Category: ENERGY

All Posts in “ENERGY”

Lam Partners Opts for 100% Green Power

July 31, 2017 / no comments

Lam Partners has committed to buying 100% clean electricity for its Cambridge office through the City of Cambridge's new Community Electricity program. This program offers an option to pay a higher rate and purchase 100% of your electricity from renewable energy projects in New England.

This decision was made with strong support from the whole team at Lam Partners, expressing our commitment to reducing the carbon footprint of our operations, and our City.

Cambridge Community Electricity is an electricity aggregation program, a form of group purchasing in which a city or town uses the bulk buying power of the entire community to negotiate an electricity supply price for everyone. The program purchases renewable energy certificates (or RECs) to integrate renewable energy into the City’s electricity supply. With the Cambridge Community Electricity program, Eversource will continue to deliver electricity to Cambridge, but the City will now use a competitive bid process to choose its own electricity supplier. For more information, go to: masspowerchoice.com/cambridge.

Automatic Daylight Responsive Lighting Controls

February 16, 2015 / no comments

Q: ARE THEY MANDATORY IN IECC 2012?

A: NO. WELL SORT OF, SOMETIMES.

Genzyme Allston with ARC

With the recent adoption of IECC-2012 in several states, I’ve heard people say that automatic daylight responsive lighting controls are mandatory in IECC-2012. A close reading of the code reveals that automatic daylight responsive controls are not required, except in some special cases.

In simple terms, here is what IECC-2012 does say about daylight responsive controls: Lighting fixtures in daylight areas must be separately controlled, either manually or with automatic daylight responsive controls. And depending on some building envelope conditions, automatic daylight responsive controls might be required.

Let’s break it down.

Start in the lighting section of Chapter 4, C405, specifically, “C405.2.2 ADDITIONAL LIGHTING CONTROLS”. This says that each area that has to have manual controls (most areas), must also meet the time switch, occupancy sensor, and daylight zone control requirements.

The daylight zone control requirements are in “C405.2.2.3 DAYLIGHT ZONE CONTROL”. It says that lights within the daylight zone (defined in C202) must be controlled independently, according to either C405.2.2.3.1 (Manual daylighting controls) or C405.2.2.3.2 (Automatic daylighting controls). So you have a choice: manual or automatic. Automatic is not required. The lengthy description of the required functioning of daylight responsive controls that follows is just that. It does not say that you have to use automatic daylight responsive controls; it just says just how they have to work if you choose to use them.

Now here’s the part you’ll miss if you’re just looking at the Lighting section. Go to the Envelope section (C402), specifically C402.3.1.1 and C402.3.1.2. These sections say that the Architect can exceed the 30% maximum window-to-wall area ratio limit, or the 3% maximum skylight area limit, if you use automatic daylight responsive controls (and meet some other requirements).

Returning back to the lighting section we next see, “C405.2.2.3.3 MULTI-LEVEL LIGHTING CONTROLS”? It starts off by saying, “Where multi-level lighting controls are required by this code…” and goes on to describe mandatory automatic daylight responsive controls. This is pretty confusing! Didn’t we earlier conclude that such controls are generally not mandatory? And where in the code are these “multi-level” controls required? It’s not in the lighting section (C405). Yep, you guessed it, back in the Envelope section of the code (C402). Here it is: “C402.3.2.1 LIGHTING CONTROLS IN DAYLIGHT ZONES UNDER SKYLIGHTS”. What this section says is that in some “big box” type spaces that have required skylights, under certain conditions, you have to use “multi-level” controls as defined in C405.2.2.3.3. As best as I can understand it, “multi-level” in this case means “daylight switching”, two states – on, and somewhere between off and 35% power.

Short answer: In IECC-2012 automatic daylight responsive controls are generally not required, but might be needed in these cases:

Buildings with large amounts of window area or skylight area.
Certain types of large spaces with mandatory skylights.

Clear? No, it’s not you. Yes, this code is poorly written and confusing. I hope this brief explanation helps.

LEDs: Taking Control Published in Architectural Lighting Magazine

December 10, 2014 / no comments

Dan Weissman, Director of Lam Labs at Lam Partners, has published an article in Architectural Lighting Magazine demystifying controls in the new age of LEDs.

