sce design and engineering services - etcc...proceed to illuminate them with real-world current...

Design & Engineering Services

PAPER STUDY OF OPEN PARKING LOTS - A

COMPUTER-BASED COMPARISON OF

BEST PRACTICE LIGHTING TECHNOLOGIES

ET07SCE1111 Report

Prepared by:

Design & Engineering Services

Customer Service Business Unit

Southern California Edison

January 2012

Open Parking Lot Lighting Study ET07SCE1111

Southern California Edison

Design and Engineering Services January 2012

Acknowledgements

Southern California Edison’s Design & Engineering Services (DES) group is responsible for

this project. It was developed as part of Southern California Edison’s Emerging Technologies

Program under internal project number ET07SCE1111. DES project manager Jack Melnyk

conducted this technology evaluation with overall guidance and management from program

manager Anthony Hernandez. For more information on this project, contact

[email protected].

Disclaimer

This report was prepared by Southern California Edison (SCE) and funded by California

utility customers under the auspices of the California Public Utilities Commission.

Reproduction or distribution of the whole or any part of the contents of this document

without the express written permission of SCE is prohibited. This work was performed with

reasonable care and in accordance with professional standards. However, neither SCE nor

any entity performing the work pursuant to SCE’s authority make any warranty or

representation, expressed or implied, with regard to this report, the merchantability or

fitness for a particular purpose of the results of the work, or any analyses, or conclusions

contained in this report. The results reflected in the work are generally representative of

operating conditions; however, the results in any other situation may vary depending upon

particular operating conditions.


Southern California Edison Page i Design & Engineering Services January 2012

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Southern California Edison (SCE) study compares the baseline legacy lighting systems

to current mainline, advanced, and emerging lighting technologies in outdoor lighting. The

goals were to:

• Develop site models representative of the universe of open parking lots;

proceed to illuminate them with real-world current baseline, advanced, and

emerging alternative systems of pole-mounted lights at typical mounting

heights

• Develop designs (meeting illumination, lighting power density (LPD), and light

trespass objectives) for upgrade of both systems (only luminaires and

connected loads change) and new installations with new poles and bases,

optimized pole height, luminaire distribution optics, and luminaire spacing

• Display the relative dusk to dawn energy usage of comparable light advanced

and emerging technologies systems versus incumbent technologies systems

• Present comparative lifecycle costs (LCC) of each system as a guide to parties

making decisions (planning, designing, funding, and installing) regarding open lot

lighting

This paper study is a design and application guide for retrofit/upgrades and new

construction. Its purpose is to help improve open parking lot lighting systems by revealing

and counterpoising advanced and emerging technologies against incumbent technology

lighting systems, in a range of representative lot geometries at practical arrangements and

mounting heights. Designs created for this study are based on lot configurations used in

Title 24 modeling by the California Energy Commission (CEC) for Title 24-2013, as well as a

large open lot model representative of regional shopping mall and large venue parking sites.

Incumbent technologies pulse start metal halide (PSMH) and high-pressure sodium (HPS)

were modeled using these design footprints to establish an incumbent baseline. Advanced

and emerging technologies; ceramic metal halide (CMH), induction (IF), T5HO fluorescent

(FL), light emitting diode (LED), and high efficiency plasma (HEP)) lighting systems were

also modeled using the same parking lot layouts. These models represent best practice

advanced lighting solutions. Incumbent designs and advanced/emerging design solutions

were then compared to determine potential energy savings, design performance gains, and

cost effectiveness.

Results and data gained from this paper study can provide insight to customers planning,

designing, funding, and installing open parking lot lighting. They can choose among those

technologies and products that will provide maximum energy savings and potential cost

savings.

The AGI-32 models demonstrated that design of the luminaire is as critical as the light source

selected for maximum performance. Optics of the luminaire, as well as other luminaire

characteristics, can greatly influence overall performance including energy savings.

Modeling the various light sources indicated that with proper design and luminaire selection

some current advanced alternative sources used in the modeling can provide the required

illumination for upgrade of existing systems at LPD’s well within current and near future

code requirements (California Title-24-08 and CA T24-13, respectively for an example).

As a rule, luminaires with high intensity discharge (HID), i.e., pulse start metal halide

(PSMH), ceramic metal halide (CMH), high pressure sodium (HPS), or light-emitting diode

(LED) sources, offer a wider array of optics with better optical control than typical

fluorescent and/or induction luminaires.


Southern California Edison Page ii Design & Engineering Services January 2012

Modeling the various light sources indicated above with proper design and luminaire

selection, all new advanced alternative sources used in the modeling can provide the

required illumination for new installations and retrofit applications at LPDs well under

current and near-future code requirements (California Title-24-08 and CA T24-13).

Where design criteria require superior luminaire optics suited to open parking lot needs,

CMH or LED are preferred options, optics for fluorescent (FL) and induction fluorescent (IF)

sources are often less effective at effectively directing the light distribution in critical

applications. Induction fluorescent further suffers from having 20% to 30% less initial raw

source lumens than CMH or LED.

While HPS performed well, meeting Illuminating Engineering Society (IES) lighting

requirements with very good energy efficiency, its use as a source for open parking lot

illumination is not recommended. Its color rendition, as measured by a color rendering

index (CRI) (100 = perfect) of 22, is very poor. The need for visual acuity, including color

perception, is important within open parking lots. The study recommends that only light

sources with a CRI of 62 or better be used for parking lot lighting.

Furthermore, recent IES design recommendations covering mesopic lighting levels

(approximately 6 lux down to 1 lux), modeled and investigated in this study, show white

light (CMH ,PSMH, and LED) markedly superior to HPS. A very conservative design

recommendation would be to consider PSMH as HPS’s photometric equal at equal nominal

wattages. That is, a 400-Watt (W) PSMH will provide the visual acuity of a 400W HPS. In a

similar vein a CMH of 315W would equal a 400W HPS as would a best practice 275W LED

(LED is improving at a rate so that this is expected to be in the 225W to 250W range within

18 months).

Finally, data gathered and analysis of incumbent (PSMH and HPS) lighting versus advanced

(CMH, T5HO, IF and LED) and emerging high efficiency plasma (HEP)) technologies is a

useful tool for SCE customers (designers, engineers, contractors, and owners/end users)

when planning and designing exterior open lot lighting. A simple design guide template has

been included with this document that may be used as a reference tool.

TABLE ES-1. ENERGY AND DEMAND SAVINGS PER (AVERAGE) LUMINAIRE

ANNUAL ENERGY

CONSUMPTION

(KWH/YR)

ANNUAL ENERGY

SAVINGS (KWH/YR) PEAK DEMAND

(KW) PEAK DEMAND

REDUCTION (KW)

Baseline 519.06 0.1554

New Technology – retrofit /upgrade & new construction

358.04 160.66 0.1073 0.0481

Estimated kW and kWh savings Based on extrapolations from the January 2012 Navigant study; there are about 2 million open lot lights in SCE service territory. If we can retrofit/upgrade or construct new, 20% of the 2 million over 10 years following this paper’s tenets, we can save (per the table above, but without the aggressive controls pursuit) about 64 thousand MWh and 19.2 MW, respectively.


