|
|
CATEGORY: Content » Articles
By Craig DiLouie, on April 16, 2012
 Utility and regional energy efficiency organization rebates and incentives have been a major driver in demand for energy-efficient lighting and controls since the early 1990s. Today, more than $6 billion in commercial lighting rebates and other incentives are offered by utilities and energy efficiency organizations covering some 80% of the United States.
Currently, rebates and incentives are surging. In 2011, energy efficiency incentive programs totaled $6.8 billion, a 26% increase over 2010 ($5.4 billion), and a 55% increase over 2009 ($4.4 billion), according to the Consortium for Energy Efficiency. Utilities and energy efficiency organizations offer these incentives as a least-cost resource planning strategy based on the understanding that it is more cost-effective to reward customers for reducing demand than to expand supply with costly new power plants.
This animated graphic reveals the strong growth in rebate coverage in the United States since 2009:
Lighting has always played a strong role in utility rebates and incentives. More recently, lighting controls have begun to play a much larger part. In fact, the number of rebate programs available for lighting controls has almost tripled since 2009, covering occupancy and vacancy sensors, photosensors, daylight dimming systems and automatic time-based controls, says Leendert Jan Enthoven, president of BriteSwitch, LLC, a company that facilitates rebate claims for commercial end-users.
He adds that rebates and other incentives covering lighting controls are available in 47 out of the 50 states. The specific types of controls that qualify for rebates vary by program. The most popular control rebate is for occupancy sensors; out of all the control rebates and incentives available, 50% are for remote-mounted occupancy sensors, followed by wallbox occupancy sensors with 23% and fixture-mounted with 14%, according to BriteSwitch.
Average rebates for these and other control solutions is shown in the below table. The average rebate for a wall switch-mounted occupancy sensor is 2012, for example, is $23 in retrofits and $16 in new construction. Since 2009, the rebate amounts per lighting control have remained relatively constant. The rebates are typically either a set dollar amount per type of control, as shown, or per connected watt.
Table. Lighting control rebate and incentive programs in 2012. Source: BriteSwitch, LLC National Rebate and Incentive Database, March 2012.
| Control Technology |
Average Rebate |
| Retrofit |
New Construction |
| Remote Mounted Occupancy Sensors |
$34 |
$26 |
| Wall-box Occupancy Sensors |
$23 |
$16 |
| Photocells |
$23 |
$21 |
| Fixture Mounted Occupancy Sensors |
$20 |
$28 |
| Daylight Dimming Systems |
$46 |
$41 |
“Overall, rebates for lighting controls are more flexible than rebates for lighting products that most people are familiar with,” says Enthoven. “While the programs will outline the general types of controls—wallbox sensor, fixture-mounted sensor, dimming system—they rarely state specifications or performance criteria required for a system. It is more important how you use the control. Programs may have a requirement on how many watts or fixtures are controlled by a certain control. They may also have restrictions on where these sensors can be used, and often do not provide rebates if installed in areas not recommended by local building codes and IES guidelines.”
He cautions any organization applying for rebates to carefully examine program requirements such as design specifics, pre-approval requirements, inspections, expiration dates, rebate minimums and so on.
“Rebates and incentives for controls are out there and available for a large variety of products and projects,” Enthoven concludes. “It is a missed opportunity not to utilize these programs. The incentives can cover a significant portion of the cost of the controls, and when part of a larger lighting retrofit, can amount to a significant reduction in cost.”
By Craig DiLouie, on March 19, 2012
 The International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) is a model residential and commercial building energy code produced by the International Code Council. First published in 1998, the IECC was updated in 2000, 2003, 2006, 2009 and, earlier this year, 2012.
The IECC is actually not a code, but instead a template for legal jurisdictions to use to implement an energy code. These jurisdictions may adopt the IECC in whole, in part or modify it based on local needs.
Today, most states have energy codes based on IECC and the ASHRAE/IES 90.1 energy standard. IECC references ASHRAE/IES 90.1, Energy Standard for Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings, currently the national energy standard, as an alternative standard.
The IECC lists requirements and minimum standards for the design of lighting and other energy-using systems and features of energy-efficient buildings. This article by the Lighting Controls Association describes the basic requirements of the IECC, highlighting major lighting-related changes in the new 2012 version. Note that for each feature described, exceptions may apply; consult IECC 2012 for specific details.
