limitations of studies were the duration of metering and number of loggers deployed, because shorter duration studies relied on extrapolation techniques and a smaller sample is considered less reliable. Based on the DOE and Wisconsin reports, it was determined that, in addition to geographical location, sample size and duration of metering were major criteria when reviewing CFL HOU studies. The SWE, PEG and Commission Staff reviewed metering studies from New England, California, Maine, Maryland, and North and South Carolina. The length of the study, number of homes, meters installed and geographical location of the study were all analyzed as part of the review. The California studies were included in the analysis because the sample sizes of these studies were much larger than all of the other studies. The 2010 California Study installed 7,299 light loggers. The next largest study reviewed was the 2005 California Study, which deployed 752 light loggers. The largest east coast study reviewed was the 2009 New England Study which collected data from 657 light loggers. The 2007 Maine and 2011 Maryland Studies were the only studies to report a higher HOU value than 2.8; however these two studies together deployed loggers in 84 homes compared to 1,780 homes collectively for the five other studies analyzed. In addition, the SWE, PEG and Commission Staff reviewed seven TRMs from other states and regions: Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, the Mid-Atlantic, New Jersey, New York and Ohio. Five of the seven states use a deemed HOU value for CFLs that is within 0.1 hours of 2.8. Based on this research and analysis, the Commission proposes revising the CFL HOU value to 2.8 for the 2013 TRM. The collective evidence supports an HOU value lower than 3.0. Specifically, five of the seven studies analyzed reported an HOU of 2.8 hours or less and five of the seven TRMs deemed an HOU value within 0.1 of 2.8. Furthermore, we find the 2.8 HOU from the 2009 New England Study significant, given
limitations of studies were the duration of metering and number of loggers deployed, because shorter duration studies relied on extrapolation techniques and a smaller sample is considered less reliable. Based on the DOE and Wisconsin reports, it was determined that, in addition to geographical location, sample size and duration of metering were major criteria when reviewing CFL HOU studies. The SWE, PEG and Commission Staff reviewed metering studies from New England, California, Maine, Maryland, and North and South Carolina. The length of the study, number of homes, meters installed and geographical location of the study were all analyzed as part of the review. The California studies were included in the analysis because the sample sizes of these studies were much larger than all of the other studies. The 2010 California Study installed 7,299 light loggers. The next largest study reviewed was the 2005 California Study, which deployed 752 light loggers. The largest east coast study reviewed was the 2009 New England Study which collected data from 657 light loggers. The 2007 Maine and 2011 Maryland Studies were the only studies to report a higher HOU value than 2.8; however these two studies together deployed loggers in 84 homes compared to 1,780 homes collectively for the five other studies analyzed. In addition, the SWE, PEG and Commission Staff reviewed seven TRMs from other states and regions: Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, the Mid-Atlantic, New Jersey, New York and Ohio. Five of the seven states use a deemed HOU value for CFLs that is within 0.1 hours of 2.8. Based on this research and analysis, the Commission proposes revising the CFL HOU value to 2.8 for the 2013 TRM. The collective evidence supports an HOU value lower than 3.0. Specifically, five of the seven studies analyzed reported an HOU of 2.8 hours or less and five of the seven TRMs deemed an HOU value within 0.1 of 2.8. Furthermore, we find the 2.8 HOU from the 2009 New England Study significant, given
1191421.docx