“The options are plentiful, but, in the end, most lighting control scenarios still boil down to the basic questions. When should the lights be turned on? How bright? When should they be turned off? What is their purpose? Ultimately, what we seek are integrated systems that provide the light we need at the times we need it, monitor and minimize energy use, and entertain us when the moment is right.”

The Dark Side of Lighting – A Brief History of Electrical Lighting Costs

February 6, 2012 / no comments

The process of designing and constructing a building today is a complex series of challenges: timing, budgets, codes… Each of us in the building industry has our own specific challenges, but it seems that everyone in the industry complains about lighting fixtures and how they’re purchased. This is nothing new. The lighting business has, many times, put special interests ahead of good design practice for architectural lighting applications. A look at the past exposes a rich history of shenanigans in lighting.

Heavy Light

During the construction of the Pennsylvania State Capitol in the early 1900s, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania had some strange and complex methods of purchasing materials and furnishings for the new structure, one of which was buying lighting by the pound. If you’ve ever seen the building, I’m sure you were awed by the finishes and craftsmanship – and especially the chandeliers, light fixtures so large that each one had a door through which a person could enter the fixture itself to re-lamp and maintain it.

But as if size wasn’t enough, the fabricators were loading up the cast bronze and cut glass with lead to further increase the weight of the luminaires. These fixtures became some of the heaviest luminaires in America, which ended up costing the Commonwealth millions of extra dollars. No doubt they are beautifully appropriate for the building, but perhaps they could have been as ornate with half the weight.

Task-Ambient

An article appearing in the magazine Lighting Fixtures and Lighting back in 1925 illustrates how the skilled electrical trade was trying to convince the residential industry that centrally located, hard-wired light fixtures located in the middle of the ceiling were far better for general illumination than portable table and floor lamps. A portion of the article reads:

…The public, ignorant on lighting… leans toward lamps which, in many instances, are entirely inadequate, besides throwing the decorative scheme out of balance… A living room in a costly residence with thirteen lamps and without ceiling pieces or brackets, produces a frightful combination of colors… Yet someone was to blame for the lighting scheme; was it the architect, owner, or just indifference?

These large central fixtures tended to be expensive and complex ones that only the skilled professionals could handle. Plus, there were much bigger mark-ups for the retailers who sold them. You can see why the electrical industry did not want to lose control of this portion of building construction.

Heat Lamps

After the introduction of the modular fluorescent tube in 1938, many office spaces began relying on electric lighting over daylighting. It was cheaper to construct a building with lower floor-to-ceiling heights and without lightwells, since lighting fixtures and electric energy were relatively inexpensive. In order to make up for the relatively low cost of operating electric lighting, the industry felt it had to sell more of it – more hardware and more power. More power came in the form of higher illuminance levels. There was a time when lighting was actually used to heat buildings in the wintertime!

In the 1940s, Parry Moon, a professor at MIT, cautioned his students to be suspicious of organizations promoting higher and higher illuminance levels. Later, one of those students, Bill Lam, started taking on organizations like the IES, which, at the time, mostly comprised people who sold light fixtures and electric power.

Valu-Pak

Today we have the ‘lighting package’, a way for a local manufacturer’s sales representative to provide all of the lighting fixtures needed for an architectural project. There’s inherent cost benefit for the owner if a single sales agency can provide all the lighting hardware for an entire project – especially if there are several equivalent products listed in the specifications, which creates competition between the agencies and consequently a ‘sharpening of pencils’ when it comes time to bid the project.

The problem with lighting packages is that no one knows the cost of any one item. It’s exactly that: a package deal. It lends itself to substitutions of products of lesser quality if the specifier is not diligent in his review. It can also lead to something that hurts most specifiers’ ears: ‘value engineering’, a process that usually entails neither engineering nor value for the owner.

Value engineering has become nothing more than cheapening a project, especially when it occurs after a bid. It’s easy to reduce costs by providing something of lesser value, but the problem is that the product is usually much less expensive than the money offered back to the owner. And, since the costs of individual products are typically not provided, the package deal makes virtually impossible any objective comparison of product cost vs. product value. Large lighting fixture packages make it easy to hide profitability at the expense of the owner.

