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