Southern California Edison Page iii Design & Engineering Services January 2012

CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ________________________________________________ I

INTRODUCTION ____________________________________________________ 1

BACKGROUND ____________________________________________________ 2

Technologies/Products Being Evaluated ...................................... 2

Baseline Technologies/Products ............................................ 2 Advanced Technologies/Products .......................................... 3 Emerging Technologies/Product ........................................... 4

Site Footprints for Computer Models .......................................... 5

Geometries from California Title 24-2013 .............................. 5 Geometry from Regional Shopping Center ............................. 6

ASSESSMENT OBJECTIVES ____________________________________________ 8

TECHNOLOGY/PRODUCT EVALUATION __________________________________ 9

TECHNICAL APPROACH/TEST METHODOLOGY ___________________________ 10

Simulated Testing of Technologies ........................................... 10

Modeling Software ............................................................ 10 The IES Lighting Handbook, 10th Edition - IES HB-10-11 .. 10 IES/IDA Model Lighting Ordinance (MLO) - Approved

June 14, 2011 ............................................................. 10 Instrumentation Plan –Lighting Modeling ............................. 11 Instrumentation Plan – Illumination Targets ........................ 11 Instrumentation Plan – Code Compliance ............................ 12 Test Plan ......................................................................... 12

Test Plan Illuminance and Uniformity - IES

Recommended Practice ........................................... 12 Test Plan Lighting Power Density – CEC NON-Residential

Exterior Code Compliance ............................................ 13 Test Plan Lighting Environmental – IES/IDA Model Lighting ... 14 Ordinance (MLO) .............................................................. 14

RESULTS 15

Analysis Results - Illuminance and Uniformity ...................... 15 Analysis Results – Lighting Power Density (LPD) .................. 20 Data Analysis – Illuminance and LPD for Exterior Open Lots .. 24 Analysis Results – Design Lumen Versus MLO Allowed

Maximum Lumens ........................................................ 26 Data Analysis – Exterior Open Lots IES/IDA MLO

Compliance ................................................................ 28 Analysis Results – Design FC Versus New IES Average FC

Targets ...................................................................... 29 Analysis Recap – Exterior Open Lots Average fc comparisons . 32


Southern California Edison Page iv Design & Engineering Services January 2012

EVALUATIONS ____________________________________________________ 34

Analysis of AGI-32 Modeling ................................................... 34

Detailed Evaluation; Illuminance and Uniformity ....................... 34

Detailed Evaluation; Energy Savings (reduced LPD) Incumbent Versus

Advanced & Emerging Technology ............................................. 36

Analysis Recap – Evaluation of Energy Savings (LPD) ........... 40

Detailed Evaluation of Lighting Power Density (LPD) .................. 41

Analysis – Evaluation of Lighting Power Density (LPD) .......... 42

Detailed Evaluation- Design Model Lumens Versus MLO Allowed Lumens 43

Analysis of Costs – First Cost and Lifecycle ............................... 44

RECOMMENDATIONS ______________________________________________ 50

Design Application Guide ........................................................ 56

Recommended Further Study and Evaluation ............................ 58

APPENDIX A: IES RECOMMENDED PRACTICES ___________________________ 59

APPENDIX B: IES/IDA MODEL LIGHTING ORDINANCE _____________________ 63

APPENDIX C: CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION TITLE 24 _________________ 66

APPENDIX D: OUTLINE SPECIFICATIONS ________________________________ 69

APPENDIX E: DETAILS OF AGI-32 LIGHTING MODELS ______________________ 72

APPENDIX F: KEPNER TREGO ANALYSIS _________________________________ 76

APPENDIX G: DETAILS OF LIFECYCLE COSTS ANALYSIS _____________________ 77

APPENDIX H: DETAILS OF RESULTS – LIGHTING POWER ____________________ 80

APPENDIX I: DETAILS OF RESULTS – DESIGN LUMEN VERSUS ________________ 84

APPENDIX J: DETAILS OF RESULTS – DESIGN FC VERSUS __________________ 88

APPENDIX K: DETAILED EVALUATION; ENERGY SAVINGS (REDUCED LPD)

INCUMBENT VERSUS ADVANCED & EMERGING TECHNOLOGY _______ 92

APPENDIX L: DETAILED EVALUATION OF LIGHTING POWER DENSITY (LPD) _____ 97

APPENDIX M: DETAILED EVALUATION- DESIGN MODEL LUMENS VERSUS

MLO ALLOWED LUMENS ___________________________________ 99

APPENDIX N: DETAILS OF COST ANALYSIS _____________________________ 102


Southern California Edison Page v Design & Engineering Services January 2012

FIGURES Figure 1. Model Site Geometries Considered for General

Hardscape Allowance Analysis ........................................ 6

Figure 2. Regional Shopping Center Footprint .................................. 7

TABLES Table ES-1. Energy and Demand Savings per (average) Luminaire ..... ii

Table 2. Exterior Open Parking Lot – Illumination (MINIMUM (Min)

maintained) ............................................................... 13

Table 3. Exterior Open Parking Lots - LPD ..................................... 13

Table 4. Exterior Open Parking Lots – MLO Allowed Total Lumens ..... 14

Table 5. Illumination Lot E (small footprint) ................................... 16

Table 6. Illumination Lot A (large rectangular/long footprint) ........... 17

Table 7. Illumination Lot B (large irregular/complex footprint) ......... 18

Table 8. Illumination Lot SC (large open lot event/mall footprint) ..... 19

Table 9. LPD Lot E (small footprint) .............................................. 20

Table 10. LPD Lot A (large rectangular/long footprint) .................... 20

Table 11. LPD Lot B (large irregular/complex footprint) ................... 22

Table 12. PD Lot SC (large open lot event/mall footprint) ................ 23

Table 13. Total Lumens Lot E (small footprint) ............................... 26

Table 14. Total Lumens Lot A (large long footprint) ........................ 26

Table 15. Total Lumens Lot B (large irregular/complex footprint) .... 27

Table 16. Total Lumens Lot SC (large open mall/venue footprint) ..... 28

Table 17. Average Footcandles Lot E (small footprint) ..................... 29

Table 18. Average Footcandles Lot A (large long footprint) .............. 30

Table 19. Average Footcandles Lot B (large irregular/complex

footprint) .................................................................. 31

Table 20. Average Footcandles Lot SC (large open mall/venue

footprint) .................................................................. 32

Table 21 LPD Lot E (small footprint) ............................................. 36



Table 24. LPD Lot SC (large open lot event/mall footprint) .............. 39


Southern California Edison Page vi Design & Engineering Services January 2012

Table 25. LCC for Lot E ............................................................... 45

Table 26. LCC for Lot A ............................................................... 45

Table 27. LCC for Lot B ............................................................... 46

Table 28. LCC for Lot SC ............................................................. 47

Table 29. Relative Light Source Ranking ........................................ 51







Table 15. LPD Lot E (small footprint) ............................................ 80




Table 19. Total Lumens Lot E (small footprint) ............................... 84

Table 20. Total Lumens Lot A (large long footprint) ........................ 85

able 21. Total Lumens Lot B (large irregular/complex footprint) ...... 86

Table 22. Total Lumens Lot SC (large open mall/venue footprint) ..... 87

Table 23. Average Footcandles Lot E (small footprint) ..................... 88

Table 24. Average Footcandles Lot A (large long footprint) .............. 89

Table 25. Average Footcandles Lot B (large irregular/complex

footprint) .................................................................. 90

Table 26. Average Footcandles Lot SC (large open mall/venue

footprint) .................................................................. 91

Table 27 LPD Lot E (small footprint) ............................................. 92




Table 31. LCC for Lot E ............................................................. 102

Table 32. LCC for Lot A ............................................................. 103

Table 33. LCC for Lot B ............................................................. 104

Table 34. LCC for Lot SC ........................................................... 105


Southern California Edison Page vii Design & Engineering Services January 2012

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

AGI-32 Lighting simulation software made by Lighting Analysts, Inc.

CA California

CEC California Energy Commission

CRI Color Rendering Index

CMH Ceramic Metal Halide

EB Electronic Ballast

fc Footcandle

FL Fluorescent

HEP High Efficiency Plasma

HID High Intensity Discharge

HPS High Pressure Sodium

IDA International Dark Sky Association

IF Induction Fluorescent

IES Illuminating Engineering Society

ILC Integrated Lighting Concepts, Inc.

