Lighting Stakeholder Meeting #2

California Statewide Utility Codes and Standards Program

4/27/2010

1

LightingStakeholder Meeting #2

Heschong Mahone Group, Inc.Clanton & Associates, Inc.

Integrated Lighting Concepts, Inc.

September 21, 2010

CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE UTILITIES CODES AND STANDARDS PROGRAM

9/21/2010CA Utilities 2011 Title 24 Stakeholder Meeting for Proposed Code Changes

NR-3 Indoor Lighting

● Summary of current code requirements

● Typical practice

● Summary of code change proposals

● Data/findings

● Specifics of code change proposals

● Remaining data collection and analysis

● Specific stakeholder requests

22




Current Code Requirements

● Prescriptive or Performance Compliance● Performance – Computer Modeled Total

Envelope Compliance (Systems Tradeoffs)

● Prescriptive Compliance (Lighting Stands Alone)

● Whole Building Method ● Building Area Method● Tailored Method

3




Typical Practice

● Prescriptive is Typical Practice● Building or Area Method used for most

spaces● Tailored Method Frequently Used for:

● Retail● Museums● Hospitality● Worship

4




5

Summary of Code Change Proposals● Reduce Display Lighting LPD’s (tailored)

● Base models on CMH (possibly some LED)● Explore Uses of LPD Cap (in line with Washington & ASHRAE 90.1 2010)

● Expand/Tighten Control Requirements● Automated Controls – Tailored Compliance● Display Window Controls – Tailored & Area

● Expand Daylighting for Retail● Lower minimum foot-print requirement● Tighten 14-foot lay-in ceiling loophole




6

Summary of Code Change Proposals● Tailored Lighting Primary Target

● Reduce lighting power consumption while maintaining visual performance (display lighting LPD’s CMH)

● Fewer Tailored Compliance Occupancies

● Area Category Compliance Fine Tuning● Adjustments to accommodate for special

requirements previously found in Tailored




Data/Findings - Overview

● Lighting Practitioner Surveys● Designers, engineers, contractors manufactures,

suppliers and owners● Over 1000 distributed - 98 responses

● Retail Store Site Surveys● Discount, mainline and up-scale retail● 167 technology surreys● 60 detail surveys for excel models

● Modeling; Computer Simulations and Excel● AGI -32 Computer Modeling● Models with LPD technology studies using excel

7




Data/Findings - Practitioner Surveys Profile of Practitioners

8




Data/Findings - Practitioner Surveys Eliminate Tailored Method

9

• No Clear Majority Opinion




Data/Findings - Practitioner Surveys Tailored Method by Space Type

10

• Used Mostly for Retail, Hospitality & Museum

Erin Reschke

Consider sayiing Tailored Compliance used 75% OF THE TIME or more.




Data/Findings - Practitioner Surveys Tailored Compliance Use for Retail

11

• 45% Use Tailored Almost All The Time • 67% Use Tailored Half of the Time

NOTE: “Retail 100%” means all designs used Tailored Compliance

Erin Reschke

These labels are kind of confusing because they use two percentages and all say retail which is redundant. Consider putting the actual question from the survey as the heading (in the dark blue). So it would say "How often do you the tailored method for retail spaces?" Then maybe the lables could say "100% of the time" rather than Retail 100%. Does that seem right?




Data/Findings - Practitioner Surveys CMH & LED Accent Lighting by 2011

12

• 60% Rated “Good Or Better”Note: 2008 Survey 69% said CMH “Good or Better

Erin Reschke

I think this fragment might seem confusing to some. I would recommend writing out the whole question.




Data/Findings - Practitioner Surveys CMH is an acceptable alternative to

Incandescent & Halogen by 2011

13

• 74% Agree




Data/Findings - Practitioner Surveys Expand Control Requirements

Prerequisitefor Tailored Compliance

14

• 91% “Good or Better”




Data/Findings - Practitioner Surveys Use of Controls for Display Windows

15

• 79% “Good or Better”

Not Acceptable

Poor

Erin Reschke

Overlapping labels in this graph.