Residential and commercial requirements in the 2012 IECC are more strongly differentiated in two separate sections.
Residential
The residential lighting provisions in the 2012 IECC are relatively simple. Mainly, at least 75% of the lamps in permanent light fixtures must be high-efficacy, defined as T8 or smaller-diameter linear fluorescent lamps, or lamps with a minimum efficacy of 40 lumens/W for <15W, 50 lumens/W for 16-40W, and 60 lumens/W for >40W lamps. In the 2009 IECC, 50% of the lamps were required to be high efficacy.
Commercial
The commercial section of the code contains both mandatory and prescriptive lighting provisions. The mandatory provisions require:
* tandem wiring in certain fluorescent applications;
* maximum wattage for exit signs;
* circuiting for daylight harvesting control; and
automatic shutoff, light level reduction and other controls.
The prescriptive provisions establish limits on lighting power by building and space type, with the designer and owner ultimately deciding how best to accomplish the lighting goals within the power constraint.
Occupancy sensors. Occupancy sensors are now specifically required in a series of spaces, including classrooms, conference/meeting rooms, employee lunch and break rooms, private offices, restrooms, storage rooms, custodial closets, and other enclosed spaces 300 sq.ft. or smaller. The sensor must turn the lights OFF within 30 minutes of vacancy and provide manual-ON or auto-ON-to-<50% operation.
Daylight harvesting. The 2012 IECC follows the 2009 IECC in requiring general lighting in defined daylight zones (areas expected to receive high, consistent daylight levels) to be separately controlled from other general lighting in the space.
While daylight zones define an area of daylight availability and separate control, the system designer then determines on their own how best to zone the lighting for manual or automatic control. IECC 2012 limits the maximum size of these control zones to 2,500 sq.ft. Options for automatic daylight harvesting control include continuous dimming with a 100% to <35% light output range or multilevel controls offering 100%, a step between 50% and 70%, and another step between OFF and 35%.
Additional controls. The 2012 IECC further requires separate control of display and accent lighting from general lighting, supplemental task lighting and others, bringing it more in line with ASHRAE/IES 90.1.
Interior lighting power allowances. The interior lighting power allowances, expressed as W/sq.ft., or lighting power density (LPD), are largely unchanged from the 2009 IECC, with these exceptions:
* 1.0 to 0.9W/sq.ft. for office;
* 1.5 to 1.4W/sq.ft. for retail;
* 0.8 to 0.6W/sq.ft. for warehouse buildings;
* 0.8W/sq.ft. for fire stations, new to the list; and
* reduction from a base of 1000W to 500W for the additional retail lighting power allowance.
With the 2012 version, for the first time, the IECC recognizes the Space by Space Method in addition to the Building Area Method (and Total Building Performance Method, requiring building modeling) as a compliance path, providing greater design flexibility. The IECC Space by Space Method is based on ASHRAE/IES 90.1, but with slight differences in the space types, and with different lighting power allowances for many spaces.
(The Building Area Method specifically requires adding up the installed interior lighting power in an entire building (or major section) and ensuring it is not greater than the single interior lighting power allowance for that building type. The Space by Space Method also compares the total installed lighting wattage in the building, but allows the user to develop the lighting power allowance based on the space type, with each type having its own LPD, and with tradeoffs permitted between spaces.)
Additional energy efficiency measures. Another major change in the IECC is Section C406, Additional Efficiency Package Options, which requires the building to either:
1) optimize HVAC efficiency beyond code;
2) optimize lighting efficiency beyond code; or
3) produce renewable energy onsite.
In this case of lighting, this entails achieving a lower LPD value using the Building Area Method—e.g., 0.99 instead of 1.2W/sq.ft. for school/university buildings, for example.
Readers may obtain a copy of the new 2012 IECC here.
By Craig DiLouie, on February 17, 2012
Stairwells account for about 2% of multistory commercial building floorspace, with an average of one light fixture for each 58 sq.ft. of stairwell, according to the International Facility Management Association. It is trafficked 3-5% of the average day.
This application has emerged as a strong potential opportunity for energy-saving controls. In the near future, in fact, using energy-saving controls in this space will become standard practice due to commercial building energy code requirements.
Although the average stairwell is occupied infrequently and for short periods of time, many building codes require constant illumination for safety.
