After reviewing the quotes, the decision was made to present Leotek/Cimcon pairing in our base
proposal since the combination of initial capital cost and 10-year operating costs were the lowest. For
reference and further consideration, Acuity pricing was approximately 15% higher across the board, and
Philips was approximately 46% higher. However, we also understand that the City may have other
priorities and factors which may lead to selection of a different controls manufacturer.
To summarize: Siemens is a vendor neutral ESCO that self-performs the installation of LED streetlights;
we are not a manufacturer of fixtures or controls and have no exclusive partnerships with particular
vendors. For the purposes of the selection process and comparison of proposals, we are prepared to
install the Leotek/Cimcon praducts priced in our base proposal. Our base cost proposal/no controls
includes the Leotek fixture and Siemens’ cost proposal with controls includes the Leotek fixture with
Cimcon controls. Should the City request, Siemens would be willing to supply alternate cost proposals
from other manufacturers.
Following approval of the City of a preferred manufacturer, Siemens will procure the selected fixtures.
During the lead time prior to fixture arrival, we will work with the City to select staging areas for
temporary product storage containers and receptacles for recycling of old fixtures, cardboard, etc. At
this point, an initial project schedule will be submitted to the City and its representative members.
Thereafter we will supply an updated schedule on a weekly basis as fixture ship dates and installation
progress requires. :
Wireless Controls Summary
Additional operational cost savings for LED streetlights can be realized through wireless controls in the
following ways:
a) Reducing billable energy usage by changing from assumed use to measured use. Wireless nodes
which are “meter grade” node could report consumption less than existing use in the
Eversource tariff for assumed annual operating hours. However, assumed operating hours
could be equal or less than actual, which would eliminate potential savings.
b) Scheduled on/off shortens operating hours from existing dusk to dawn operation, commonly
referred to as “scheduled trimming;” and
c) Scheduled dimming reduces overall consumption.
The incremental cost savings relative to trimming and/or dimming schedules generated via wireless
controls technology is a function of a community’s decision about the tradeoff of appropriate lighting
levels versus desired energy/cost savings. For illustrative purposes, Siemens uses a 20% reduction in
LED energy use as a mid-range of the various potential dimming or on/off schedules described above.
Note: a 20% savings in “LED energy use” is not the same as the energy savings from the existing HPS
system previously reported; the 20% savings is applied after the LED conversion savings has been
calculated.
At this time, Eversource is not offering an incentive for controls, so the estimated incentive amount is
unchanged. There is significant cost savings relative to installing controls at the time of the LED
installation because a) the labor hours are much reduced as the electrician is already at each light to
perform the retrofit, and b) the standard photocell replaced when the LED fixture was installed must be
removed and replaced. Recent Siemens’ analyses for other customers in New England indicate that the
material cost for wireless controls would have to decrease by 60-70% to make deploying wireless
controls after the retrofit, rather than during the retrofit, more cost-effective. Siemens typically
examines the relative impact of wireless controls on the project cast and payback so that our customers
9225 Bee Cave Rd WWW SIaMeNs usa.
Building B, Ste 101 512-837-8000
Austin, TX 78733 Page 19