LCC Lifecycle cost

LED Light Emitting Diodes

LDD Lamp Dirt Depreciation

LLD Lamp Lumen Depreciation

LLF Light Loss Factor

Lm Lumen

LPD Lighting Power Density


Southern California Edison Page viii Design & Engineering Services January 2012

LPW Lumens per watt

kW Kilowatt

kWh Kilowatt-hour

mA Milli-Amp

MH Metal Halide

MLO Model Lighting Ordinance

NA Not Applicable

N/A Not Available

PSMH Pulse Start Metal Halide

RF Radio Frequency

SCE Southern California Edison

T5/HO 5/8 inch tubular High output linear fluorescent

T-24 Title-24 (California Energy Code)

W Watt


Southern California Edison Page 1

Design & Engineering Services January 2012

INTRODUCTION This paper study is a design and application guide for retrofit/upgrades and new

construction. Its purpose is to help improve open parking lot lighting systems by revealing

and counterpoising advanced and emerging technologies against incumbent technology

lighting systems, in a range of representative lot geometries at practical arrangements and

mounting heights. Designs created for this study are based on lot configurations used in

Title 24 modeling by the California Energy Commission (CEC) for Title 24-2013, as well as a

large open lot model representative of regional shopping mall and large venue parking sites.

Incumbent technologies pulse start metal halide (PSMH) and high-pressure sodium (HPS)

were modeled using these design footprints to establish an incumbent baseline. Advanced

and emerging technologies; ceramic metal halide (CMH), induction fluorescent (IF), T5HO

fluorescent (FL), light-emitting diode (LED), and high efficiency plasma (HEP)) lighting

systems were also modeled using the same parking lot layouts. These models represent

best practice advanced lighting solutions. Incumbent designs and advanced/emerging

design solutions were then compared to determine potential energy savings, design

performance gains, and cost effectiveness.

Results and data gained from this paper study can provide insight to customers planning,

designing, funding, and installing open parking lot lighting. They can choose among those

technologies and products that will provide maximum energy savings and potential cost

savings.

Baseline, advanced, and emerging technologies that were modeled in the study as energy

efficient high-performance options are:

HPS (baseline technology)

PSMH (baseline mainstream technology)

IF

CMH (advanced technology)

LED (advanced)

T5HO electronic ballast (EB) fluorescent LED available with multi-level (high/low)

and continuous dimming control gear (advanced technology)

High Efficiency Plasma (HEP)) an emerging technology

A CEC report and extensive experience by Integrated Lighting Concepts, Inc. (ILC), and

Southern California Edison (SCE) were used to establish the footprints for the AGI-32

generated computer models of this report. Lighting designs employing a layout of luminaires

with the technologies being evaluated were used for the models. Performance targets used

for the designs were the current Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA)

recommended practice for illuminating open parking lots, California Title 24 (2008 & 2013)

lighting power density compliance, Dark Skies criteria, and the Illuminating Engineering

Society (IES) Model Lighting Ordinance (MLO).




BACKGROUND The primary baseline light sources for open parking lots, until recently, have been PSMH

and HPS. In the advanced technology realm, there are a number of improved systems, most

notably CMH and LED. This document explores and reports on the performance, including

energy efficiency and cost effectiveness of the baseline technologies, advanced

technologies, and one emerging technology, high efficiency plasma (HEP), all for open

parking lots. All of the technologies are, or claim to be, dimmable. Exterior open lot

dimming is to date, rare, with a few examples of step-dimmed LED.

TECHNOLOGIES/PRODUCTS BEING EVALUATED

BASELINE TECHNOLOGIES/PRODUCTS

High Pressure Sodium (HPS)

Light source decreasingly found in parking lots, product meets

California Title 20 standards

Ballast adds about 15% to the connected power consumption of lamp

(luminaire connected load)

Lamp lumen depreciation of 10% at 50% lamp life (excellent

performance)

Rated lamp life 24,000 hours (excellent performance); ballast life is

50,000 hours

Color quality; color rendering index (CRI) of 22 (very poor quality) - not

recommended where/when visual color acuity is required

Moderate first cost

Pulse Start Metal Halide (PSMH)

Lamp wattage and light source found in large number of newer parking

lots - mainline product that meets California Title 20 standards

Ballast adds about 15% to the connected power consumption of lamp


Lamp lumen depreciation of 30% at 40% lamp life (good performance)

Lamp life 15,000 hours to 20,000 hours (based on lamp design and

good performance); ballast life is 50,000 hours

Color quality; color rendering index (CRI) of 62 to 65 (fair)

Moderate first cost




ADVANCED TECHNOLOGIES/PRODUCTS

Ceramic Metal Halide (CMH) Lamp

Lamp wattage and light source meets California Title 20 standards –

Limited parking lot use to date

Electronic Ballast adds 6 to 80% to the connected power consumption

of lamp (luminaire connected load)

Lamp lumen depreciation of 9% at 40% lamp life of (excellent

performance)

Lamp life 20 to 30,000 hours (very good performance); ballast life is

50,000 hours

Color quality; color rendering index (CRI) of 85 to 90 (excellent

quality)

Moderately high first cost

Light-Emitting Diode (LED) System

Lamp wattage and light source meets California Title 20 standards –

Beginning to see parking lot applications

Electronic Driver included in total luminaire power consumption

(LED system connected load)

Lamp lumen depreciation of 30% at 50% lamp life (good performance)

Lamp life 50,000 to 85,000 hours on normal driver (full power)

(excellent performance); manufacturers claim life more than doubles

when under-driven to about 3/8 of full power, (excellent

performance); driver life still 50,000 hours

Color quality; Color rendering Index (CRI) of 75 to 90 (good to

excellent )

High to very high first cost

T5HO Fluorescent Lamp

Lamp wattage and light source meets California Title 20 standards

Light source frequently found in newer parking structures (covered

parking) but not typically found in exterior open parking lots

Electronic ballast (EB) included in total luminaire power consumption


Lamp lumen depreciation of 5% at 50% lamp life (excellent

performance)




Lamp life 20,000 to 30,000 hours (excellent performance); EB life is

50,000 hours

Color quality; Color rendering index (CRI) of 80+ (excellent quality)

Low to moderate first cost

Induction Fluorescent System

Advanced lighting technology, lamp wattage and light source meets

California Title 20 standards

Niche market source sometimes found in parking structures (covered

parking) but not typically found in exterior open parking lots – has

limited application use

Radio frequency (RF) electronic control gear included in total luminaire

power consumption (luminaire connected load)

Lamp lumen depreciation of 30% at 70% lamp life (very good

performance)

Lamp life is 50,000 to 80,000 hours (excellent performance); driver

(aka generator set) life is about 60,000 hours

Color quality; Color rendering index (CRI) of 80 (good quality)

High first cost

EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES/PRODUCT

High Efficiency Plasma (HEP)) System

Technology position of CEC unknown (for Title 20), currently a niche

market source that may appear in exterior open parking lots – has

limited application use

RF electronic control gear included in total luminaire power

consumption (single unit plasma system connected load)

Lamp lumen depreciation of 10% at 80% lamp life (good

performance)

Lamp life 50,000 or more hours (excellent performance)

Color quality; Color rendering index (CRI) of 75 to 95 (good to

excellent quality)

Very high first cost




SITE FOOTPRINTS FOR COMPUTER MODELS

GEOMETRIES FROM CALIFORNIA TITLE 24-2013 Three of four site footprints used in developing Incumbent and Advanced/Emerging

Technologies Models (AGI-32 modeling) were taken from proposed Title 24-2013

Non-Res Exterior Lighting Code.