Expand Daylight Requirements for Retail• 66% “Good or Better”

Data/Findings - Practitioner Surveys




High End and Mainline Department Stores - 8

Data/Findings - Store Surveys

Five in California, One in Washington and Two in Arizona





A: 1.6W

LPD’s for High End Upscale Department Stores

T: 2.3W

KEY:Compliance

Washington - 3.0

T24-05 Tailored

T24-08 Tailored

Lighting System CFL & T5 with:

HIR 70%

CMH 30%

W: 2.7W





T: 1.5W

LPD’s for Mainline and Discount Department Stores

KEY:Compliance

ASHRAE 90.1-04

T24-05 Area Method

Lighting Systems T8 and Metal Halide with:

HIR 30%

CMH 70%

A: 1.6W

W: 1.9W




High End Mall Sites - 5


Two in California Two in Washingtonand One in Arizona





A

LPD’s for Existing High End Retail Shops

T

W

KEY:

Compliance T: T24-08 Tailored

W: Wash -2010 A: T24-08 Area

Store Size Small

Med

Large

Ave -All




Outlet Mall Sites - 3


Two in California and One in Washington





T

A

LPD’s for Existing Outlet and Discount Retail

W

KEY:

Compliance T: T24-08 Tailored

W: Wash - 2010 A: T24-08 Area

Store Size Small

Med

Large

Ave -All





24

Store Surveys – Technology Profiles

● Frequency of Latest Technologies Used

● Technologies Used for Display Lighting

● Technologies Used for Ambient Walls





25

Frequency of Technology Use in Retail Stores


KEY 1 = Less than 10%

2 = 10% to 30%

3 = 31% to 69%

4 = 70% to 90%

5 = More than 90%

Technology DefinitionLatest technologies: CMH,LED, T5, Advanced T8,Halogen IR & Triple Tube CFL

Number of stores using latest technology





26

Store Surveys – Technology ProfilesExisting Display Lighting Technologies

• 46% Already Using CMH





2727

Existing Ambient & Wall Lighting Technologies• 64% Already Using CFL, T5 and Advanced T8






28

Store Surveys – Compliance Comparisons

● Washington Code LPD’s Versus Title 24

● Washington Code Pass/Fail Versus Title 24




2929


6w

5w

4w

3w

2w

1w

0wDesigned T24-05 Ave. T24-08 Ave. WA 3.0 WA 2010

2.38 2.403.0

2.803.20

Average Lighting Power Densities, Actual Versus Allowed for 61 Stores Surveyed

5.94

5.02

2.84

Washington Code LPD Versus Title -24




3030

Washington Code Pass/Fail Versus Title -24


WA 2010WA 3.0Comparing Compliance Results for the 61 Stores Surveyed

22

27

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

05

39

24

37

T24-08

27

25

36





31

Computer Modeling & Cost Analysis

● Display Lighting Mounting Heights

● Ceramic Metal Halide Cost Analysis

● LED Test Model for Display Lighting

● AGI-32 Detail Models● Basic Small Retail● Up-Scale Retail● Precious Jewelry





32

Computer Modeling & Cost Analysis

● Special effects & Decorative Lighting● Incandescent versus CFL chandelier● Incandescent versus CFL & LED pendant● Incandescent versus Halogen sconce ● Fluorescent versus LED luminous panels

● Automated advanced lighting controls for small retail space




3333

AGI-32 Model Various Mounting Heights

Computer Modeling – Display Lighting

33

10 – Ft: 248 FC 55W HIR

10 – Ft: 317 FC 23W CMH

15 – Ft: 214 FC 39W CMH

20 – Ft: 292 FC 70W CMH

• CMH Versus Halogen IR at 10 Feet• Equivalent CMH Performance at 15 Feet and 20 Feet




3434

Ceramic Metal Halide Versus Halogen IR

Cost Analysis – Display Lighting

34

Criteria Used Halogen IR base (T-24 2008 model)

2008 TDV analysis

Time line - 7 years

Low volume luminaire and lamp purchases

• All but 20W Dedicated CMH Cost Effective at 7 Years




3535

Cost Analysis – Display Lighting

35

Ceramic Metal Halide Versus Halogen IR• 20W Dedicated CMH also Cost Effective at 15 Years

Criteria Used Halogen IR base (T-24 2008 model)

2008 TDV analysis

Time line - 15 years

Low volume luminaire and lamp purchases




3636

LED Testing – Display Lighting

36

25W CMH 10deg550FC

12W LED D 10deg390FC

13W LED C 10deg470FC

12W LED B10deg490FC

11W LED A7deg430FC

47W Halogen9deg

110FC

LED PrototypesLED PrototypesVersus CMH & HalogenVersus CMH & Halogen




37373737

MODEL STATISTICS Ambient: 40 FC Walls: 1:1 / 1:2 Ratio Display: 5 to 1 Ratio

AGI-32 Model Various Technology Solutions

Computer Modeling – Basic Small Retail

MODELPERFORMANCEW Sq. Ft.

