Download Retrofit Lighting Controls Measures Summary of Findings PDF

TitleRetrofit Lighting Controls Measures Summary of Findings
File Size830.6 KB
Total Pages94
Document Text Contents
Page 1

Retrofit Lighting Controls Measures

Summary of Findings

Massachusetts Energy Efficiency Program Administrators

Massachusetts Energy Efficiency Advisory Council

Prepared by: KEMA, Inc.

October 27, 2014

Page 47

DNV KEMA Energy & Sustainability

KEMA, Inc. October 27, 2014 5-42

and addressable LED systems ability to produce savings via daylight harvesting and network controls.

Additionally, whole building network controls are becoming more prominent and cost effective, which

should move more customers in that direction. Motivations and Barriers

Table 14 summarizes customer motivations and barriers as reported by PA respondents. The topics are

further explored in the sections below.

Table 14: Motivations/Barriers of Customers, Vendors, Administrators and Technology

Motivation Barrier





Customer Knowledge X X X X
Customer Skepticism X X

Customer as Tenant in Leased Building X
Eager to Adopt New Technology X

Physical Design of Existing Building X
Economy/Cost X

Vendor Knowledge of Controls Systems and Savings Potential X X

Raising Customer Awareness of Controls Technology X X

Raising Vendor/Contractor Awareness of Controls Technology X X
Limited Staff and Time to Educate Vendors X

Growth of LED Market X X

Controls Compatibility with LEDs X Customer Motivations and Barriers

Respondents were asked to address why lighting control retrofits were a challenge to large C&I

customers. One typical response was physical design restrictions of the facility structure prohibiting

retrofit upgrades from being effective. Unless the facility was directly owned by the customer and

undergoing a full facility renovation, installing hardwired and wireless network control technology was

cost prohibitive.

Utility customers were reported to have more awareness, knowledge, and enthusiasm about certain

lighting control technologies such as occupancy sensors and daylight dimming/occupancy sensors,

however PAs are seeing a widening gap between the educational awareness of earlier generation lighting

Page 48

DNV KEMA Energy & Sustainability

KEMA, Inc. October 27, 2014 5-43

control measures and evolving technology. Several respondents commented that utility customers that are

early adopters of technology are more willing to adopt newer lighting control technology; whereas

customers that are slower to adopt newer technology, yet still enthusiastic, are observed to succumb to

technology stigmas such as; “not wanting to wave their arms around to turn the lights back on.”

Custom retrofit lighting control implementation proved to be a barrier for customers. Respondents

indicated that little effort was being made to explore lighting control opportunities through the custom

approach. Even if opportunities for custom lighting retrofit controls were identified by PAs, if vendors

were not knowledgeable, didn’t supply specific technologies, or were unfamiliar with installation

specifications, energy savings opportunities were lost.

Other areas for lost savings were identified as small retrofit upgrades where it didn’t seem cost effective

to hire a consultant to quantify the controls savings.

The PAs have identified that customer barriers do not always reside with the customer and that a further

gap in educational awareness resides with vendors, distributors and implementation contractors. Vendor, Distributor, and Installation Contractor Motivations and Barriers

Lack of consistent training and education was a common theme among the PAs as they further identified

barriers with regards to retrofit lighting controls. Differences in vendor/customer relationship were

observed between the utility territories. Some administrators responded that program participants work

through Energy Service Companies (ESCO’s), other customers work with local area vendors and may not

be exposed to current lighting control technologies in the market place because the vendor may not offer

or endorse the technology.

Occasionally, vendors cannot provide a strong methodology on how to quantify energy savings and that

lighting control technology may be difficult to promote to utility customers and if large reductions are not

present it may not be worth the time of the vendor. According to respondents, additional energy savings

opportunities are gained or lost dependent on the vendor and their level of knowledge and experience.

This seems to be a great opportunity to help educate vendors, as savings estimates for this type of upgrade

are relatively simple.

5.4.3 Future Actions

Opportunities identified by respondents indicate that whole building, advanced lighting control retrofits

will become more of the norm as technology becomes more prominent in the market place and more

affordable. Currently, there is a steep slope when considering whole building, advanced lighting controls

Page 93

DNV KEMA Energy & Sustainability

KEMA, Inc. October 27, 2014 7-88

• Newsham GR, Aries M, Mancini S, Faye G. 2008. Individual control of electric lighting in a daylit
space. Lighting Res Technol. 40(1):25–41.

• Nilsson P-E, Aronsson S. 1993. Energy efficient lighting in existing non-residential buildings: a
comparison of nine buildings in five countries. Energy. 18(2):115–122.

• Page E, Siminovitch M. 2004. Performance analysis of hotel lighting control system. Proceedings
of the ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings. 14p.

• Parker DS, Schrum L, Sonne JK, Stedman TC. 1996. Side-by-side testing of commercial office
lighting systems: two-lamp fluorescent fixtures. Proceedings of the Tenth Symposium on
Improving Building Systems in Hot and Humid Climates. 9 p.

• Pigg S, Eilers M, Reed R. 1996. Behavioral aspects of lighting and occupancy sensors in private
offices: a case study of a university office building. Proceedings of the 1996 ACEEE Summer
Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings 8:161–171.

• [PIER] Public Interest Energy Research Program. 2008a. IOU Partnership Draft Case Study: Bi-
level stairwell lighting system. PIER. 4 p.

• [PIER] Public Interest Energy Research Program. 2008b. IOU Partnership Draft Case Study:
Integrated Classroom Lighting System (ICLS). PIER. 4 p.