Footprint A: large, long rectangular lot represents the large volume of urban

and suburban office complexes that sit adjacent to one another in office parks

and light commercial/industrial zones.

Footprint B: large, irregular shaped lot, represents the typical urban and

suburban large regional corporate office (not headquarters), or medical center

(not hospital) that sit on a large site either within an office park or adjacent to

other commercial sites.

Footprint E: small shaped lot represents the typical small business property

in a suburban environment adjacent to residential or small town. Footprint E

could also represent a drive-up facility (remote banking or transportation

pick-up point).




FIGURE 1. MODEL SITE GEOMETRIES CONSIDERED FOR GENERAL HARDSCAPE ALLOWANCE ANALYSIS

GEOMETRY FROM REGIONAL SHOPPING CENTER The fourth footprint (SC) used in developing Incumbent and Advanced/Emerging

Technologies Models (AGI-32 modeling) was taken from an existing regional

shopping center complex. This lot is one of several surrounding the center.

Footprint SC; large, open space lot, represents a shopping mall open parking

complex that sits adjacent to a freeway or other major thoroughfare in an

urban or active suburban zone.

This footprint could also represent a large open outdoor lot adjacent to sports

venues, entertainment venues, and transportation (commuter parking, off

site airport, and train parking, etc.




FIGURE 2. REGIONAL SHOPPING CENTER FOOTPRINT




ASSESSMENT OBJECTIVES

This study provides a thorough comparison of baseline and advanced technologies. In

addition, it discusses emerging lighting technologies and determines which advanced

technologies provide the maximum opportunities for lighting performance and energy

efficiency. The targeted assessments are:

Develop and present results and data to guide customers in planning, designing,

funding, and installing open lot lighting. Using this data can assist customers,

designers, engineers, and others in determining those technologies, products, and

systems that will provide maximum energy and investment savings.

Determine the comparative energy savings, demand reduction, and lifecycle costs

over the incumbent technologies

Display the relative energy usage of comparable current baseline incumbent systems

versus advanced alternative systems

Present comparative LCCs of each system as a guide to parties making decisions

planning, designing, funding, and installing open lot lighting

Assess potential energy savings and potential state wide energy reduction impact relative

to level of acceptance and implementation of advanced technologies over continuing with

use of current main stream, minimally compliant incumbent technologies

Discuss the energy savings potential available by retrofitting existing baseline incumbent

systems to advanced systems deliberately reducing connected loads via the retrofit to IES

recommended minimum practice

Assess the potential to Title 24 Energy Efficiency Code compliance revisions for

current and future code standards when/if the advanced and emerging technologies

being assessed become mainstream (what threshold is required to reach Title 24

cost effectiveness benchmarks)

Identify detractors and/or barriers to adoption of the advanced and emerging

technologies being reviewed in this study




TECHNOLOGY/PRODUCT EVALUATION The approach and methodology for assessment of the technology and/or products being

compared/evaluated uses virtual design (computer modeling) to simulate designs and

product performance that one might encounter in a real-world physical environment.

Consultants performed this assessment with AGI-32 computer lighting simulations.

These simulations were economic - saving an estimated $150K of field site

acquisition, measurements and demonstrations. The simulation data is believed to be

just as accurate as a hard site field data; and saved 12 to 18 months of time to

complete.

DES staff and an outside contractor will perform this assessment.

Integrated Lighting Concepts (ILC), on behalf of SCE, performed the

conceptual/virtual design as well as computer modeling results and analysis for this

assessment. In addition, ILC wrote the report. ILC is a lighting design firm that has a

high level, extensive body of expertise working with advanced and cutting edge

lighting applications. ILC also has in-depth expertise via a code writer/technical

document author. ILC’s relationship with SCE extends over seven years. In addition

to providing technical support, they have provided educational programs to SCE and

are currently one of SCE’s Energy Education Center Lighting Academy faculties.

Much better than average computer modeling and design coupled with luminaires of better

than average photometrics have been chosen and optimized (power and light) herein to

satisfy key current established and emerging national and state recommended practices and

rules (which in turn and increasingly strongly shape local ordinances).

Luminaires selected for the modeling, both incumbent technologies and advanced and

emerging technologies employ higher quality than average optics. When and where

appropriate, luminaire optical reflectors were chosen mirror faceted instead of the typically

poorer performing hydro formed. LED modules use precise optical placement of LEDs within

LED modules for improved distribution. Use of lower quality luminaires that are often

specified for first cost benefits or value engineered into a design, will result in performance

well below that shown in these models.




TECHNICAL APPROACH/TEST METHODOLOGY This study of open parking lots is an SCE “Paper Study”. It uses the framework of best

practices lighting design applied to both incumbent lighting technologies and advanced

and emerging lighting technologies used in open lot lighting applications.

Parking lot site geometry’s from a sampling of diverse site geometries used for CEC Title

24-2013 development and a field sample were used to create the model footprints for this

paper study. Luminaire layouts were based on using typical pole heights, spacing’s and

luminaire outputs (best available lumen packages and photometric distributions) best suited

to these geometries.

SIMULATED TESTING OF TECHNOLOGIES AGI-32 computer modeling software replicated the design models for exterior open

lot lighting technologies used at each of the site geometry samplings. IES and

International Dark Sky Association (IDA) recommended practice for lighting exterior

open parking lots and California Title 24 LPD compliance standards were the design

criteria used for setting performance targets.

Luminaires using incumbent, advanced, and emerging technologies being evaluated

were placed into models following the layout footprint and design criteria

representing “best practices” as recommended by IES, IDA, and the CEC. All of the

technologies (incumbent/legacy/baseline, advanced, and emerging) were evaluated

using the simulation models created with the AGI-32 computer software.

MODELING SOFTWARE

The test instrument to model incumbent lighting technologies and advanced /

emerging lighting technologies via this paper is Lighting Analyst AGI-32 computer

modeling software for lighting simulation. Instruments for design targets and

evaluation were current IES recommended practice (Handbook (HB) 10th edition and

legacy IES documents; HB 9th edition and IES Recommended Practice (RP-33),

IDA/IES Model Lighting Ordinance (MLO) for environmental compliance, and

California Title 24 energy code compliance documentation. Microsoft Excel software

was used to process results for review, evaluation, and editing for this report.

Versions of each instrumentation document are as follows:

Lighting Analyst AGI-32 2.22 Lighting Simulation Software

THE IES LIGHTING HANDBOOK, 10TH EDITION - IES HB-10-11

IES/IDA MODEL LIGHTING ORDINANCE (MLO) - APPROVED JUNE 14, 2011

California Title 24-2008 Energy Code (current compliance) and Title 24-2013

draft Energy Code (proposed compliance in 2013)




INSTRUMENTATION PLAN –LIGHTING MODELING

Outdoor open lot lighting designs based on four diverse (but in the aggregate

considered well representative of the universe of) open lot footprints were

modeled. AGI-32 lighting simulation software was used to render computer

models of incumbent lighting technologies (PSMH and HPS) and advanced and

emerging technologies (CMH, LED, IF, FL and HEP) within these four open lot

footprints.

This tool, used to create computer models used in evaluating incumbent and

advanced and emerging technologies, is a recognized premier international

computer software program modeling tool for lighting design and evaluation.

AGI-32 is first, and foremost, a calculation tool for accurate photometric

predictions. AGI-32 is a technical tool that can compute illuminance in any

situation, assist in luminaire placement and aiming, and validate adherence to

any number of lighting criteria.

AGI-32 has a plethora of

features to enhance the

understanding of photometric

results. Visualization is

extremely important to

comprehend changes in light

levels and its interaction with

(influence on and by) different

materials and surface

properties all focused toward

predicting accurately the effect

of various luminaire designs in

real-world scenarios.