That’s why it’s important to do your homework during the design phase. Establish a reasonable lighting budget based on similar projects. Research the cost of lighting fixtures ahead of time and determine how the products relate to the overall construction budget. Don’t specify Cadillac if all you can afford is Chevy – there’s nothing wrong with Chevy as long as function and expectations are met. Find out how the owner is planning to purchase the lighting. Many large corporations buy lighting from national accounts which have already established the cost of certain lighting hardware. It’s a lot more work during design, but it can save a lot of time and aggravation during bidding and construction.

There’s always going to be an angle to every sale, whether it’s lighting or some other product. Lighting, like many other pieces of the architectural pie, continues to get more complex, with new technologies unfolding on a daily basis. Keeping up with it all is mind-boggling. Use the experts to your advantage. Learn from them and seek advice every step of the way. Keep a bright disposition and don’t be boondoggled by the dark side.

Photo credits: Steve and Ruth Bosman (1), Crenshaw Lighting (2), Todd Huffman (3), RFR Realty (4), 99centmax.com (5)

Basic Sustainable Lighting Concepts: On Building Design

April 25, 2011 / no comments

Although they say there are no bad ideas, here are a few good ones regarding lighting to help you navigage the greenwash out there and get to the real facts. This is the first part of an ongoing series outlining design principles for sustainable lighting design.

Thin buildings need less help

The thinner your building is, the less it will need to rely on artificial life support systems like HVAC and electric lighting to operate. Standard windows can light twelve to fifteen feet into a space. Windows with a daylight control and delivery system, like a light-shelf, can push it even further, up to thirty feet in some instances. More daylight = less electric light.

Orient your building east-west

The path of the sun has changed little over the past few millennia. By now we have a pretty good idea of where the sun goes and of the most effective methods for using that sunlight. Of course, east- and west-facing windows get sunlight, but only for half the day. If the major axis of a building is oriented east to west, the southern exposure will be able to harness that energy almost all day long – if designed correctly (not too much, not too little).

Easy does it on the glass

High-performance glass is a wonderful thing, but it’s still no replacement for a solid wall, in terms of insulation and reasonable cost. In these energy-crunching design times, we need to optimize our building designs so they accept just enough daylight and reject the rest. Too much glass and you could end up with heat-gain and heat-loss problems and glare issues. Too little and you could have a cave.

Bring up that window sill, too! The glass that extends to the floor has little practical value except aesthetics, which is a debatable, fickle thing. There’s nothing like seeing that trash can pushed up against the glass…

Lower partition heights and fewer offices, please

Private offices are sought-after the world over by the power climbers, but they stink for utilizing the space as well as possible. Consider opening up your office design to more community spaces, putting the bosses right out there with everyone else. Private spaces will still be necessary, but limit them.

Workstation heights have to come down too. It’s kind of a corporate slap in the face to be given an office without a door or window – you sit at the bottom of a cubicle well all day. By lowering the heights of the partitions, you open up people’s views to perimeter glass, let the daylight penetrate deeper into the space, and encourage more interaction and camaraderie.

Lighten up!

How would you like being told what your favorite color is? People take it very personally – designers especially. Whatever your preference is, we, as lighting designers, respectfully ask that you pick light colors with higher reflectances. How building surfaces reflect light has a lot to do with how the space feels, either with daylight or electric light. If the finishes are too dark you create a cave, and then need to pump in way more energy to light the space adequately.

The Lure of the Time-Based Energy Code

January 24, 2011 / no comments

Energy codes got you down? Is squeezing wattage cramping your design? You’re not alone – a lot of designers feel this way, and for good reason. As the country demands more and more energy efficiency, we’re spending more and more time counting watts and squeezing every last drop from power allowances just to make our designs legal. Long gone are the days of halogen-lit everything, and decorative for the sake of decorative. We’re constantly compelled to use the most efficient light sources and fixtures, to put decorative lighting in the back seat, and to give functional lighting priority.

But is the current energy code the best way to save energy? Is lowering the allowable maximum connected load for lighting even enough to get us the savings we need to meet the national energy goals of 2030? Probably not.