The Life Safety Code (NFPA 101) requires at least 10 footcandles of light on the stair tread while in use (Section 7.8.1.3). The use of automatic motion sensors is recognized as long as they provide fail-safe operation, turn the lights on upon occupancy, and keep the lights ON for at least 15 minutes after the space becomes unoccupied (Section 7.8.1.2.2).
Lutron Electronics, Lithonia, Philips Day-Brite, Philips Lightolier, LaMar Lighting and Columbia Lighting and other manufacturers now offer stairwell light fixtures with a dimming or switching controller, allowing energy savings to be captured in this application. The fixture operates at a constant low light level (energy-saving mode)—e.g., about 1 footcandle. When an integral or separately mounted occupancy sensor detects that a person has entered the space, it signals the controller to raise light level to code-compliant full brightness (occupied mode)—e.g., 10 footcandles. Some products provide complete shutoff capability for when codes allow it.
 Image courtesy of LaMar Lighting. The result is up to 70-80% energy savings, say manufacturers. The energy savings may have two components: first, the existing fixture may be T12 and replaced with a more-efficient electronic-ballasted T8, T5 or T5HO (or LED) fixture. And second, the occupancy sensor ensures the lights maintain a lower light level during the majority of the time the stairwell is unoccupied.
A 2003 Lighting Research Center study in two new York City buildings demonstrated 53-60% energy savings using this approach. A later Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory study in four California buildings demonstrated 40-60% energy savings. And a Pacific Gas & Electric study at The Fillmore Center in San Francisco demonstrated 66% energy savings.
Stairwell fixtures are available in various lamp lengths and wattages; white or clear prismatic lens; and wall or ceiling mounting. The controller may offer step dimming (single ballast), continuous dimming (single ballast) or bilevel switching (two ballasts) capability, with a choice of low-end light level. The occupancy sensor is either mounted as a part of the fixture or separately with wireless communication between the sensor and the controller, and detects occupancy via passive-infrared (PIR) or ultrasonic technology. Adjustable time delay and emergency battery backup options are typically available. Some products contain a light sensor that maintains the low light level setting during occupancy if there is a high enough light level on the stairs due to daylight contribution from windows and skylights.
The challenge is to ensure that the lights raise to full output during occupancy, a function of avoiding sensor “blind spots” and ensuring the sensor is sensitive enough to raise light output immediately upon occupancy. If using a PIR sensor, note that the sensor must have a line of sight between the sensor and the occupant, and is most sensitive to people moving laterally in front of the sensor. Ultrasonic sensors are more sensitive, do not require a line of sight, and are most sensitive to people moving to and from the sensor. Wireless sensors enable more flexibility in placement, as they are not tied to a specific fixture location.
The Lutron PowPak Stairwell Fixture, for example, uses a Lutron digital continuous dimming ballast preprogrammed to occupied and unoccupied levels, while offering field programming. The fixture receives signals from Lutron’s Radio Powr Savr wireless occupancy sensors via the company’s Clear Connect radio-frequency technology. In this solution, the wireless sensor provides flexibility in placement, ensuring adequate coverage. It raises light level not only for the fixture in the immediate area, but also the floor above and the floor below, providing a relatively seamless experience for the occupant.
 Image courtesy of Lutron Electronics. Energy code standards are beginning to mandate this approach. Section 9.4.1.6(g) of the ASHRAE/IES 90.1-2010 energy standard—the minimum standard for all commercial building energy codes by October 18, 2013 per Department of Energy ruling—lighting in stairwells must “have one or more control devices to automatically reduce lighting power in any one controlled zone by at least 50% within 30 minutes of all occupants leaving that controlled zone.”
Bilevel stairwell lighting offers a simple method of saving energy in new construction and retrofit applications.
By Lighting Controls Association, on February 3, 2012
High bay lighting controls represent a significant opportunity to cut overall energy consumption. Learn more about how they can increase energy savings and reduce wasted energy consumption by downloading a free whitepaper, High Bay Occupancy Sensors: Delivering Energy Savings and Fast Return on Investment, from Sensor Switch free here (PDF).
By Lighting Controls Association, on January 30, 2012
 Implementation of a proper control system for lighting can be critical for a building to earn LEED certification, as energy performance is the largest driver of the points needed to qualify. It is also important to note that more accurate monitoring and control of energy-intensive systems like HVAC and lighting help keep energy costs in check. The use of addressable dimming lighting controls, in particular, can help a building achieve points toward LEED certification, according to OSRAM SYLVANIA Encelium, which has published a free whitepaper, Obtaining LEED Points with Addressable Dimming Controls, on its website for free download here (PDF).