AGi32 rendering with Overlay feature enabled

INSTRUMENTATION PLAN – ILLUMINATION TARGETS

Illumination targets for the outdoor open lot lighting designs are based on IES

recommended practice for lighting exterior open parking lots and IDA

recommended maximum illuminance by lighting zone.

Illumination targets for the outdoor open lot lighting designs modeled on

the four diverse open lot footprints are based on IES recommended

practice for lighting exterior open parking lots. Those recommendations

are based in part from lighting guidelines in the IES Lighting Handbook,

10th Edition as well as legacy documents including the IES Handbook 9th

Edition, and RP-33 Lighting for Exterior Environments.




Targets for maximum total allowed lumens for illumination by lighting zones is

taken from the IDA/IES Model Lighting Ordinance (MLO) released in June 2011.

INSTRUMENTATION PLAN – CODE COMPLIANCE

Code compliance targets for the outdoor open lot lighting designs are based

on the CEC’s Title 24 Non-Residential compliance, exterior lighting. Current

code, Title 24-2008 and the proposed code update Title 24-2013 targets were

used for the evaluation of results of the lighting models developed in this

study.

TEST PLAN

Design target criteria for the incumbent, advanced, and emerging technologies)

open lot model designs was IES Recommended Practice for exterior open lot parking

with standard (not enhanced security level) illuminance and uniformity targets.

California Title 24-08 Energy Efficiency Code allowed LPD for exterior open lot

parking in lighting zones Z2 and Z3, and was used as an energy compliance target.

In addition to illuminance, uniformity, and LPD design targets, models were filtered

for environmental (Dark Sky) targets. The maximum allowed lumens for IES/IDA

lighting zones Z1, Z2, and Z3 were used for these targets. In turn, the IES/IDA

targets came from MLO recommended practice).

TEST PLAN ILLUMINANCE AND UNIFORMITY - IES RECOMMENDED PRACTICE

The IES Lighting Handbook 10th Edition released in June of 2011 represents the

current IES recommended practices for lighting design and application. However, as

stated the new IES applications matrix, from which IES develops recommendations,

has not been fully integrated into lighting of parking structures, exterior open lots,

and roadway lighting. Therefore, these applications must also defer to IES legacy

documents such as IES Handbook 9th Edition and IES RP-33-99 Outdoor

Environmental Lighting Recommended Practices.

Therefore, illuminance and uniformity design target criteria for the models

(incumbent, advanced, and emerging technologies) listed in Table 2 follow those

found in IES Handbook 9th Edition and IES RP-33-99. All other aspects of the design

criteria agree with IES Handbook 10th Edition. While Table 2provides recommended

illuminance and uniformity ratios for basic lot illumination (standard security) and

higher illumination and uniformity for enhanced security (high security), the paper

study AGI-32 models in this report were designed around the basic/standard lighting

recommended practice. The higher (high security) targets are shown for reference

only and could be used in analyzing the AGI-32 models with respect to filtering

possible improved designs for higher lighting (safety/security) potential

requirements.

Additional information and criteria for IES recommended practices with reference to

outdoor lighting is in the appendix.




TABLE 2. EXTERIOR OPEN PARKING LOT – ILLUMINATION (MINIMUM (MIN) MAINTAINED)

GUIDELINES & TARGETS ILLUMINANCE (H) ILLUMINANCE (V) UNIFORMITY

IES (10th HB) Basic (Standard) Security

0.2 fc Min 0.1 fc Min 20:1 (max : min)

IES (10th HB) Enhanced (High)

Security

0.5 fc Min 0.25 fc Min 15:1 (max : min)

Note: Footcandle targets are for maintained illumination.

TEST PLAN LIGHTING POWER DENSITY – CEC NON-RESIDENTIAL EXTERIOR

CODE COMPLIANCE

Title 24 segments exterior non-residential code compliance into four lighting zones

(Z1, Z2, Z3 and Z4) with Z2 and Z3 as default lighting zones. Zone 2 (rural) and

Zone 3 (urban) include most all exterior lighting applications within the state of

California.

Zone 1 (environmental preserves, natural undeveloped parks and preserves)

applications are extremely limited. Zone 4 (requested higher activity urban zone) has

not been authorized at this juncture. There are no Z4 sites in California as of today.

Code compliance targets for this paper study’s test model are therefore focused on

lighting Zone 2 and Zone 3 only. Full descriptions of the CEC Title 24 lighting zones

as well as formulas for determining compliance are shown in Appendix B. Table 3

shows the exterior open parking lots with LPD.

TABLE 3. EXTERIOR OPEN PARKING LOTS - LPD

GUIDELINES & TARGETS SQ. FT

MULTIPLIER LIN. FT

MULTIPLIER BASE

ALLOCATION

TITLE 24-2008 Compliance – Zone 2 0.045W 0.45W 550W







TEST PLAN LIGHTING ENVIRONMENTAL – IES/IDA MODEL LIGHTING

ORDINANCE (MLO)

IES/IDA Model Lighting Ordinance (MLO) establishes recommended maximum

lumens for area lighting, by lighting zone. The MLO establishes five lighting zones

(LZ) from zone LZ0 to zone LZ5. IES/IDA lighting zone LZ0 is similar to CEC Title 24

lighting Z1 (natural and environmental preserves) while IES/IDA lighting zone Z5 is a

non-default high light level zone that is seldom used and not generally recommended

by IES/IDA under the MLO. Therefore, the models in this study were only filtered for

environmental (Dark Sky) maximum lumen targets for zones Z1, Z2, and Z3.

Full descriptions of the IES/IDA MLO lighting zones as well as the formula for

determining compliance are in Appendix C.

TABLE 4. EXTERIOR OPEN PARKING LOTS – MLO ALLOWED TOTAL LUMENS

GUIDELINES & TARGETS SQ. FT ALLOWED LUMENS BASE ALLOWED LUMENS

MLO Performance Method – Zone 1 1.25 per Sq. Ft. 3,500 Lumens






RESULTS Lighting models, using AGI-32 computer modeling software, were run for the legacy/base

PSMH and HPS source designs. AGI-32 models also ran for each of the advanced and

emerging technology alternatives being evaluated. Results of both incumbent technology

and advanced/emerging technology design models are shown as follows:

Illuminance and uniformity versus IES recommended targets

LPD versus CA Title-24’s allowed maximum LPDs

IES/IDA recommended maximum allowed lumens by lighting zone per MLO

standards and recommended compliance models.

Data results gained from AGI-32 modeling of legacy as well as the various advanced and

emerging technology alternatives are presented in the following series of images and tables.

Each model includes a computer generated design model, point-by-point illuminance map,

and a table with performance data that can be found in Appendix D. Additional details with

respect to Title 24 compliance and IES/IDA MLO compliance can be found in the Appendices.

ANALYSIS RESULTS - ILLUMINANCE AND UNIFORMITY Results gained from AGI-32 modeling of legacy and the various advanced and

emerging technology alternatives are presented in the tables that follow. The key IES

recommended practice targets; minimum horizontal illumination, minimum vertical

illumination, and uniformity are documented in these tables.