Over the past decade, the allowable lighting power densities (LPD) have been lowered time and time again, sometimes logically, and other times less so. The mantra has been to increase energy savings by lowering the amount of connected electric lighting load – end users are then free to turn that connected load on and off at any time. The problem with this method is that it doesn’t account for real usage. How energy-efficient is a low-power lighting solution if it stays on all the time?

For example, take a typical ten-foot-square office space with 1.0 watt per square foot allowable LPD. You can use up to 100 watts in that particular office. Now, if you leave that office light on for 24 hours (i.e. you forgot to hit the switch on the way out), you’d have 240 watt-hours (that’s 0.24kW-h on your energy meter). But not everyone forgets to turn off their lights, so that scenario is the worst case.

A lighting design can thus easily be checked against the code while still on paper, and this is pretty straightforward, but it doesn’t take into account how the end user will use that lighting. The lighting is designed for a maximum load at a single point in time (power), but is then measured as energy (power x time) – there’s a disconnect between the design and the application. The kicker is that there is no simple real-world method to check or enforce codes once a space is occupied. Owners are free to burn the midnight electrons and no one will say boo about it.

Now take that same office space but, instead of designing only for power allowances, you design it for power and time. What if you make an allowance for the lighting to be on for only 12 hours per day (a standard assumption for all but the craziest workaholic American). You could use the same 100 watts but the total energy used is now half that of the worst-case scenario. What if that same office has windows and daylight dimming, and the lighting is only on for 4 hours each day, just 40 watt-hours – we just went from half to one-sixth of the energy used!

So how do we predict how occupants will use lighting, and how can we make sure they then keep using it as intended? Mandates and accountability. As much as we’d like to assume that everyone will hit the light switch on the way out, that’s a bit too much wishful thinking. Cost is no deterrent, either – major corporations have money they seem happy to spend, and with the cost of energy artificially low in this country, there’s not much incentive.

There’s a growing movement in the code world to actually factor anticipated duration of use into the equation, measuring compliance in kilowatt-hours rather than just watts. We’ll always need to reference watts in our design process, but eventually we’ll have squeezed out all the watts we can, and it still won’t be enough. Adding time into the equation doesn’t immediately guarantee energy savings, but it does put it in terms that we can identify, relate to, track, and react to. It’s time to think more about energy, and less about power.

Photo Credit: Steve Ryan

Specification Grade Sustainability

September 13, 2010 / no comments

Recently a lighting company came into our office to show us their new LED fixture. I prepared myself for the usual spiel: tight quality binning, a high-performance heat sink, ELV dimming option. However, this particular fixture had been designed in a way that we haven’t seen from many other companies: the entire fixture, an LED cove/grazer product, was actually designed along sustainable manufacturing principles. Its connected load is more energy-efficient than that of its fluorescent counterparts (finally), but more impressively, the materials used to construct it had been thought through in a way few other products seem to manage.

The housing was not anodized aluminum, the standard seen in LED fixtures required for heat dissipation, but a zinc-based alloy that is less energy-intensive to make, and requires none of the toxic anodizing processes. The fixture is highly segmented for adaptability, and all components may easily be removed if failure occurs, allowing for easy replacement of parts. I was shocked.

Two years ago, before I left Lam Partners to pursue a Masters of Architecture at the University of Michigan Taubman College of Architecture, white LEDs were standard in steplights and other specialty fixtures, but only just catching on in mainstream lighting design, with a few linear fixtures, floods and downlights. Those fixtures were not terribly competitive at the time.

Since returning to the firm for the summer, at least once a week a manufacturer has come to promote their new LED products. As one lighting manufacturer’s representative correctly noted, I’ve stepped into the future. The once over-priced and under-performing LEDs now stand beside traditional sources, and in many cases outperform them; costs are dropping while efficiencies continue to rise.

The LED revolution is obviously the greatest thing since sliced bread, the introduction of fluorescence, or of incandescence before that. But just as growing pains occurred at those phase-changes, this revolution too has seen a dark side. In this new world, the slightly ignorant marketer walks into our conference room spouting how their fixture is ‘sustainable’ simply because it uses LEDs, or maybe includes some recycled decorative glass. It seems fair to say that many manufacturers misuse the term ‘sustainable’ as a marketing ploy, with mixed knowledge of what is needed to create truly sustainable products.

