers Energy Incentives ........................................................................................ 17

Table 4: Consumers Energy Incentives Paid to ALC/NLC Demonstration Projects ..................................... 17

Table 5: LiTES DTE Trade Ally Training Sessions .......................................................................................... 18

Table 6: Available DTE Incentives for Networked Lighting Controls ........................................................... 19

Table 7: DTE Incentives Paid to ALC/NLC Demonstration Projects ............................................................. 20

Table 8: ALC/NLC Incentives Provided by Utility Survey Respondents ....................................................... 24

Table 9: ALC/NLC Incentive Program Participation by Utility ..................................................................... 25

Table 10: ALC/NLC Incentives Paid by Consumers Energy (11 Projects) .................................................... 26

Table 11: ALC/NLC Incentives Paid by DTE (9 Projects) .............................................................................. 26

Table 12: ALC/NLC Incentives Paid by Utility 3 ........................................................................................... 26

Table 13: Consumers Energy Achieved Energy Savings for ALC/NLC Demonstration Projects .................. 27

Table 14: DTE Achieved Energy Savings for ALC/NLC Demonstration Projects .......................................... 28

Table 15: Utility 3 Achieved ALC/NLC Energy Savings ................................................................................ 28

Table 16: ALC/NLC Cost Benefit Analysis .................................................................................................... 32

11.2 Index of Figures

Figure 1: Percent of Buildings with Control Strategy .................................................................................... 7

Figure 2: Report Methodology Stages ........................................................................................................ 12

Figure 3: Michigan Electric Utility Service Areas ......................................................................................... 13

UTILITY INCENTIVES RECOMMENDATION REPORT · Utility Incentives Recommendation Report FOA Name &...

Documents

Transcript of UTILITY INCENTIVES RECOMMENDATION REPORT · Utility Incentives Recommendation Report FOA Name &...