T24-08 Allowed: 3.65

T24-08 Base: 2.81

CMH Model: 1.53 LED/T5 Model: 1.36




38383838


Computer Modeling – Upscale Retail

MODEL STATISTICS Ambient: 25 FC Walls: 1:1 / 1:2 Ratio Display: 10 to 1 Ratio

MODEL PERFORMANCE W Sq. Ft. T24-08 Allowed: 3.65

T24-08 Base: 3.59 CMH Model: 2.47 LED/T5 Model: 2.19




39393939


Computer Modeling – Upscale Jewelry

MODEL STATISTICS Ambient: 25 FC Walls: 1:1 / 1:2 Ratio Case Tops 1:3 Ratio Display: 10 to 1 Ratio

MODEL PERFORMANCEW Sq. Ft.

T24-08 Allowed: 4.26

T24-08 Base: 4.12 CMH/LED Model: 2.27




40404040

CFL Versus Incandescent Chandelier & Sconce

Technology Modeling – Special Effects Lighting

MODEL STATISTICS Sconce: 2-40W-A vs. 2-15W CFL Chandelier: 4-100W-A vs. 4-29W CFL




41414141

LED & IR Halogen Versus Incandescent Decorative


MODEL STATISTICS

Pendent: Incandescent: 1-40W-A19 Fluorescent: 1-10W CFL LED: 1- 7W LED module




42424242

LED Versus Fluorescent Luminous Panel


MODEL STATISTICS

Luminous Panel 4 Ft. X 12 Ft. Fluorescent: 180W Linear T8 LED: 72W 4-LED modules




43

LPD Recap

General Lighting:Floor Display:Wall Display:Valuable Display:

0.52W1.0W6.2W

11.0W

ADVANCED LIGHTING CONTROLS ANALYSIS MODEL

Store Type: 2500 Square Foot Soft Merchandising

Lighting Controls Cost-effectiveness




44

LPD Recap

General Lighting:Floor Display:Wall Display:Valuable Display:

0.52W1.0W6.2W

11.0W

Lighting Controls Cost-effectiveness

● Advanced Controls Versus Basic Time Clock● Modeled 2500 foot simple retail space● Includes multi task/zone and multi level control

with sensors and load shed ability

● Cost-effectiveness Recap and Summary

Annual Savings Using Advanced Controls

$1,946.22

Cost over Minimum Control (Time Cock) $4,200.00

SIMPLE PAYBACK PERIOD 2.2 Years




Specifics of Code Change Proposals

45

● Remove Most Space Types from Tailored Except:● Retail, Museums, Hotels, Dinning, Groceries, Worship, Mall Atria, Religious and Convention/Conference

● Merge Common Space Types Under Tailored● Hotel, Dinning, Convention/Conference into Hospitality

● Retail Merchandise, Groceries and Dining into Retail





46

EXAMPLE: Adjustments to Area Category for Functions Removed from Tailored Compliance

Primary Function T24-2008 T42-2011

Classrooms, Lecture, Training 1.2W Sq. Ft. 1.2W Sq. Ft.*5 *6

Food Service: Kitchen & Food Prep 1.6W Sq. Ft. 1.0W Sq. Ft.*7

Library Reading Areas 1.2W Sq. Ft. 1.2W Sq. Ft.*8

Stacks 1.5W Sq. Ft 1.5W Sq. Ft

*5: 10W per lineal foot of whiteboards and bulletin boards (non illuminated)

*6: Additional 0.6W square foot for science labs over work/task surfaces

*7: Additional 0.8W for task areas for Butcher Shop, Food Display, work tops, etc.