• Reinhart CF. 2002. Effects of interior design on the daylight availability in open plan offices.
Proceedings of the 2002 ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings 3:309– 322.

• Richman EE, Dittmer AL, Keller JM. 1994. Field analysis of occupancy sensor operation:
parameters affecting lighting energy savings. U.S. Department of Energy. PNL-10135. Contract
DE-AC06–76RLO 1830. 39 p.

• Roisin B, Bodart M, Deneyer A, Dherdt PD. 2008. Lighting energy savings in offices using
different control systems and their real consumption. Energ Buildings. 40(4):514–523.

• Rubinstein F, Enscoe A. 2010. Saving energy with highly-controlled lighting in an open-plan
office. J IllumEng Soc. 7(1):21–36.

• Rubinstein F, Karayel M. 1982. The measured energy savings from two lighting control strategies.
IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications 20(5):1189–1197.

• Rubinstein F, Verderber R. 1990. Automatic lighting controls demonstration. Lawrence Berkeley
Laboratory. LBL-28793. 70 p.

• Rubinstein F, Colak N, Jennings J, Neils D. 2003. Analyzing occupancy profiles from a lighting
controls field study. CIE Session 2003. San Diego, CA. 4 p.

• Rubinstein F, Jennings J, Avery D, Blanc S. 1998. Preliminary results from an advanced lighting
controls testbed. Proceedings of the 1998 Annual Conference of the Illuminating Engineering
Society of North America. 20 p.

• Schrum L, Parker DS, Floyd DB. 1996. Daylight dimming systems: studies in energy savings and
efficiency. Proceedings of the 1996 ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings

• Sensor Switch. [date unknown a]. Community profiles: Middlesex Community College. Sensor
Switch. 1 p.

• Sensor Switch. [date unknown b]. State profiles: national distribution warehouse. Sensor Switch. 1

• Southern California Edison. 2009. Two-way connectivity with a lighting system as a demand
response resource. Southern California Edison. DR 07.04 Report. 51 p.

• *Southern California Edison. 2008. Office of the Future Phase II report: the 25% solution. The
Office of the Future Consortium. ET 08.01. 72 p.

Page 94

DNV KEMA Energy & Sustainability

KEMA, Inc. October 27, 2014 7-89

• VonNeida B, Maniccia D, Tweed A. 2000. An analysis of the energy and cost savings potential of
occupancy sensors for commercial lighting systems. Proceedings of the Illuminating Engineering
Society of North America 2000 Annual Conference. p 433–459.

• Washington State University Extension Energy Program. 2011. Final report E3T Emerging
Technology Assessment: Bi-level office lighting with occupancy sensors. Bonneville Power
Administration. WSUEEP11–003. 68 p.

• The WattStopper, Inc. 2010. Case study: Controls contribute to 40% energy savings in Kaiser
Permanente warehouse. Santa Clara (CA): The WattStopper, Inc. 2 p.

• The WattStopper, Inc. 2008. Case study: Miro Controls save energy and support marketing efforts
in lighting showroom. Santa Clara (CA): The WattStopper, Inc. 2 p.

• The WattStopper, Inc. 2007. Case study: Watt Stopper/Legrand helps NRG Systems realize big
savings. Santa Clara (CA): The WattStopper, Inc. 3 p.

• The WattStopper, Inc. [date unknown a]. Case study: 851 Target stores use occupancy sensors from
The Watt Stopper to save energy. Santa Clara (CA): The WattStopper, Inc. 1 p.

• The WattStopper, Inc. [date unknown b]. Case study: Adobe Systems saves $15,000 in one month
on energy costs by using Isole´ plug load controls. Santa Clara (CA): The WattStopper, Inc. 1 p.

• The WattStopper, Inc. [date unknown c]. Case study: Estimates show Southern Wine and Spirits
will save 55% in lighting costs. Santa Clara (CA): The WattStopper, Inc. 1 p.

• The WattStopper, Inc. [date unknown d]. Case study: Lighting controls find a place in PG&E’s
energy saving plans. Santa Clara (CA): The WattStopper, Inc. 1 p.

• The WattStopper, Inc. [date unknown e]. Case study: Rhode Island College slashes energy costs in
classrooms and library with Watt Stopper occupancy sensors. Santa Clara (CA): The WattStopper,
Inc. 1 p.

• The WattStopper, Inc. [date unknown f]. Case study: Watt Stopper contributes to “gold” LEED
award for California state office building. Santa Clara (CA): The WattStopper, Inc. 1 p.

• The WattStopper, Inc. [date unknown g]. Case study: The Watt Stopper occupancy sensors reduce
university library load by 30%. Santa Clara (CA): The WattStopper, Inc. 1 p.

• The WattStopper, Inc. [date unknown h]. Case study: Watt Stopper sensors a targeted part of
energy conservation measures at Uintah Basin Medical Center. Santa Clara (CA): The WattStopper,
Inc. 1 p.

• Yang I-H, Nam E-J. 2010. Economic analysis of the daylight-linked lighting control system in
office buildings. Sol Energy. 84(8):1513–1525.

† ASHRAE 90.1, the national model building code, is updated every three years and includes several
controls requirements in ASHRAE 90.1–2010 including automatic shutoff controls and photocells in
certain space types. However, states have until 2013 just to update their codes to meet ASHRAE 90.1–
2007, and some states still meet only ASHRAE 90.1–2001 (U.S. Department of Energy 2011a).
*References marked with an asterisk were used as background only; as they are not primary sources of
energy savings estimates, they were not included in the meta-analysis.

Similer Documents