By Craig DiLouie, on January 23, 2012
Although the national economic recovery is now two and a half years old, construction spending has continued to contract. A multitude of factors prevented a recovery for this beleaguered industry in 2011. Lenders that have been extremely reticent to finance construction projects, budget shortfalls at all levels of government, the ripple effect of overbuilding, depletion of Federal Stimulus funds, a depressed housing market and rising costs of key construction commodities all contributed to a decline in spending in 2011 for nonresidential construction projects.
In June 2011, the American Institute of Architects (AIA) semi-annual Consensus Construction Forecast, a survey of the nation’s leading construction forecasters, projected a 5.6% decrease in nonresidential construction spending in 2011 from 2010, followed by a significant rebound with a projected 6.4% increase in spending in 2012.
A weaker than expected economy led to a revision of this forecast in January 2012, with the Consensus Construction Forecast projecting 2.1% growth in nonresidential construction spending in 2012 and 6.4% in 2013. In short, a modest recovery in 2012.
“This past recession, steeper than any other post-war downturn, also has produced one of the weakest recoveries in recent memory,” said AIA Chief Economist Kermit Baker, PhD, Hon. AIA. “The consensus is that we’re not likely to see marked improvement in the growth of our economy during year three of this recovery.”
The Conference Board, the economic organization that produces the Consumer Confidence Index and other economic indices, forecast 1.8% growth for the U.S. economy in 2011, 1.8% in 2012, and 2.2% in 2013.
“Several segments of construction appear to be climbing out of a hole,” noted Associated General Contractors of America’s Chief Economist Ken Simonson, but cautioned that public construction segments faced stiff spending cuts in 2012.
Baker identified four major factors inhibiting demand in the nonresidential construction market:
1. Lingering financial crisis in key European economies, which could throw the U.S. economy back into recession
2. Homebuilding, typically an engine of growth during the early stages of an economic recovery, has remained as unusually low levels
3. Construction financing continues to be difficult to obtain
4. Energy costs are unusually high, threatening inflation
He also noted several upsides:
1. Corporate profits are strong, resulting in an increase in capital spending
2. Borrowing costs remain at record lows
3. U.S. manufacturing is recovering
| Market Segment Consensus Growth Forecast |
Forecast % Change |
| 2012 |
2013 |
| Nonresidential Total |
+2.1% |
+6.4% |
| Commercial Total |
+5.6% |
+11.4% |
| Office |
+4.3% |
+9.6% |
| Retail/Other Commercial |
+5.0% |
+9.9% |
| Hotel |
+10.2% |
+19.7% |
| Industrial Total |
+6.0% |
+10.2% |
| Institutional Total |
-0.1% |
+3.6% |
| Healthcare |
+4.5% |
+5.3% |
| Education |
-1.7% |
+3.1% |
| Religious |
+5.1% |
+6.3% |
| Public Safety |
-3.8% |
+0.3% |
| Amusement/Recreation |
+0.2% |
+6.5% |
Source: AIA Consensus Construction Forecast, calculated as an average of all forecasts provided by the panelists that submit forecasts for each of the above building categories: McGraw-Hill Construction, IHS-Global Insight, Moody’s Economy.com, FMI, Reed’s Construction Data and Associated Builders and Contractors.
This construction outlook reviews the year’s top line construction numbers, shows where leading construction and electrical industry indicators are trending, and provides a summary of the latest AIA Consensus Construction Forecast for 2011.
Construction spending trends
As of November 2011, the Commercial Department estimated U.S. put-in-place construction spending (actual numbers, not seasonally adjusted), was about $725 billion. December numbers were not available as of the time of writing, so the author projected approximately $791 billion for the entire year using some simple math, a decline of 1.6% from 2010.
Source: Commerce Department data
Residential construction spending is projected at $247.5 billion for the year, about the same as 2010. Nonresidential construction spending is projected at $543.2 billion, a 2.1% decline from 2010. While public nonresidential construction spending is projected to decline 2.8% in 2011 to $285 billion as Federal Stimulus funds continue to dry up, private nonresidential construction spending is projected to remain about the same.