TABLE 5. ILLUMINATION LOT E (SMALL FOOTPRINT)


IES Recommended Targets (basic/standard) 0.2fc Min. 0.1fc Min. 20:1 (max : min)

Lot E Incumbent 50W HPS 16-Foot Poles 0.32fc Min. 0.01fc Min. 9:1 (max : min)

Lot E Incumbent 50W HPS 24-Foot Poles 0.36fc Min. 0.07fc Min. 5:1 (max : min)

Lot E Incumbent 70W PSMH 16-Foot Poles 0.49fc Min. 0.03fc Min. 5:1 (max : min)

Lot E Incumbent 70W PSMH 24-Foot Poles 0.38fc Min. 0.17fc Min. 3:1 (max : min)

Lot E Advanced 60W CMH 16- Foot Poles 0.48fc Min. .12fc Min. 3:1 (max : min)

Lot E Advanced 60W CMH 24-Foot Poles 0.32fc Min. 0.27fc Min. 5:1 (max : min)

Lot E Advanced 45W LED 16-Foot Poles 0.60fc Min. 0.08fc Min. 4:1 (max : min)

Lot E Advanced 45W LED 24-Foot Poles 0.25fc Min. 0.28fc Min. 6:1 (max : min)

Note: Footcandle targets are for maintained illumination. Color Key:

All Small Lot models (Lot E), incumbent and advanced technologies, exhibited

illuminance (minimum footcandles) well above the 0.2fc target. Uniformity of all models

(Lot E) was also far superior to the 20:1 uniformity target. Uniformity of these models

also exceeded the tighter 15:1 uniformity IES recommends for safety/security

applications. Of the vertical footcandle targets recoded, half met or exceeded the IES

0.1fc target. Of those that did not meet the IES 0.1fc target, two came close at 0.08fc

and 0.07fc while the other two were far off target at 0.03fc and 0.01fc.

Failed Target




TABLE 6. ILLUMINATION LOT A (LARGE RECTANGULAR/LONG FOOTPRINT)



Lot A Incumbent 100W HPS 16-Foot Poles 0.28fc Min. 0.02fc Min. 14:1 (max : min)

Lot A Incumbent 250W HPS 32-Foot Poles 0.22fc Min. 0.19fc Min. 18:1 (max : min)

Lot A Incumbent 150W PSMH 16-Foot Poles

0.23fc Min. 0.02fc Min. 16:1 (max : min)

Lot A Incumbent 250W PSMH 32-Foot Poles


Lot A Advanced 68W LED 16-Foot Poles 0.35fc Min 0.15fc Min. 9:1 (max : min)

Lot A Advanced 90W CMH 16-Foot Poles 0.32fc Min 0.19fc Min. 9:1 (max : min)

Lot A Advanced 111W T5HO 16-Foot Poles 0.28fc Min. 0.09fc Min. 25:1 (max : min)

Lot A Advanced 111W LED 32-Foot Poles 0.11fc Min. 0.36fc Min. 9:1 (max : min)

Lot A Advanced 111-195W T5HO 32-Foot Poles 0.28fc Min. 0.19fc Min. 27:1 (max : min)

Lot A Advanced 150W CMH 32-Foot Poles 0.24fc Min 0.29fc Min. 8:1 (max : min)

Lot A Advanced 150W IF 16-Foot Poles 0.20fc Min 0.06fc Min. 47:1 (max : min)

Lot A Emerging 288W HEP 16-Foot Poles 1.13fc Min. 0.10fc Min. 16:1 (max : min)

Lot A Emerging 266-288W HEP 32-Foot Poles 0.43fc Min. 0.62fc Min. 13:1 (max : min)

Lot A Advanced 400W IF 32-Foot Poles 0.15fc Min. 0.32fc Min 39:1 (max : min)


Color Key:

All but two of the large rectangular Lot models (Lot A), incumbent and advanced

technologies, exhibited illuminance above the 0.2fc target. The T5HO at 32-foot

mounting model fell short of the target with a 0.11fc minimum and the 400W IF at

32-foot model fell short at 0.15fc. It is possible that some fine-tuning of these

designs would result in reaching the 0.2fc target. Uniformity of Lot A models was not

as good as that in Lot E. Four of the Lot A models failed to reach the 20:1 IES target

for uniformity. The technologies involved were T5HO and IF designs. All but one of

the vertical footcandle minimums met or exceeded the IES 0.1fc target. However,

the one that fell short was very close at 0.09 footcandles. This is close enough to the

0.1fc target to suggest that some fine-tuning of the design would result in reaching

the 0.1fc target.

Failed Target




TABLE 7. ILLUMINATION LOT B (LARGE IRREGULAR/COMPLEX FOOTPRINT)



Lot B Incumbent 70W HPS 24-Foot Poles 0.24fc Min. 0.43fc Min. 6:1 (max : min)

Lot B Incumbent 150W HPS 32-Foot Poles 0.21fc Min. 0.07fc Min. 12:1 (max : min)

Lot B Incumbent 70W PSMH 24-Foot Poles 0.21fc Min. 0.35fc Min. 6:1 (max : min)

Lot B Incumbent 175W PSMH 32-Foot Poles


Lot B Emerging 45W LED 24-Foot Poles 0.26fc Min. 0.58fc Min. 5:1 (max : min)

Lot B Advanced 70W CMH 24-Foot Poles 0.08fc Min. 0.32fc Min. 7:1 (max : min)

Lot B Emerging 111W LED 32-Foot Poles 0.35fc Min. 0.31fc Min. 6:1 (max : min)

Lot B Advanced 111-195W T5HO 24 -Foot Poles 0.38fc Min. 0.56fc Min. 15:1 (max : min)

Lot B Advanced 111-195W T5HO 32-Foot Poles 0.21fc Min. 0.15fc Min. 15:1 (max : min)

Lot B Advanced 150W CMH 32-Foot Poles 0.30fc Min. 0.21fc Min. 7:1 (max : min)

Lot B Advanced 150W IF 24-Foot Poles 0.22fc Min. 0.33fc Min. 17:1 (max : min)

Lot B Advanced 250W IF 32-Foot Poles 0.18fc Min. 0.14fc Min. 24:1 (max : min)

Lot B emerging 266-288W HEP 24-Foot Poles 1.25fc Min. 1.77fc Min. 8:1 (max : min)

Lot B emerging 266-288W HEP 32-Foot Poles 0.53fc Min. 0.55fc Min. 14:1 (max : min)


Color Key:

All but two of the large irregular/complex Lot models (Lot B), incumbent and

advanced technologies, exhibited horizontal illuminance (minimum footcandles)

above the 0.2fc target. The incumbent 175W PSMH model fell a little short at 1.15fc

as did the 70W CMH advanced technology model. With respect to vertical minimums,

most of the designs reached the 0.1fc minimum target. However, two also fell short

in the vertical target. These two were the 150W HPS at 32-foot (0.07fc) and the

175W PSMH (0.06fc), also at 32-foot. It is very likely that fine-tuning of the designs

that had some minor shortfalls would result in them hitting the horizontal and

vertical footcandle targets. Uniformity of Lot B models was similar to that found in

the Lot A models. One of the Lot B models failed to reach the 20:1 IES target for

uniformity. The technology involved was the 250W IF design.

