electricity savings estimates residential interior lighting · 2019. 12. 31. · global warming...

Mid-night six cars in structure

Unoccupied Parking Lot Lighting

6:30am building unoccupied

Architectural design award building

30

RESEARCH INNOVATION PARTNERSHIP 633 Pena Drive, Davis, CA, 95618 | cltc.ucdavis.edu | PH: 530-747-3838, FAX:530-747-3812

California Lighting

Technology Center, UC Davis

Michael Siminovitch

Rosenfeld Chair in Energy Efficiency

Director, California Lighting Technology Center

Professor, Department of Design

RESEARCH INNOVATION PARTNERSHIP 633 Pena Drive, Davis, CA, 95618 | cltc.ucdavis.edu | PH: 530-747-3838, FAX:530-747-3812

Mission

To accelerate the development and

commercialization of energy-efficient lighting

and daylighting technologies in partnership

with utilities, manufacturers, end users,

builders, designers, researchers, academics,

and governmental agencies.

MISSION-DRIVEN ACTIVITIES:

• Research & Development

• Demonstration & Outreach

• Education & Training

Electricity Savings Estimates

Source: CLTC calculations

Other Critical Legislation

LEGISLATION DESCRIPTION

Global Warming

Solutions Act

(AB 32, 2006)

Reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.

Huffman Bill

(AB 1109, 2007)

Reduce lighting energy consumption by more than 50% from 2007 residential levels

and 25% from 2007 commercial levels by 2018.

The Energy

Independence &

Security Act

(2007)

Eliminated from the market most of the remaining commonly used types of T-12 linear

fluorescent lamps (by 7/14/2012). The magnetic ballasts required to operate those

lamps were phased out beginning 7/2010. The bill also began a phase-out of

traditional 100, 75 and 60 watt lamps, establishing a mandated 25% reduction in

energy use beginning in January, 2012.

Comprehensive

Energy Efficiency

Program for

Existing Buildings

(AB 758)

Requires the California Energy Commission to develop and implement a

comprehensive program to achieve greater energy savings in the California’s existing

residential and nonresidential building stock. The primary focus of this program is on

those buildings that fall significantly below the efficiency required by Title 24.

Electricity Savings Estimates: Commercial Interior Lighting

Source: CLTC calculations

l

-5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020

Ligh

tin

g El

ect

rici

ty S

avin

gs

2007 - 2012 estimated savings to date

2012 - 2018 commercial interior projected savings based on currrent trends

2007 - 2012 outdoor savings to date

2012 - 2018 outdoor projected savings based on recent trends

2018 GOAL = 25% Savings

Adaptive Corridors

• Typically illuminated continuously

• Intermittent occupancy

• Occupancy-based control

– 100% during occupancy

– 50% or less during vacancy

– 40-50% savings

• Case studies to date

– Commercial

– Educational

• Possible future work

– Hospitality

– Health care

Corridor Occupancy: UCSB

• Occupancy rates for 50 corridors across 11 buildings on UCSB campus

• Occupancy ranged from 2.6% to 23.0%

• Average occupancy of 10.8% across all buildings

• 12.3% corridor occupancy in first floors, 8.9% elsewhere

Case Study: UCSF

• Corridors within Medical

Sciences Buildings and

Medical Center

• Demonstration install in three

corridors to demonstrate three

retrofit options

• Corridor occupancy rate:

12%, 14% and 16%

• Energy use reduction of 62%,

68% and 53% respectively

Case Study: UCSF Mount Zion Medical Center

• Incumbent 2-lamp T8 fluorescent luminaires

• Tuned to 20% of full lighting power when

space is vacant and 70% when occupied

• Payback with CS/CSU/IOU Energy Efficiency Partnership incentives:

1.2 years, 6.6 years and 2.5 years respectively

Lutron Energi TriPak System

17 luminaires on 3rd floor

12% occupancy

62% annual reduction in energy use

Enlighted Wireless Control System

19 luminaires on 4th floor

14% occupancy

53% annual reduction in energy use

WattStopper Digital Lighting

Management System (DLM)