Source: Commerce Department data
Looking at the top five nonresidential building construction markets, all were projected to decline in 2011 with the exception for the commercial building market:
• Office spending: projected $34.5 billion, 8% below 2010’s $38 billion
• Commercial spending: projected $43.8 billion, 8.1% above 2010’s 40.5 billion
• Healthcare spending: projected $39.8 billion, about the same as 2010 ($39.9 billion)
• Education spending: projected $85.6 billion, 3% below 2010’s $88.2 billion
• Manufacturing spending: $35.7 billion, 6.3% below 2010’s $38.1 billion
Source: Commerce Department Data
AIA Architecture Billings Index
The American Institute of Architects’ (AIA) Architecture Billings Index (ABI) is a leading economic indicator that provides an approximate 9- to 12-month glimpse into the future of nonresidential construction spending activity.
The ABI is derived from a monthly “work on the boards” survey of hundreds of firms. A score above 50 indicates firms overall are reporting an increase in billing activity, which is suggestive of market expansion.
In December 2011, the ABI was 52, the same as November, again reflecting an overall increase in demand for design services. The monthly new projects inquiry index, meanwhile, was 64, down just one point from 65 the previous month.
“We saw nearly identical conditions in November and December of 2010 only to see momentum sputter and billings fall into negative territory as we moved through 2011, so it’s too early to be sure that we are in a full recovery mode,” said Baker. “Nevertheless, this is very good news for the design and construction industry, and it’s entirely possible conditions will slowly continue to improve as the year progresses.”
NAHB/Wells Fargo Housing Market Index
Builder confidence in the market for newly built, single-family homes has remained in contractionary territory for years, as reflected in the NAHB/Wells Fargo Housing Market Index (HMI)
Derived from a monthly survey that NAHB has been conducting for more than 20 years, the HMI gauges builder perceptions of current single-family home sales and sales expectations for the next six months as “good,” “fair” or “poor.”
Throughout 2011, the HMI remained well below the 50-point threshold suggesting business conditions favorable to positive sales growth. However, the HMI began to trend upward starting in October. The year ended with a score of 21, a much more optimistic finish to the year than 2010. Then in January 2012, builder confidence increased for a fourth consecutive month, rising four points to 25, the highest the index has achieved since June 2007.
“Builders are seeing greater interest among potential buyers as employment and consumer confidence slowly improve in a growing number of markets, and this has helped to move the confidence gauge up from near-historic lows in the first half of 2011,” said NAHB Chief Economist David Crowe. “That said, caution remains the word of the day as many builders continue to voice concerns about potential clients being unable to qualify for an affordable mortgage, appraisals coming through below construction cost, and the continuing flow of foreclosed properties hitting the market.”
NEMA Electroindustry Business Confidence Index
Another forward-looking index is the National Electrical Manufacturer Association (NEMA) Electroindustry Business Confidence Index (EBCI) for current North American conditions. This economic indicator gauges business confidence of the electrical industry in Asia, Europe, North America and Latin America, and is based on the results of a monthly survey of senior managers at NEMA member companies, which represent more than 80% of the electrical industry.
The EBCI for current North American conditions slipped to 52 in December 2011 from 56 in November, but nonetheless cleared the 50-point market above which more panelists than not saw an improved business environment.
Confidence in future conditions, meanwhile, climbed 10 points to a seven-month high of 70, its highest level since May 2011, affirming that expectations for the business environment six months from now remain positive.
By Lighting Controls Association, on January 20, 2012
Designing LED replacement lamps that are compatible with residential dimmers is complex given the diversity in product performance, creating a challenge for manufacturers to design lamps compatibel with a wide range of dimmers. On behalf of ASSIST, the Lighting Research Center investigated dimming performance of a range of LED replacement lamps, CFLs and incandescent lamps and residential dimmers, focusing on min/max light output along the dimming range as well as in-rush and repetitive peak currents.
LRC reported:
“In general, it was found that a lamp’s performance with one dimmer does not predict its performance with another, and that the dimming profile of a single incandescent lamp can vary considerably from one dimmer to the next.”
Click here to see the results of the LRC’s investigation.
By Lighting Controls Association, on January 4, 2012
by Jim Brodrick, Department of Energy
As more and more LED lighting products have come onto the market, one issue that has generated considerable confusion is dimmability. As discrete devices, LEDs are fully dimmable, and as a result the technology has long been touted as being more suitable for dimming than other lighting technologies. Many SSL products come with claims of dimmability, but in practice, many users have encountered problems when trying to dim them, resulting in no small degree of frustration. What’s more, LED sources exhibit other unfamiliar dimming behavior, as they typically do not lose efficacy or shift in color as much as incandescent sources do when they dim.