*8: Additional 0.5W for ornamental and/or effects lighting





47

Hospitality Functions

Convention/Conference

Dinning Area

Hotel Function Area

Hotel Lobby

Main Entry (other)

Illumination Category

Wall Display

Floor Display Ornamental & Special Effect

D 2.5 0.4

0.5B 1.5 0.6

D 2.25 0.2

C 3.15 0.2

C - 0.2

EXAMPLE: Merge Convention/Conference, Dinning, Hotel into Hospitality Category





48

● Wall Display LPD lowered from 17.0W to 15.0W

● Logic for recommendation● Achievable with use of high efficiency T5 and CMH

lamping.● CMH not required to reach compliance in lower ceilings

and/or at lower light levels

● Designs desiring significantly higher illumination or with high ceilings must use CMH





49

● Floor Display LPD lowered from 1.2W to 1.0W

● Logic for recommendation● 2008 Model (Mom & Pop) allows for RP-2 compliant

lighting without use of CMH● 2008 Model more representative of typical

strip/independent retail space.● Lower General lighting LPD in 2008 model can

supplement accent allowing 48-55W/IR versus CMH

● Designs with less efficient general lighting and desired higher light levels must use CMH





50

● Effects LPD lowered from 0.7W to 0.5W

● Logic for recommendation● 2008 Model based on standard incandescent (100W A

lamps and 40W candelabras)● CFL and LED lighting cost effective for many decorative

and effects lighting applications● Array of decorative halogen lamps now available (40W

can be replaced with 25W halogen in candelabra base)

● Valuable merchandise area LPD lowered from 1.0W to 0.8W and valuable tops from 16W to 12W

● Same rational as for floor display LPD reductions





51

Proposed Code Language – Retail CMH Model with (Cap)

Tailored LPD’s T24-08 T24-11 T24-11 Mounting Height Factor and CAP

General Lighting 0.9W sq. ft. 0.9W sq. ft. Possible Adjustments to Mounting Height Factors

Maximum Allowed Cap5.0W Placeholder

Floor Display 1.2W sq. ft. 1.0W sq. ft.

Wall Display 17W lin. ft. 14W lin. ft.

Effects Lighting 0.7W sq. ft. 0.5W sq. ft.

Valuable Mech. Area

1W sq. ft. 0.8W sq. ft.

Valuable Mech. Tops

16W sq. ft. 12W sq. ft.

Tailored LPD CAP None 5.0W




Remaining Data Collection & Analysis

52

● Review Area Method Compliance

● Adjustments to Area Compliance

● Additional Modeling

● T24 Versus ASHRAE/IES 90.1 2010

● Re-Evaluate IESNA Criteria

● Stakeholder Requests




53

Review Area Compliance

● Review Area Compliance Impact with Reference to Potential New Criteria● Application and technologies changes

● IESNA Handbook 10th Addition & RP-2 2010




54

Title 24-08/11 Versus ASHRAE 90.1 2010

● Code Compliance Comparison and Evaluation● Current T24-08 compliance versus

ASHRAE/IES 90/1 2010 ● Proposed T24-11 compliance versus

ASHRAE/IES 90/1 2010




55

Adjustments to Area Compliance

● Modify Area Compliance to Address Items Deleted from Tailored Method● Expanded space type categories as

needed to accommodate prior Tailored items

● Add wattage (use it / lose it) allowances for layers previously in tailored compliance




56

Additional Modeling

● Big Box & High Atrium Re-Evaluation● T24-2008 models (AGI-32 modeling)

● Re-run LPD’s with current technologies● Evaluate using new IESNA RP-2 standards

● Model Additional Area Compliance Spaces● Retail store area category spaces

● Department stores, groceries, drug and office

● Technologies and IESNA RP-2 2010 impact● Other area category spaces

● Technologies and IESNA Handbook 10th Addition impact




57

Re-Evaluate IESNA Criteria

● IESNA Handbook 10th Addition● New illuminance categories

● Cross reference to 9th addition handbook● T24 to use 9th addition if 10th not issued soon

● Changes in recommended illumination● Aging Eye component● Other variations from 9th Addition standards

● IESNA RP-2 Retail Lighting Practice● Lower illumination for some spaces

● Big Box, Grocery and Warehouse among others● Lower display window illumination (especially

nighttime)




58

Specific Stakeholder Requests

● Sources for Additional Data● Stakeholder Documentation

● Additional design templates for AGI-32 computer models from designer stakeholders

● Technical and performance lamp/luminaire data and costs from manufacturer stakeholders

● Stakeholder field studies● Participate with interested stakeholders in

technology testing and field evaluation (similar to the LED accent light testing presented)



NR3 – Indoor Lighting

59

QUESTIONS & COMMENTS

??

Lighting Stakeholder Meeting #2

Documents

Transcript of Lighting Stakeholder Meeting #2