17 luminaires on 11th floor

16% occupancy

53% annual reduction in energy use

Case Study: UCSF

Technology

System Size

(Nominal W)

Annual Energy

Consumption (kWh)

Annual Energy

Cost

Energy Cost Over

15 Years

Total 15-year Cost

for All Fixtures

Incumbent 49 420 $59 $885 $15,045

Lutron Energi TriPak

14 (low)

49 (high) 160 $22 $330 $5,610

Savings 62% 260 $37 $555 $9,435

Technology

System Size

(Nominal W)

Annual Energy

Consumption (kWh)

Annual Energy

Cost

Energy Cost Over

15 Years

Total 15-year Cost

for All Fixtures

Incumbent 48 420 $59 $885 $16.815

Enlighted

10 (low)

50 (high) 136 $19 $285 $5,415

Savings 68% 284 $40 $600 $11,400

Technology System Size

(Nominal W) Annual Energy

Consumption (kWh) Annual Energy

Cost Energy Cost Over

15 Years Total 15-year Cost

for All Fixtures

Incumbent 48 420 $59 $885 $12,390

WattStopper DLM 14 (low)

67 (high) 199 $28 $420 $5,880

Savings 53% 221 $31 $465 $6,510

Case Study: Latham Square, Oakland, CA

• Commercial office building in

downtown Oakland

• Case study install on 12 floors, replacing

175 corridor luminaires

• Corridor occupancy rate: 8%

• 86% reduction in energy use

Case Study: Latham Square, Oakland CA

• Fixtures: UA Retrofit Shielding Kit by A.L.P. Lighting Components

– 86 W 3-lamp T8 fluorescent fixtures replaced with 64W 2-lamp T8

• Controls: Energi TriPak system by Lutron

– Lutron EcoSystem H-Series ballasts, Radio Powr Savr occupancy/vacancy sensors, wireless PowPak dimming modules, and wireless controls

• Payback w/ Oakland Shines + PG&E rebate: 6 months

• Payback w/ PG&E rebate: 3 years 4 months

Technology System Size

(Nominal W)

Annual Energy

Consumption

(kWh)

Annual

Energy

Cost

Annual

Maintenance

Cost

Total

Annual

Cost

Lifecycle

Energy

Cost

Lifecycle

Maintenance

Cost

Total

Life

Cycle

Cost

Total Life-

Cycle Cost

for All

Fixtures

Incumbent 86 752 $105 $5 $110 $503 $24 $528 $92,338

Lutron

Controls 7 (low)

68 (high) 561 $78 $3 $375 $375 $16 $392 $68,535

Savings 191 $27 $2 $28 $128 $8 $136 $28,803

Case Study: Bainer Hall, UC Davis

• Three interior corridors in

university building

• Demonstration install in three

corridors with three different

retrofit options

• Average corridor

occupancy rate: 18%

• Average energy savings of 73%

Case Study: Bainer Hall, UC Davis

• Three retrofit options for

incumbent 4-lamp T8

fluorescent luminaires

– Luminaire replacement with LaMar

Lighting DROS pendants with integrated

ultrasonic occupancy sensors

– Addition of WattStopper microwave

occupancy sensor and Sylvania

bi-level ballast

– Addition of Zoned Acuity Sensor Switch

passive infrared occupancy sensor with

Sylvania bi-level ballast and Adura

Tehcnologies wireless controls

• Payback without incentives:

4.5 to 8 years

Case Study: Bainer Hall, UC Davis

Technology System Size

(Nominal W)

Annual Energy

Consumption

(kWh) Annual

Energy Cost

Annual

Maintenance

Cost Total Annual

Cost

Lifecycle

Energy

Cost

Lifecycle

Maintenance

Cost

Total

Life

Cycle

Cost

Incumbent 124 1,086 $139 $53 $192 $2,086 $788 $2,874

Sensor

Switch/Adura

Controls 35 302 $39 $33 $72 $580 $488 $1,068

Savings 784 $100 $20 $120 $1,506 $300 $1,806

Technology System Size

(Nominal W)

