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?
posted by Edward Bartholomew, IALD, LC, LEED AP, IES @ 3:23 PM
5 Comments:
On Thursday Feb 1, Edward Bartholomew, Mary Claire Frazier and I attended the public meeting on the energy code at City of Seattle. The items that were of biggest concern are offices moving to .9 watts per SF and retail display moving to 1.2 watts per SF. For those of you doing hotel work it is now 1.0 watts per SF.
We stressed the issue that the cost of new technology is still too high and has a way to go to be a financially vaible option for moving to .9 watts per SF in offices. We need to build a few examples to use for our discussions with DPD by the next review meeing on Feb 15th. Michael Lane is proposing a meeting at the Lighting Design Lab for this week to discuss the energy code. We need as many people to work with us on this as possible.
Michael and I were discussing the energy issue earlier this week that the lighting community has stood to the side watching all of this happening until now that we want to get involved there are others without understanding of lighting controlling the energy issues. We are now the tail trying to wag the dog and need to change that quickly or get left further behind.
I sent out an email last Friday about getting together to discuss the proposed lighting changes to the Seattle Energy Code. This morning I went through the proposed changes and found that DPD is proposing four changes.
1. Changing the office LPA from 1.0 to 0.9 in Table 15-1
2. Changing in footnote 10 the additional LPA from 1.5 to 1.2
3. Adding "ceramic metal halide or other" to item C in footnote 10.
4. New Item 10 in 1512 Exempt Lighting - "Permanently-installed undershelf or undercabinet lighting that has an automatic shutoff control device integral to the luminaires or is automatically controlled by a wall-mounted control device. Other permanently-installed undershelf or undercabinet lighting is not exempt and shall be included when determining compliance with the lighting requirements of Section 1520 through 1522 and Section 1530 through 1532."
Here are my thoughts on the proposed changes.
I assume that there is not a issue with item #3.
Item #1 - I think that it is perfectly feasible to reduce the LPD to 0.9 if there is wording added to Section 1513.3.2, add "when calculating the LPA with dimming ballasts, use 95 initial lumens per watts including ballast factor to determine installed wattage". 95 lumens per watt is the assumption to get to 0.9 W/sf, but the current crop of dimming ballasts can not compete with the new High-Performance non dimming ballasts. Without this exception it will be difficult to meet the LPA and the Daylight controls using dimming ballasts.
Item #2 - I think that this LPA is not representative of retail design and that something similar to what ASHRAE allows should be explored. As of the 2007 version of 90.1 the Additional Power Allowance will be:
Additional Interior Lighting Power Allowance = 1000 watts + (Retail Area 1 x 1.0 W/ft2) + (Retail Area 2 x 1.7 W/ft2) + (Retail Area 3 x 2.6 W/ft2) + (Retail Area 4 x 4.2 W/ft2),
where
Retail Area 1 = the floor area for all products not listed in Retail Area 2, 3 or 4.
Retail Area 2 = the floor area used for the sale of vehicles, sporting goods and small electronics.
Retail Area 3 = the floor area used for the sale of furniture, clothing, cosmetics and artwork.
Retail Area 4 = the floor area used for the sale of jewelry, crystal, and china.
The 1000 watt base allowance (per building) to help with the small stores.
I don't think DPD will agree to these numbers. Maybe if they were reduced to
Additional Interior Lighting Power Allowance = 1000 watts + (Retail Area 1 x 0.6 W/ft2) + (Retail Area 2 x 1.0 W/ft2)
+ (Retail Area 3 x 1.5 W/ft2) + (Retail Area 4 x 2.5 W/ft2),
where
Retail Area 1 = the floor area for all products not listed in Retail Area 2, 3 or 4.
Retail Area 2 = the floor area used for the sale of vehicles, sporting goods and small electronics.
Retail Area 3 = the floor area used for the sale of furniture, clothing, cosmetics and artwork.
Retail Area 4 = the floor area used for the sale of jewelry, crystal, and china.
Item #4
It appears that the basis is a combination of the 90.1 exemption in that states "Furniture mounted supplemental task lighting that is controlled by automatic shutoff" and the reference section that requires the device to have "a control device integral to the luminaire or be controlled by a wall mounted control".
I would change the first sentence to "Permanently-installed undershelf or undercabinet lighting that is controlled by an automatic shutoff control device or is automatically controlled by a wall-mounted control device." The 90.1 exemption was added because some jurisdictions were making designers count plug loads while others were not. The exemption gave the designer in a jurisdiction that made the designer count the plug load an out.
Another alternative path that should also be considered is the annualized lighting energy method. Because many lighting control strategies are not factored in the connected loads LPA charts, looking at the annual lighting energy usage in KWh's would be a way to capture these energy saving by encouraging these control strategies. This would also require an extensive integrated lighting design approach that would achieve greater energy savings over time, while maintaining appropriate light levels. This method has recently been promoted in the LD&A Energy column by Willard Warren and is the standard way in which energy usage is calculated for buildings in Europe. It is a progressive approach that should be considered as an alternate compliance path for our local energy code.
Today, February 7 at 3 pm. a group of concerned lighting professionals will be meeting at the Lighting Design Lab to come up with alternative proposals to the revised lighting section of the Seattle Energy Code.
I invite all concerned lighting professionals to join us for this discussion.
In addition, I believe that our position at the city and state level would be further strengthened by an "IES Puget Sound Lighting Advocate". This could be an IES Puget Sound board position for someone who has knowledge of the intricacies of national and local lighting code issues. This position would knowledgeably advise the WA State energy commission, and local municipal code officials on the viability of proposed lighting code changes and communicate these ideas to the lighting community for feedback and changes. Basically a state and local advocate for lighting who protects our collective interests.
Without an advocate lighting will continue to be the "whipping boy" for energy code officials to extract more and more energy without concern for lighting quality or the ability to safely achieve these savings in a cost effective way.
I like the idea of creating an IES Puget Sound Energy Code/Lighting Advocate or Advocacy Group. The proposed energy code changes are starting to push the limits of standard lighting technology, and we should use our collective knowledge to help DPD strike a balance between lighting quality and stringent energy code policies.
Post a Comment
<< Home