Failed Target




TABLE 8. ILLUMINATION LOT SC (LARGE OPEN LOT EVENT/MALL FOOTPRINT)



Lot SC Incumbent 150W HPS 24-Foot Poles 0.25fc Min. 0.10fc Min. 11:1 (max : min)

Lot SC Incumbent 250W HPS 40-Foot Poles 0.36fc Min. 0.09fc Min. 6:1 (max : min)

Lot SC Incumbent 175W PSMH 24-Foot Poles 0.20fc Min. 0.09fc Min. 10:1 (max : min)

Lot SC Incumbent 400W PSMH 40-Foot Poles 0.34fc Min. 0.06fc Min. 7:1 (max : min)

Lot SC Emerging 90W LED 24-Foot Poles 0.38fc Min. 0.48c Min. 4:1 (max : min)

Lot SC Emerging 111W T5HO 24-Foot Poles 0.23fc Min. 0.33fc Min. 18:1 (max : min)

Lot SC Advanced 140W CMH 24-Foot Poles 0.40fc Min. 0.84fc Min. 6:1 (max : min)

Lot SC Advanced 195W T5HO 40-Foot Poles 0.21fc Min. 0.20fc Min. 15:1 (max : min)

Lot SC Advanced 210W CMH 40-Foot Poles 0.25fc Min. 0.36fc Min. 6:1 (max : min)

Lot SC Emerging 221W LED 40-Foot Poles 0.29fc Min. 0.38fc Min. 7:1 (max : min)

Lot SC Advanced 250W IF 24-Foot Poles 0.24fc Min. 0.27fc Min. 24:1 (max : min)

Lot SC Emerging 288W HEP 40-Foot Poles 0.21fc Min. 0.32fc Min. 10:1 (max : min)

Lot SC Advanced 400W IF 40-Foot Poles 0.24fc Min. 0.19fc Min. 14:1 (max : min)


Color Key:

All of the large open Lot models (Lot SC), incumbent and advanced technologies,

exhibited illuminance (minimum footcandles) above the 0.2fc target. Minimum

vertical measurements for all but three of the models met or exceeded the IES 0.1fc

target. The three designs that fell short (250W HPS at 40-foot, 175W PSMH at 24-

foot, and 400W PSMH at 40-foot) were not that far off target that fine-tuning of

these designs would result in reaching the vertical 0.1fc target. Uniformity of Lot SC

models was, for the most part, acceptable. All but one of the 13 models met the

20:1 base uniformity, and 10 of the models met the 15:1 improved safety/security

uniformity target. One design (250W IF) failed to meet the uniformity target.

However, at 24:1 uniformity, minor tweaking of the design should result in

uniformity improvements that would result in this design also reaching the IES

recommended 20:1 uniformity target.

Failed Target




ANALYSIS RESULTS – LIGHTING POWER DENSITY (LPD)

The next series of tables show LPD code compliances with CA Title 24 for each of the

lots modeled.

TABLE 9. LPD LOT E (SMALL FOOTPRINT)

LPD TARGETS – CODE COMPLIANCE AS DESIGNED ZONE 2 08/13 ZONE 3 -2013 ZONE 3 -2008

50W HPS 16-Foot Poles Incumb. 1156W 1,816W 3,157W 3,440W


70W PSMH 16-Foot Poles Incumb. 1190W 1,816W 3,157W 3,440W


60W CMH 16-Foot Poles Adv. 1139W 1,816W 3,157W 3,440W


45W LED 16-Foot Poles Emerg. 765W 1,816W 3,157W 3,440W


COLOR KEY

The LPD of all designs, incumbent technologies and advanced and emerging, were

well within both current Title 24 2008 and the proposed Title 24-2013 compliance for

lighting zones Z2 and Z3. The advanced technology LED designs exhibited especially

low LPD with power densities less than half of that allowed - even under the more

stringent Zone LZ2 compliance.

TABLE 10. LPD LOT A (LARGE RECTANGULAR/LONG FOOTPRINT)


100W HPS 16-Foot Poles Incumb. 18,500W 25,080W 47,930W 51,002W


150W PSMH 16-Foot Poles Incumb. 25,300W 25,080W 47,930W 51,002W


68W LED 16-Foot Poles Adv. 12,580W 25,080W 47,930W 51,002W

90W CMH 16-Foot Poles Adv. 18,315W 25,080W 47,930W 51,002W

111W T5HO 16-Foot Poles Adv. 20,535W 25,080W 47,930W 51,002W

Failed All Failed Multiple Failed Target






111-195W T5HO 16-Foot Poles Adv. 12,688W 25,080W 47,930W 51,002W


150W IF 16-Foot Poles Adv. 29,027W 25,080W 47,930W 51,002W

288W HEP 16-Foot Poles Emerging 53,280W 25,080W 47,930W 51,002W

266-288W HEP 32-Foot Poles Emerg. 25,920W 25,080W 47,930W 51,002W


COLOR KEY

The LPD of all designs, incumbent technologies and advanced and emerging, except

for the 288W HEP design at 16 foot, were well within both current Title 24 2008 and

the proposed Title 24 2013 compliance for lighting zone Z3. However, in this model

(lot A footprint), half of the designs failed to meet California Title 24 zone Z2

compliance. Four of the eight designs not meeting zone Z2 compliance could comply

with minor design modification (tweaking). The other four designs would require

major re-design to obtain compliance. One design, the 288W HEP failed all

compliance targets. This confirmed that the current higher wattage HEP systems

available have limited application and cannot meet energy compliance in a number of

scenarios even though the light source is inherently highly efficient. As with other

models, the advanced technology LED designs exhibited especially low LPD with

power densities less than half of that allowed under even the more stringent zone

LZ2 compliance.





TABLE 11. LPD LOT B (LARGE IRREGULAR/COMPLEX FOOTPRINT)















266-288W HEP 32- Foot Poles Emerg.

23,616W 23,445W 45,153W 47,660W

COLOR KEY


well within both current Title 24 2008 and the proposed Title 24 2013 compliance for

lighting zone Z3. Furthermore, all but two of the designs (HEP) at 24 foot and 32

foot) also comply with the more stringent T-24 zone Z2 LPD allowance. Lot B LED

designs as with lot A LED designs demonstrated that advanced technology LED

designs can have LPDs of less than half that allowed by maximum LPDs under even

the more stringent CA Title-24 zone LZ2 compliance.





TABLE 12. PD LOT SC (LARGE OPEN LOT EVENT/MALL FOOTPRINT)















COLOR KEY



lighting zones Z2 and Z3. As with most of the other lot design scenarios, advanced

technology LED designs exhibited especially low LPD with power densities of less

than half that allowed under even the more stringent Zone LZ2 compliance. Several

other lot SC designs also failed with respect to low LPD. These designs included the

210W CMH at 40 foot, the 288W HEP at 40 foot, and the 240W HPS incumbent

technology at 40 foot. However, the HPS lighting exhibits poor color rendering (CRI)

and is therefore not recommended for new or retrofit designs. All of the other low

LPD designs exhibited good to excellent CRI.





DATA ANALYSIS – ILLUMINANCE AND LPD FOR EXTERIOR OPEN LOTS

Recurring findings with respect to illuminance, uniformity and LPD of the model

designs for all lot types (A, B, E, and SC) are outlined in this recap:

Using high quality luminaires and “best practices” design techniques, even

incumbent technologies such as HPS and PSMH can produce designs that meet IES

illuminance and uniformity while easily reaching California Title 24 LPD compliance.

Designs employing LED technology often provide the highest illumination, best

uniformity, and lowest LPD in a wide range of parking lot footprints.

While all the models met T24 compliance for LZ3 (both current 2008 code and

proposed 2013 code) 10 of the 49 models, about 20%, failed to meet CA T24

LZ2 compliance

Seven of the ten that fell short of compliance were very close to the allowed

LPD. These seven designs could comply with only minor fine-tuning

(tweaking). The three other designs will require significant re-design, which

suggests that the technologies used in these designs may not be best suited

for those site applications.

o Of the three designs that failed, two used the HEP technology and one

was an IF technology.

o The problem with HEP used in the lot footprints is that current wattage

offerings of the HEP were inadequate to meet all of the design targets.