Annual Energy

Consumption

(kWh) Annual

Energy Cost

Annual

Maintenance

Cost Total Annual

Cost

Lifecycle

Energy

Cost

Lifecycle

Maintenance

Cost

Total

Life

Cycle

Cost

Incumbent 118 1,034 $132 $53 $185 $1,985 $788 $2,773

LaMar

Luminaires 26 231 $30 $33 $63 $444 $488 $932

Savings 803 $102 $20 $122 $1,541 $300 $1,841

Technology System Size

(Nominal W)

Annual Energy

Consumption

(kWh) Annual

Energy Cost

Annual

Maintenance

Cost Total Annual

Cost

Lifecycle

Energy

Cost

Lifecycle

Maintenance

Cost

Total

Life

Cycle

Cost

Incumbent 121 1,060 $136 $53 $189 $2,035 $788 $2,823

WattStopper

Controls 34 293 $38 $33 $71 $563 $488 $1,051

Savings 767 $98 $20 $118 $1,472 $300 $1,772

Adaptive Stairwells

• Typically illuminated continuously

• Low rate of occupancy

• Fluorescent or LED

• Integrated sensors or networked controls

• Occupancy-based control

– 100% during occupancy

– 50% or less during vacancy

• Case studies to date demonstrate energy savings up to 80%

Case Study: UC and CSU Campuses

• Installed bi-level stairwell

luminaire by LaMar Lighting to

replace various incumbent

luminaires

• Demonstrated in variety of UC

and CSU locations

• 1% to 29% occupancy rate

• 20% to 66% energy savings

from occupancy sensing

• 50% average energy savings

Photo: LaMar Lighting

Case Study: UC and CSU Campuses

LaMar Voyager Bi-Level (VOB) Fixture

Case Study: UC Davis

• 999 LED units installed

• Assumed 20% occupancy rate

• 22W high/5W low

• PIR sensor times out after 5 minutes

• Energy use reduction: 85%

Photo: On-Q Lighting

Case Study: UC Davis

Incumbent technology:

Lamp Type Quantity Lamp Power

(W)

Average Lifetime (Hours)

CFL 13w 143 13 10,000

CFL 20w 2 20 10,000

CFL 26w 39 26 10,000

CFL 28w 10 28 10,000

CFL 32w 69 32 10,000

CFL 42w 39 42 10,000

F17T8 70 17 20,000

F25T8 3 25 20,000

F32T8 598 32 20,000

F54 -T5 HO 32 54 20,000

FO35T8 4 35 20,000

HPS 50w 4 50 24,000

MH 175w 8 175 12,000

1,021 incumbent = 496,600 kWh

999 replacement = 73,510 kWh

$53,771 per year

RESEARCH INNOVATION PARTNERSHIP 633 Pena Drive, Davis, CA, 95618 | cltc.ucdavis.edu | PH: 530-747-3838, FAX:530-747-3812

CLTC Exterior Lighting Projects

Michael Siminovitch

Rosenfeld Chair in Energy Efficiency

Director, California Lighting Technology Center

Professor, Department of Design

RESEARCH INNOVATION PARTNERSHIP 633 Pena Drive, Davis, CA, 95618 | cltc.ucdavis.edu | PH: 530-747-3838, FAX:530-747-3812

UC Davis Campus

Complete June 2012

1600+ connected points

Multiple exterior applications Street lighting

Pathway lighting

Wall packs

Monitoring, early results Wall packs = 87% savings, occupancy rate = 20%

First: Bi-level parking structures in 2010

6

6

All TAPS parking structures and lots were converted to

bi-level induction (and some LED) saving 60–80%.