I was therefore pleasantly surprised when this particular company actually walked the walk. They’ve produced a product that begins to address some unspoken facts of the lighting industry: lighting fixtures require vast quantities of energy to produce, ship, and install, and poorly designed fixtures equal waste.

The discourse on life-cycle costing was made popular by William McDonough and Michael Braungart in their book “Cradle to Cradle,” and for some manufacturers of architectural materials, it transformed the way in which their product is conceived, produced, bought, and utilized. Moreover, the general adoption of LEED standards has greatly influenced the purchasing power of clients, who, through their architects, now regularly seek architectural products that account for embodied energy in some way, such as sustainably harvested wood or recycled or re-purposed metals.

However, LEED does not currently allow MEP equipment to count toward credits for material usage, with the understanding that the material quantities are considered negligible, they are not permanent to the architecture, and ultimately their ability to efficiently use energy trumps any material concerns. This seems like a missed opportunity, as the material in MEP equipment is hardly insignificant, and in many cases could comprise recycled or re-purposed materials.

While operational energy accounts for the amount of energy consumed (power x time) by the product during use, embodied energy represents energy required to produce and transport the fixture, and how that energy becomes ‘trapped’ when the product enters the waste stream. A brick, for instance, has a relatively low embodied energy, requiring only the energy to collect the clay, fire it, and transport it, and then may be used multiple times before it crumbles and must be reformed (of course never once requiring connected load). The light fixture by comparison must be fabricated from an array of energy-intensive materials, like aluminum, steel, glass, plastics, and mined phosphorous (reserves of which, according to Wikipedia, we’re on track to deplete sometime in the next 100 to 300 years). These materials must then be assembled, requiring additional energy-consuming processes.

The current debate over LED lamps and fixtures exemplifies the necessity to think more constructively about lamp/fixture embodied energies and life-cycle costs. This is a two-part issue. First, LEDs are finding homes as retrofits: replacement lamps for old fixtures, and complete fixture replacements (as have also been seen with compact fluorescent or metal halide retrofits). If the fixture must be completely removed, the old product is often sent to the landfill, and in large-scale retrofits, this may be quite a sizable quantity of wasted metals.

Secondly, in the rush to get products out to market (for both retrofit and new construction), many manufacturers have created LED products with no option to replace failed components in the field, notably LED boards and drivers. Manufacturers tend to argue that, in order to achieve the desired output and long life, LED boards must be permanently attached to their heat-sinks, usually with some sort of thermal glue. This then gets extended to additional aspects of the fixture, including housings or reflectors. Apparently, to most manufacturers, in some glorious undetermined future utopia we won’t even have to worry about waste disposal… LEDs will last until our civilizations have long since perished, so it’s not even worth bothering with end-of-life issues. Unfortunately this leaves the end user with only one option when the fixture does, some time in the next 20 years (a brief blip in the realistic lifespan of a building), fail: completely remove the dead fixture and replace it with a new one. No governing body exists that demands that old MEP or lighting equipment be recycled or re-used in any way, so the manufacturer is off the hook.

One manufacturer suggested, as an option until they “figure out their policy on refurbishing dead fixtures”, that the specifier add the phone number of an ‘approved’ recycler into the notes column of the fixture specification, for the end user to contact at failure. This option certainly plays into the notion of American capitalism, but it is ultimately laziness on the part of the manufacturer. I would much rather put a note into the fixture schedule recommending that the end user contact the manufacturer or local representative to buy a replacement, at a discount in return for the dead fixture (assuming the fixture dies after the warranty period).

The manufacturer should be thrilled at this concept. They potentially regain a host of usable parts, which should be refurbishable, and moreover, they retain the business of the customer. This is already happening in the computer industry, as an alternative to shipping dead electronics to third-world countries where workers strip equipment under highly hazardous conditions.

