February 4 -Prof Marc Fontoynont Talk

I found Professor Marc Fontoynont's talk to be provocative and refreshing due to his European perspective and research on daylighting and lighting design. As stringent as our lighting energy codes are here in the US and especially here in Seattle, it was refreshing to hear Marc talk about some of the radical LPD reductions being proposed for countries in Europe. His research on occupant lighting use and how daylight modifies lighting use was fascinating. He is doing physical and computer models on the next generation of lighting systems that will meet the new European standards and part of this research has found that lighting use can actually increase at 9ft - 15ft from the window due to the need to compensate for daylight shadowing on the work surface. He went on to talk about the total-cost-of-ownership for lighting systems. His work on developing standards for LED systems, especially as it relates to color rendering, was equally fascinating. His studies found that people preferred color attractiveness (vibrancy) over naturalness. But what really excited me were the lighting projects done by his lighting consultant firm Ingelux (http://www.ingelux.com/). From their comprehensive daylighting and lighting work done for lighting the Mono Lisa, to upgrading the lighting at the Eiffel Tower, it was all incredibly impressive. I appreciated that he also shared images of the Lyon, France annual light festival "Fête des Lumières" which he has supported and participated in for years. Overall, this was a world class lighting presenter with a unique perspective on a vast range of lighting issues.

Jim Benya's Cooments on ASHRAE/IES/USGBC STANDARD 189.1

Here is an update.

The Committee met in Chicago during ASHRAE winter meetings 1-27 and 1-28. This was the official first meeting of the newly seated chair and committee. With respect to committee membership, I am sad to report that the committee does not include any practicing architects and an AIA representative told me that they were frustrated with the process. Indeed. I found there to be WAY too many mechanical engineers, many not practicing but academic, regulatory or corporate. I am not sure what to do about this other than complain to the sponsors about the lousy membership distribution and relevance.

Since the meeting, there has been a flurry of activity with the committee broken down into chapter working groups. The chapters are organized much like LEED, e.g. sustainable sites, indoor environmental quality, etc. I receive literally over 50 emails a day from committee members. The vast majority of the proposed changes and improvements focus on mechanical issues. I have taken on the lighting related issues (of course) as well as the metering issue. A summary of my issues:

1. Change the Dark Sky requirements to the Model Lighting Ordinance. The MLO is a good system that reasonably prevents offsite impacts but leaves lighting design to the lighting designer.

2. Simplify the daylighting requirements. The original language required far too much calculating. A simple fenestration to area formula is all that is needed. Again leave the design to the designer.

3. Simplify the energy code impacts to allow for designs that demonstrate 20% better than code, or better yet. Allow the use of lighting controls to reduce energy and begin to get away from a power code.

4. Change the metering requirements to require disaggregated (lighting, mechanical, process/plug load, etc.) metering as a function of service size; require management quality metering (5% accuracy); provide publicly accessible data on building performance such as a dashboard in the lobby.

5. Requiring lighting controls in excess of code should be required but to do this properly, definitions of building types must be added. Blanket requirements (e.g. a motion sensor in every room) is incomplete, unsafe and may not even be applicable in certain space and use types.

As an overarching concern, I feel that this Standard was not well designed for actual use. If there was a design! At present, it affects building codes, energy codes, planning and zoning ordinances, appliances and building operating matters. How the world will use this is not presently answerable. I have proposed that the Standard be divided as follows:

· An OVERLAY model code affecting building and energy. An OVERLAY code is one which requires measures and provisions more stringent than the normal code under which the project is governed. It should fit over 90.1, Title 24, IECC and other state codes, not just 90.1. This code can be adopted by large jurisdictions, e.g. state level.

· An OVERLAY model ordinance affecting planning and zoning. These are not building codes and are administered on the local community level.

· A Recommended Practice for Outfitting, Operating, Maintaining and Metering the project once the Certificate of Occupancy (CofO) is granted.

As a final concern, it appears that ASHRAE wants this document voted out on the street for public review after the 2 day meeting in LA 2-23 and 2-24. Given my concerns I intend to speak out strongly about the above issues and if needed, vote against racing a bad document to the public. ASHRAE should have learned from 90.1-1989 and it appears not. I am not sure of the politics of the situation other than ASHRAE leadership feeling pressure to get this done. I’ll follow up shortly with more information.

James R Benya, PE, FIES, FIALD, LC
Principal

Benya Lighting Design

Member of the International Lighting Alliance

3491 Cascade Terrace
West Linn OR 97068
(503) 657-9157
Fax (503) 742-1933
Nationwide Cell (503) 519-9631
www.benyalighting.com

45-Day Public Review of Standard 189P

A proposed new standard that will provide minimum guidelines for green building practices is nearly complete and has been released for public review and comment. Comments will be accepted through July 9, 2007 at www.ashrae.org/publicreviews. The standard is being developed by the (ASHRAE) in conjunction with (IESNA) and the U.S. Green Building Council and will be the first of its kind in the United States.

We must respond to the lighting section of this proposal! It is only energy related and includes no provisions for visual quality, nor does it advocate for qualified lighting professionals to be involved in the design process.

Standard 189P (Standard for the Design of High-Performance Green Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings) will provide a baseline for sustainable design, construction, and operations in order to drive green building into mainstream building practices. It will apply to new commercial buildings and major renovation projects, and will address key areas of performance including energy efficiency, greenhouse gas emissions, sustainable site selection, water usage, materials and resources, and indoor environmental quality.

"Standard 189P will become the benchmark for all sustainable green buildings in the United States because it is being developed for inclusion into building codes," said committee chair John Hogan, chair of the Standard 189P Project Committee. "This means that owners and designers will have a consensus-based document that will set the minimum criteria that a building must satisfy in order to be considered a green building. The real impact of Standard 189P is that ASHRAE, along with IESNA and USGBC, is taking advanced energy conservation guidance mainstream for the general public's benefit."Hogan also noted that the standard is not a building rating system per se, but rather a compilation of criteria that must be met in order for local building code officials to provide a Certificate of Occupancy for a facility.

Seattle Energy Code -Update

This Thursday January 18 we presented a Seattle Energy Code update by John Hogan, Senior Code Development Analyst for the Seattle Department of Design, Construction and Land Use.
John focused on the lighting energy section of the code and the cities attempt to reduce the allowable lighting energy use by 10% beyond ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-2004.
Throughout the discussion there was not much disagreement with the proposal, mainly questions in regards to its impact on the use of certain lamps and equipment, as well as clarification regarding the LPD in specific spaces.

The question is: have we reached a threshold where we are compromising lighting quality in order to save lighting energy?

Specification Trail 3 Comments

What were your thoughts about the Specification Trail forum that we held last month?