Why have there been dimming problems with LED lighting products? A big reason is that nearly the entire existing stock of dimmer controls – those already installed in residential, office, and commercial settings – was designed for incandescent lamps, and not for LEDs. That’s important, because the two technologies, in addition to being based on totally different principles, also interact with this installed base of controls quite differently. Electrically, an incandescent lamp is a simple resistor, whose light output is determined by the effective average of the voltage that feeds it, and responds predictably and consistently to the various circuitries used in traditional dimming controls. An LED lamp, on the other hand, consists of not only the chips, but also typically a driver. Separately, and especially together, they comprise something considerably more complicated than a simple resistor – something that is very much affected by nuances in circuit design used in traditional line-voltage dimming controls.
Making LED lighting products dimmable is not an easy task, and is further complicated by a lack of standards. For example, there are no performance standards for making dimmability claims about a product, and thus the term “dimmable” remains vague and undefined. This wasn’t much of a problem with incandescent lamps, which all behave pretty much the same way with dimmers. The National Electrical Manufacturers Association has formed multiple committees focused on improving LED dimming experiences. To date, they have produced an educational white paper, as well as guidance aimed at helping LED product developers improve their dimming compatibility with the installed base of dimmer controls. Additional efforts are still needed to define standard dimming performance evaluation and dimming compatibility testing.
Such efforts are sure to reduce dimming issues, but they likely won’t eliminate them. The bottom line is that successfully dimming an LED lighting product with a familiar line-voltage dimmer control depends on the driver and its compatibility with the dimmer and, for low-voltage circuits, the transformer, too.
The best way to know how or if a product will dim is to test it out – and this means the entire circuit, not just one lamp with one dimmer. That’s because there are minimum and maximum numbers of lamps that will work with a given dimmer, and this varies by the lamp and dimmer (and, for low-voltage systems, the transformer) combinations. But such testing is not always practical. To make it easier on buyers and specifiers, a number of manufacturers have started providing this kind of information in dimming compatibility tables for their SSL products, and the Lighting Facts® database will be adding links to such tables at some point in the near future. It should be noted that system variations can lead to performance variations, however, so even though a circuit with a specific combination of lamps and dimmer works today, if a different lamp (either a different make/model, or even a revision to an installed make/model) is swapped in for an existing lamp, all bets may be off.
Although dimming problems persist, and many product dimming claims are still unreliable, the prospects for dimming LED lighting are much better today than they were even a year ago – and will continue to improve. Not only are dimmable LED sources available, but new dimmers are also hitting the market. The new approaches to dimming may eliminate many compatibility concerns entirely. But for now, at least, successful dimming depends on buyers and users being well-informed and exercising due diligence.
By Craig DiLouie, on December 19, 2011
 In July 2011, the Department of Energy recognized the ASHRAE/IES 90.1-2007 standard as the new national energy standard, superseding the 2004 version.
In a bold move, on October 19, 2011, DOE recognized the 2010 version of 90.1 as the new national energy standard. By October 18, 2013, all states in the United States must put in place a commercial building energy code at least as stringent as the ASHRAE/IES 90.1-2010 energy standard. This means the 2007 standard is effectively being leapfrogged as the national energy standard. (More than one-half of the states in the USA already have a code in place at least as stringent as the 2007 version.)
(In July 2011, the DOE also issued a rule requiring new Federal buildings, for which construction design begins on or after October 11, 2012, to comply with ASHRAE/IES 90.1-2007. The October 2011 ruling did not change that.)
Below are two articles describing the ASHRAE/IES 90.1-2010 standard:
New administrative requirements in ASHRAE/IES 90.1-2010
New lighting control requirements in ASHRAE/IES 90.1-2010
Part of the new documentation requirements is a lighting control narrative. LCA has published guidance to developing this kind of document.
By Lighting Controls Association, on December 7, 2011
 Consulting-Specifying Engineer has published an article by Brian Baumgartle, PE, LC, LEED AP of CMTA Inc. about lighting and control changes in the ASHRAE/IES 90.1-2010 energy standard, recently recognized by the Department of Energy as the national energy standard effective October 2013. Check it out here.
|
|