For example, I currently have a three-year-old Macbook Pro. Still works, but running slow, and I’ll need to upgrade soon for school. Recently I went onto Apple’s website, and found that I could get a quote for my old laptop based on the model and working quality of specific parts (even if it was dead for some reason, I’d still get money back). By offering a trade-in for my old laptop that can be put toward the purchase of a new computer, Apple is not only able to recapture the energy they spent creating the old one (which can be refurbished and resold, or stripped for individual components), but they also retain my business for the new product.

Granted, Apple’s ubiquitous presence in local retail far exceeds that of any fixture manufacturer, so an alternative might involve local lighting representatives to build up quantities before shipping, which suggests that buying local MEP equipment also matters. Regardless, few if any lighting manufacturers have thus far marketed their products in this way.

The push to create highly energy-efficient, long-lasting LED replacements for inefficient technologies does allow for minimization of waste. But countless inefficient light fixtures are currently being pulled from ceilings in an effort to reduce energy consumption, arriving either in landfills (to be mined by future generations) or at recycling plants that must perform energy-intensive procedures to recapture materials. I would like to see future companies retrofitting old light fixtures with new light source technologies in the factory setting, and selling them alongside ‘new’ products. I look forward to the day when a high-visibility architectural project has only refurbished light fixtures installed. It may be my project.

Post-Script

As I implore manufacturers and lighting designers to consider life cycle as well as aesthetics and connected-load performance, the following are recommendations I would like to see incorporated into the ethos of the lighting industry:

To the Manufacturers:

In order to meet current LEED criteria pertaining to lighting, lighting must be incorporated into a design by an experienced design professional who is able to balance connected load energy usage and reduce light pollution across a complete layout of fixtures. In no way can an individual fixture really “help meet LEED” on its own terms. Blanket statements like these reveal the manufacturer as using jargon and marketing instead of truly attempting to make sustainable products.

Regardless of current LEED criteria, every material choice within a lighting product requires energy for production and disposal, beyond just connected load. These choices will begin to matter more to consumers in coming years. Prove that your fixtures were created sustainably, shipped sustainably, and can easily adapt to changes in technology or component failure for the lifetime of the architecture.

Components that may fail must be replaceable without requiring costly and wasteful entire fixture assemblies. When a fixture truly reaches the end of its useful life, provide robust programs that allow end users to return fixtures beyond warranty periods for rebates on replacements. Refurbishing the components of dead fixtures equal potential savings by keeping highly usable materials out of the landfill.

If in fact your products do go the distance, market these specifications! Is the fixture made of 100% recycled aluminum? Put that on the spec sheet! Can the plastics be disassembled and recycled? Clearly stamp those materials with the well-known ‘recyclable’ symbol with material type (in a location that will not affect light performance).

And finally, or course all manufacturers should commit to ‘greening’ operations and products – but do not roll out one product as your ‘sustainable fixture’ without also providing a plan to overhaul the rest of your product line and manufacturing operations. It’s hypocritical.

To the Designers:

Why not specify refurbished lighting products? Must the back-of-house troffers be made of pristine aluminum? Actively look for ways to minimize not only watts, but material-heavy fixtures, with preference given to the lighter, refurbished, or recycled products. Minimize the use of fixtures made from materials with energy-intensive or toxic manufacturing processes.

How can the architecture itself serve as a lighting system? Thoughful design can allow for replacement of the minimum quantity of material when technology changes, and allows renewable materials to do some of the lighting work, such as in valances or coves.

Finally, demand more from your product manufacturers. Lighting may be a relatively small piece of the puzzle, but it’s the piece over which you have control. Make the most of it. Specify high-performance sustainability.

Photo Credits: Dan Weissman / Lam Partners Inc

New Energy Codes, New Challenges

May 10, 2010 / no comments

Readers of this blog have already heard about the new Green Building codes, but there are new versions in the works, both of the energy code standard ASHRAE/IES 90.1, and of the International Conservation Code (IECC). What will these codes look like, and how will they affect the work of architectural lighting designers?

The 2010 version of ASHRAE/IES 90.1 will be published this fall. Standard 90.1 is the benchmark model energy code. Although rarely adopted directly as code, it is an alternative path for IECC compliance; it’s also the energy performance reference for both the US Department of Energy and the LEED rating systems, and is highly influential, like California’s Title 24, as a trendsetter.