UC Davis LED Networked Outdoor Lighting

• 1500+ connected points

of exterior lighting

• Direct monitoring and control

of individual luminaires

• Automatic adaptation to

environmental changes – Daylight levels

– Occupancy / vacancy

– Direction of travel

– Street surface reflectance

– Fixture case temperature

• Multiple exterior applications – Street

– Pathway

– Post top

– Wall packs

6

8

Results: Wall Packs

• Tech specs:

– 101 42W 0-10V dimming LED wall packs with wireless controllers

and PIR sensors

– High mode: 42W, Low mode: 14.8W

• Energy savings: 85%

• Annual energy consumption: 9,302 kWh (before 62,115 kWh)

• Average occupancy rate: 28%

Results: Post tops

• Tech specs:

– 45W LED engines with 0-10V multi-level, wireless controllers and

PIR sensors in a collar on each unit

– High mode: 45W

– Low mode: 15W

• 86 installed

• Average occupancy rate: 40%

• Energy savings: 87%

Results: Pathway

• Tech specs:

– 0-10V dimmable LED luminaires with a wireless controller and an

occupancy sensor

– High mode: 90W

– Low mode: 40W

• 825 installed

• Average occupancy rate: 43%

• Energy savings: 84%

7

6

Pathway luminaires, April 24, 2012:

Preliminary data gathered from the pathway leading to the University’s

new Aggie Stadium reports an average energy savings of 60% as

compared to a static installation of the same fixture.

Results: Pathway

Controls added an additional

46% energy use reduction

As compared to

static LED luminaires

“All canopy PV installations in parking/area applications

shall employ bi-level adaptive lighting solutions consistent

with Title 24 section 130.2 (c).”

SMART LIGHTING INITIATIVE

• 5,300 Acre Campus

• +/- 1,100 Buildings; Over 12M sq. ft.

• 34,000 Students

• Many constructed in 50s, 60s, and 70s

• With the typical old building issues

• Peak electricity: High 40s MW

• Annual use: +/- 250M KwHr

• Approximately 20% of electric energy is for lighting

• Flat electricity rate. Low with no time of use

penalties

• Added 20% of new facilities in the past 20 years

• 2012 Campus electrical use was same as 1993 use

Exterior Lighting

4.5M KWH

Other Campus

Electricity Use

200M KWH

Interior Lighting

45.9M KWH

ABOUT UC DAVIS

SMART LIGHTING INITIATIVE

• 1997 Lighting Lamp Replacement

• 2006 Monitoring Base Commissioning

• 2009-2012 Statewide Energy Partnership Program (SEPP)

• 2013-2015 Extended SEPP

• New building/Renovations: 25% better than T-24, Part 6

• 16MW Solar Array - Construction phase

• Smart Lighting Initiative – In progress

UC DAVIS ENERGY REDUCTION INITIATIVES HIGHLIGHTS

SMART LIGHTING INITIATIVE

Issues:

• Lack of lighting metering

• Working in occupied spaces

• Delivery method

• Ever changing technology

• Strategic phasing plan

• Funding challenges

GETTING STARTED

Processes:

• Gathered previous efforts

• Inventory of space types

• Design Build delivery method

• CLTC guide with technology

• Blending project types

• Financing

SMART LIGHTING INITIATIVE

Free standing:

• 3 parking structures – completed

• More than 50 surface parking lots - completed

• 4200 freestanding pole-mounted lights – In progress

• HPS/Metal Halide bulbs

• Old underground conduits and wires

• +/- 4.5 M KwHr annual electricity use

Building mounted:

• Over 1,000 building mounted lights

EXTERIOR LIGHTING OVERVIEW

SMART LIGHTING INITIATIVE

Goals:

• Fully dimmable LEDs

• Occupancy sensor at each fixture

• Wireless RF controls

• Addressable control system

• Remotely accessible with friendly control language

Phase 1- completed:

• Adaptive lighting control

• Fully dimmable Phillips LED shoebox fixtures

• Lumewave controls – bleeding-edge tech shift to cutting-edge

• wireless RF with occ sensors and fully addressable

• Half of our pole-mounted lights

• Energy Savings: 70% of baseline

A nationally recognized project

EXTERIOR LIGHTING OVERVIEW

SMART LIGHTING INITIATIVE

Lessons learned from Phase 1:

• Dimming fixtures

o Minimizing user impact

o Energy savings

• Remote control capabilities

o Trouble shooting

o Fine tuning

• Training

o Installers

o O&M

Phase 2:

• Remaining pole-mounted lights

• Project in bid phase

EXTERIOR LIGHTING OVERVIEW

SMART LIGHTING INITIATIVE

Exterior Lighting Summary

Exterior Baseline 4,500,000 kWh/yr

Exterior Retrofits to Date

Parking Structures 1,030,000

Surface Lots 398,000

SLI Pathways & Roadways Phase 1 1,320,000

Exterior Building Wall Packs Phase 1 57,000

Total: 2,805,000 kWh/yr (62% of baseline)

Exterior Retrofits Proposed

SLI Exterior Phase 2 371,000

SMART LIGHTING INITIATIVE

Phase 1: Completed

• 840 Bathrooms

• Enclosed Stairways: 1,150 fixtures

• Incandescent Light Replacement

• Combined 1 M KwHr with 7 year payback

Phase 2: Construction phase

• 43 Buildings

• 2.5 M sq. ft. of occupied spaces

• 5.5 M KwHr with 12.9 year payback

• Lighting and mechanical system integration

o Estimated reduced payback to 10 years

INTERIOR LIGHTING OVERVIEW

SMART LIGHTING INITIATIVE

Lessons learned from Phase 1 &2 :

• Occupied facilities

o Scheduling

o Minimizing user impact

o Working with users !!

• HVAC integration & remote control capabilities

o Software & programing

o Interconnection abilities

o Remote access and training

o Trouble shooting

o Fine tuning

• Training

o Installers

o O&M

INTERIOR LIGHTING LESSONS

SMART LIGHTING INITIATIVE

Interior Lighting Summary

Interior Baseline 45,900,000 kWh/yr

Interior Retrofits to Date

Major Capital Projects (better than code) 1,342,400

Building Retrofits, SEPP Phase 1 804,500

Individual SEPP & Housing Projects 988,500

SLI Phase 1 966,000

SLI Phase 2 (target in contract) 5,582,000

Total: 9,683,400 kWh/yr (21% of baseline)

Interior Retrofits Proposed

SLI Phase 3 5,500,000

SLI Phase 4 5,800,000

SMART LIGHTING INITIATIVE THANKS TO OUR PARTNERS

UC D

avis

• Energy Efficiency Center

•California Lighting Technology

•Sustainability Office

•Associated Student Body

• Facilities Management

•Capital Resource Management

•Design & Construction Management

Entities

•California Public Utilities Commission

• Pacific Gas & Electric

•California Energy Commission

•Microsoft

Constr

uction

•Smart Watt

• Lumewave

• Phillips Lighting

•Associated Lighting Representatives

•Watt Stopper

• Peters Engineering

•Affiliated Engineers

•Newcomb Anderson McCormick

• TRC

UC Davis Entities Construction

Electricity Savings Estimates: Residential Interior Lighting

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Res

iden

tia

Inte

rio

r Li

ghti

ng

Elec

trci

tity

Sav

ings

2007 - 2012 estimated savings to date

2012-2018 projected savings from recent trends

2012-2018 projected savings needed to reach goals

2018 GOAL = 50% Savings

27% additional savings needed to meet goal

Source: CLTC calculations

l

What is Quality Specification?

Quality Specification: Key Points

• Developed by California Energy Commission

and California Public Utilities Commission

• Requires LED lamps meet certain product performance criteria to

receive utility rebates

and incentives

• Purpose:

– Accelerate consumer adoption of LED lamps

Quality Specification: Criteria

• Quality Specification criteria is based on:

– Color of lamp’s light

– Consistency over time

– Color rendering accuracy

– Continuous dimming capabilities

LED A-Lamps’ CCT Shift at

Different Dimming Levels

LED Performance Database

LED Performance Database: Features

• Identify which lamps meet the

California Quality standard

• Compare photometric and electrical

measurements

• Search and filter data

• Perform statistical operations

• User-friendly tables and graphs

LED Lamp Specification Comparison

“California Quality” specification for LED lamps exceeds certain Energy Star criteria. These criteria are critical to lighting quality & consumer satisfaction.