Industry experts are discussing potential changes to the way energy efficient lighting will be specified, as well as the methodology by which utility companies will assign incentives. There has been exponential change to the energy efficient lighting industry over the past several years. LED lighting products have exploded within the marketplace, maturing rapidly. Recent changes included linear fluorescent lighting incentives being removed from utility programs in 2016 in favor of LED systems. An emphasis has been placed upon customized LED solutions and advanced lighting controls. The following will examine the current lighting incentive specification system and the proposed changes.
How Incentives Are Determined
In the current system, utility incentives for energy efficiency projects are determined per item, based on the type of fixture being replaced and the number of watts each new fixture will save. Energy Service Companies (ESCOs)—those that generally design and install energy efficiency projects—must select from a “menu” of fixture types that best fits the fixtures being replaced. Let’s review an example of how products on the menu are selected for commercial energy efficiency projects.
ABC Manufacturing Co. is retrofitting its fluorescent T8 and T5 lighting systems to LEDs. The facility has fixtures with different wattages, based on the light levels needed throughout. The manufacturing floor contains high bay fixtures and requires higher light levels than other parts of the facility. It is determined that 86W LED high bay fixtures will replace and provide the same output as the existing T5 high bay fixtures. Per the menu, this fixture must save a minimum number of watts in order to be eligible for a per-fixture incentive, based on the applicable code for that fixture type and the selected wattage. Selecting this product will satisfy the light level needs of the facility, minimize costs, and maximize the utility incentives received. A similar process is applied to other parts of the facility.
The menu of product types is refreshed constantly by utility companies, replacing older technologies (such as linear fluorescent) with newer ones (such as LED). In addition, the list of eligible products (DLC qualified models) is changing constantly with increasingly stringent efficiency requirements. This system, however, has some flaws, which utility companies seek to remedy.
Root Causes for Incentive Changes
A primary cause for incentive changes is because many commercial spaces are over lit, particularly when available daylight is taken into account. By using the current menu approach, one is likely to choose a higher lumen/wattage replacement than is technically necessary. Choosing in this unsophisticated fashion results in both lumens and watts being wasted, even when deploying efficient LED products. This does not represent good design, nor is it a truly an energy efficient or cost-effective approach.
Anticipated Incentive Changes
One of the most significant anticipated incentive changes for 2017 is that the old menu-based lighting specification system may be abandoned. A more sophisticated design process that is based on lumen output and lighting power density rather than wattage reduction is expected to become the new standard. This will allow ESCOs to design energy efficiency projects based more on the customers’ needs rather than the needs of the utility company. Let’s look at an example.
ABC Manufacturing Co.’s facility is over lit by 25 percent. One area of the facility is lighting a space with five fixtures for a total of 20,000 lumens, when only 15,000 lumens is necessary. Assuming ABC Manufacturing Co.’s current fixtures have a useful light of 4,000 lumens, the fixtures could be replaced with 3,000 lumens, a decrease of 25 percent. Assuming 100 lumens/watt, that is an additional 10W saved per fixture. This is a pure one-for-one “prescriptive” methodology: replace 5 fixtures with 5 different fixtures.
With the new anticipated incentive changes, another solution may be possible. Instead of a one-for-one, ESCOs may be able to reconfigure the space using only 4 fixtures at 3,750 watts each (equaling 15,000 lumens). Customers may prefer this option because it can save money. Assume the fixture at 3,750 lumens costs $120 per fixture, and the fixture at 3,000 lumens costs $100. Reconfiguring the space could save $20 on material. ($120 x 4 = $480 vs. $100 x 5 = $500.)
A New Approach
The anticipated new practice will utilize a lighting “design” approach, essentially starting from a blank slate. Highly customizable LED fixture and controls technologies will be leveraged to design lighting systems that meet—but do not exceed—specific target light levels and lighting power densities that are appropriate for the use of the space. Designs will also focus on deploying light where and only when needed. The Illuminating Engineering Society (IES) publishes recommended light levels for specific uses that industry professionals typically follow in new construction designs.
Many LED products can now be ordered or site-programmed for high, medium, or low lumen “packages,” some with options for different lamp color. In addition, they can be controlled to dim based upon occupancy (in stairwells, for example) or based upon measured available daylight (as in classrooms), to name a few. The lower the lumen output, the lower the watts consumed.
Looking Towards the Future
As state Energy Efficiency Resource Standards (EERS) continue to evolve, states with leading energy efficiency programs will continue to implement short- and long-term policies that benefit sustained investments in energy efficiency. What remains uncertain is how these new incentive changes will affect the energy efficiency programs in Massachusetts and whether they can be impactful enough to lay the groundwork for new benchmarks in energy efficiency standards across the country.