ASHRAE’s goal for the 2010 version of 90.1 is to be 30% more stringent than the 2004 version. Standard 90.1-2010 will have lighting power allowances that are significantly lower than the 2004 and 2007 versions. Additionally, there will be many new controls requirements such as mandatory use of occupancy sensors in some spaces, incentives for daylight responsive controls, exterior lighting after-hours shut-off, and controls commissioning requirements, among other things.

The IECC is currently in the middle of its three-year development cycle. IECC-2012 will be published in April 2011. The goal of the Department of Energy and other stakeholders in IECC development is for IECC-2012 to be 30% more stringent than the 2006 version. It’s a little early to know for sure what will be in the next version, but expect reduced power allowances, and the addition of a space-by-space method for determining lighting power densities. Another concept that’s been proposed is the “Additional Efficiency Package Options”. To comply, the project will have to pick one option from a menu of energy-efficiency provisions like more efficient mechanical equipment, onsite renewable energy, or reduced lighting power allowances.

But here’s the thing to keep in mind: even though these new standards will be published soon, they don’t become code until they are adopted by individual states. By federal law, the DOE must evaluate each new version of 90.1 to determine if it is more efficient than the previous version (and because IECC offers 90.1 as an alternative compliance path, it piggybacks on the DOE determination). If the standard is found to be more efficient (and it will be), states are required to adopt an equally stringent code within two years.

But, enforcing this provision and getting the states to adopt the latest code is easier said than done. Currently, only ten states have adopted the most recent standard, IECC-2009/90.1-2007. At the other end, eleven states have either no statewide energy code at all, or are using standards older than 90.1-1999. The remaining states use something in between. This lag is typical, but I expect it will decrease, given the global push to reduce energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. If states follow the example of my home state of Massachusetts, then code lag will be very short in the future. Last year, Massachusetts not only adopted IECC-2009, but wrote into law that newer versions of the IECC will automatically become code soon after publication.

One school of thought says that these new standards will be overly stringent and will make it impossible for designers to produce quality results. I don’t agree with this opinion. Through my work as Chairman of the IALD Energy and Sustainability Committee, I’m pretty familiar with what is likely to be in these standards. We’ve been working hard to make sure that the codes are as aggressive as possible, but without prohibiting quality design. I believe that the new standards will only codify what any responsible designer should already be doing to reduce the negative environmental impact of their design. And, I do not think that they will prevent us from producing effective, comfortable, and beautiful spaces.

Yes, it will be harder. The “cushion” will be gone; we will have to be very careful with our use of energy in order to meet code. Competency in lighting design will require deep knowledge of code requirements, the skill to get the most out of limited power budgets, and expertise in lighting controls technology and system design.

Image Credit: D-32

Will Green Building Codes Leave You Seeing Red?

February 24, 2010 / no comments

Now that ASHRAE/USGBC/IES Standard 189.1 has been published, it’s time for the building design and construction communities to consider the implications of the new green building codes coming out.

What is a green building code, and why do we need one? Imagine LEED written in code language – site sustainability, water use, energy, indoor environmental quality, materials and resources. We need green building codes because LEED is not a code; it is a voluntary rating system, not a mandatory code.

Many cities and states desire a green building standard that they can apply as code or ordinance, or through “green” legislation. To meet this need, some cities have adopted LEED as a requirement. For example, Boston requires that projects over 50,000 square feet be “LEED certifiable”. The City can’t require you to be officially LEED certified, and because LEED is a points-based rating system, there are many ways to achieve “certifiabilty”. Messy, hard to enforce – LEED is not a legal code and the USGBC does not want it used as a code.

Thus, the motivation for ASHRAE, the USGBC, and the IES to team up and create a green building standard, written in code language and ready to be adopted by any municipal or state government. It has taken several years and four public review drafts to finally get Standard 189.1 on the street. And it is still a work in progress; proposals are already being accepted by ASHRAE for changes to the standard.

Fine, you say? Sounds like a good idea, let’s see what happens? Sorry, it’s not going to be so easy – there is another green building code in the works! Have you heard of the IGCC, the International Green Construction Code? Same idea, but this time from the ICC and the AIA! (The ICC is the International Code Council who brings you the IBC and the IECC) This code has been in the works since last summer and the first draft for public review is expected March 15th. The code will be finalized at the end of next year and published in March 2012.

So what will happen? Which code will be adopted? Will they be adopted at all?

Standard 189.1 has the advantage in that it is already available, a full two years before IGCC will be ready. But the IGCC will be from the “code guys” who provide all the building codes typically being adopted in the US, so perhaps it is a more likely candidate. Worst-case scenario: in three years we have two green building codes being adopted by towns and states scattered across the country. Building design and construction professionals will have to be conversant in two different green building codes – in addition to LEED! And for each city and state we will have to keep track of which code applies, and how it is used. Perhaps one city decides that they will only apply the green code to city-funded projects, or to projects larger than 25,000 square feet, or…?

The other thing to think about is the relationship of green building codes to energy codes. The assumption is that the energy provisions in a green building code are more stringent than the applicable energy code, which would be superseded. But what if a state or locality adopts an energy code that is more stringent than the green building code they have previously adopted? Someone will have to sort this out.

And if your head isn’t already hurting, try this: you are designing a LEED project in a town that has adopted a green building code. So, now you have to design to two different green standards -every design option would have to be tested twice. And you’d have to do the calculations and documentation twice to prove compliance with each provision.

I hope someone at the USGBC is thinking about this. I know that those of us on the IALD’s Energy and Sustainability Committee have been thinking about it. Through our work on standards drafting committees, and through public review commenting, we are striving for consistency between all electric lighting and daylighting related provisions in 189.1, IGCC, and LEED.

But have you heard about CALGREEN, California’s new mandatory Green Building code? Oh, my.

Image Credits: ASHRAE (1), ICC (2), Lam Partners (3)

How Much Energy Do You Use on Your Commute To Work?

November 30, 2009 / no comments

Lighting systems have gotten vastly more efficient in the last decade. This is thanks to better bulbs, better luminaires and controls, and better lighting design – and let’s all keep working hard to make them even more efficient as technologies and design methods continue to improve. But, let’s also give ourselves a little credit for the great progress that’s already been made. For example, we’re now designing office lighting using one-sixth of the electricity typically used just 25 years ago. Imagine if we had made the same kind of progress with automobiles.

Stop reading for a minute and ask yourself: how much energy do you think you use driving to work, versus how much you use to light your personal share of your workplace? What is just the rough proportion you would guess? Let’s put some numbers to that:

Let’s say you drive a new car at the US average of 16 miles per day each way, and you average the current federal standard, 27.5 miles per gallon. That consumes a bit over a gallon of gas per day.

The same amount of fuel oil, burned in a typical power plant and distributed to your building through the grid, at an overall efficiency of 30%, will generate 14 kilowatt-hours. If you work in a 200-square-foot office and your workspace lighting power conforms to current ASHRAE standards, that gallon or so of gas will light your workspace for over 65 hours. Or, to put it another way, the fuel you use getting to work each day will light, for ten hours, not just your 200 square feet but actually 1,300 square feet – enough space for you and half a dozen friends.

How is that possible? Well, for one thing, when you stomp the accelerator on your base four-cylinder Accord (177 horsepower), in electrical terms your modest sedan is generating over 130,000 watts, and it’s doing it inefficiently. At that rate, it would take you less than 60 seconds to burn up enough fuel to light your workspace for ten hours.

Actually, our estimate is very conservative. If we get more realistic and factor in the inefficiency of refining and transporting gasoline, and we recognize that new buildings are required to have motion sensors to turn your lights off when you don’t need them, and we also recognize that the average American commuter vehicle doesn’t average anywhere close to 27.5 mpg (okay, and maybe your office is less than 200 square feet), we can come closer to a realistic answer to our initial question. And that answer is that if your workplace meets today’s lighting energy standard, your commute likely uses at least ten times as much fossil fuel as your workspace lighting each day.

So, how did you do on your guess?

Photo Credits: Skippyjon (1), MadMarv00 (2)