If lower wattage HEP luminaires had been available, they may have

met or exceeded LZ2 compliance.

o Failure of the 400W IF model to meet LZ2 compliance in the lot A

design is the result of IF technology luminaires offering limited optics

packages. The light cannot be as effectively directed with IF, as a

result more total lumens (equating to higher total watts) is needed to

hit minimum footcandle targets in this lot configuration. The limitations

of the IF were also demonstrated by a non-compliant 39:1 uniformity

ratio

Fluorescent 4-foot T5HO and IF technologies exhibit mixed results with

respect to lighting performance and energy use. Both of these technologies do

best when high quality luminaires are used in the designs. In addition,

mounting heights and pole spacing’s are especially critical to reaching an

acceptable design model. With retrofit applications when and where pole

spacing and height options are limited, it is difficult to best use T5HO

technologies. T5HO luminaires do not present the multitude of optics

packages and directional ability (directing the light source) available with

PSMH, CMH, and LED luminaires. Therefore, these technologies have more

success in new design footprints. If spacing and mounting can be selected




that affords the best performance from T5HO luminaires versus retrofit

footprints where these criteria are locked in.

With several footprints, the CMH advanced technology models performed as

well as the LED models with respect to illuminance, uniformity and low LPD.

Currently, CMH offers better color quality than most LED products used for

exterior lighting. If high color quality is an important design factor, CMH

lighting can be an appropriate option for both new construction and retrofit

applications. Note; custom LED packages with very high CRI (~90) are

becoming increasingly available along with improving LED efficacy so the

current advantage of CMH on this parameter may be disappearing.

While HEP emerging technology lighting exhibits excellent lumen

maintenance, has excellent CRI, and a high efficacy; it performed poorly in

most of the parking lot footprints modeled in this study. Its poor performance

is not related to the technology, but rather to its limited wattage and

luminaire optics options currently available. Under the ideal footprint scenario

it is possible that HEP will perform as well as LED. However, that is not

currently the case.

Another strong trend for most of the design models in this study (all

technologies and all footprint lots); was that many of the LPDs were

significantly lower than the maximum allowed LPD under the CA T-24 energy

code. Two factors most likely contribute to the significantly lower LPD of the

study’s designs versus CA T24 allowed LPD. One factor is that our illuminance

targets were 0.2fc minimum (recommended IES basic illumination levels). CA

T-24 sets maximum LPD requirements that allow designers to meet a higher

0.5fc minimum (IES recommended for safety/security issues). Another factor

is that the study’s designs were based on IES recommended “best practice”

as well as premium luminaires with superior optics.

While illuminance and LPD results were for the most part better than our minimum

targets, the design faired less successfully when compared against the target set

under the new IES/IDA MLO. A review of those results follows.




ANALYSIS RESULTS – DESIGN LUMEN VERSUS MLO ALLOWED MAXIMUM LUMENS

The next series of tables show compliance with IES/IDS MLO for each of the lots

modeled.

TABLE 13. TOTAL LUMENS LOT E (SMALL FOOTPRINT)

LUMEN TARGET – MLO COMPLIANCE DESIGN LUMENS ZONE 1 MAX ZONE 2 MAX ZONE 3 MAX

50W HPS 16-Foot Poles. 49,079 35,780 60,800 121,600

50W HPS 24-Foot Poles 40,418 35,780 60,800 121,600

70W PSMH 16-Foot Poles 50,779 35,780 60,800 121,600

60W PSMH 24-Foot Poles 39,732 35,780 60,800 121,600

60W CMH 16-Foot Poles 31,858 35,780 60,800 121,600

60W CMH 24-Foot Poles 55,300 35,780 60,800 121,600

45W LED 16-Foot Poles 40,041 35,780 60,800 121,600

45W LED 24-Foot Poles 34,662 35,780 60,800 121,600

COLOR KEY

TABLE 14. TOTAL LUMENS LOT A (LARGE LONG FOOTPRINT)

LUMEN TARGET – MLO COMPLIANCE DESIGN LUMENS ZONE 1 MAX ZONE 2 MAX - ZONE 3 MAX-

100W HPS 16-Foot Poles. 1,013,445 723,500 1,207,000 2,414,000

250W HPS 32-Foot Poles 1,758,616 723,500 1,207,000 2,414,000

150W PSMH 16-Foot Poles 1,078,800 723,500 1,207,000 2,414,000

250W PSMH 32-Foot Poles 1,096,830 723,500 1,207,000 2,414,000

68W LED 16-Foot Poles 823,950 723,500 1,207,000 2,414,000

90W CMH 16-Foot Poles 830,230 723,500 1,207,000 2,414,000

111W T5HO 16-Foot Poles. 1,316,090 723,500 1,207,000 2,414,000

111W LED 32-Foot Poles 645,296 723,500 1,207,000 2,414,000

Failed Target Failed All Failed Multiple





111-195W T5HO 32-Foot Poles 774,692 723,500 1,207,000 2,414,000

150W CMH 32-Foot Poles. 791,788 723,500 1,207,000 2,414,000

150W IF 16-Foot Poles 1,729,195 723,500 1,207,000 2,414,000

288W HEP 16-Foot Poles 3,292,368 723,500 1,207,000 2,414,000

266-288W HEP 32-Foot Poles 1,600,114 723,500 1,207,000 2,414,000

400W IF 32-Foot Poles Adv. 2,182,950 723,500 1,207,000 2,414,000

COLOR KEY

TABLE 15. TOTAL LUMENS LOT B (LARGE IRREGULAR/COMPLEX FOOTPRINT)


70W HPS 24-Foot Poles. 546,990 693,613 1,157,188 2,314,375

150W HPS 32-Foot Poles 883,351 693,613 1,157,188 2,314,375

70W PSMH 246-Foot Poles 526,332 693,613 1,157,188 2,314,375

175W PSMH 32-Foot Poles 646,200 693,613 1,157,188 2,314,375

45W LED 24-Foot Poles 454,994 693,613 1,157,188 2,314,375

70W CMH 24-Foot Poles 498,580 693,613 1,157,188 2,314,375

111W LED 32-Foot Poles 623,981 693,613 1,157,188 2,314,375

150W IF 24-Foot Poles 1,346,112 693,613 1,157,188 2,314,375

150 CMH 32 Foot Poles 758,477 693,613 1,157,188 2,314,375

111-195W T5/HO 24 Foot Poles 1,307,508 693,613 1,157,188 2,314,375

111-195W T5/HO 32 Foot Poles 1,344,522 693,613 1,157,188 2,314,375

250W IF 32 Foot Poles 1,328,664 693,613 1,157,188 2,314,375

266-288W HEP 24 Foot Poles 2,619,998 693,613 1,157,188 2,314,375

266-288W HEP 32 Foot Poles 1,489,244 693,613 1,157,188 2,314,375

COLOR KEY






Failed Target Failed Multiple Failed All

TABLE 16. TOTAL LUMENS LOT SC (LARGE OPEN MALL/VENUE FOOTPRINT)


150W HPS 24-Foot Poles 470,256 386,777 645,795 1,291,590

250W HPS 40-Foot Poles 424,160 386,777 645,795 1,291,590

175W PSMH 24-Foot Poles 442,944 386,777 645,795 1,291,590

400W PSMH 40-Foot Poles 595,043 386,777 645,795 1,291,590

90W LED 24-Foot Poles 351,504 386,777 645,795 1,291,590

111W T5HO 24-Foot Poles 554,892 386,777 645,795 1,291,590

140W CMH 24-Foot Poles 493,735 386,777 645,795 1,291,590

195W T5HO 40-Foot Poles 441,285 386,777 645,795 1,291,590

210 CMH 40-Foot Poles 350,774 386,777 645,795 1,291,590

221W LED 40-Foot Poles 393,907 386,777 645,795 1,291,590

250W IF 24-Foot Poles 752,376 386,777 645,795 1,291,590

288W HEP 40-Foot Poles 442,272 386,777 645,795 1,291,590

400W IF 40-Foot Poles 582,120 386,777 645,795 1,291,590

COLOR KEY

DATA ANALYSIS – EXTERIOR OPEN LOTS IES/IDA MLO COMPLIANCE

Recurring findings with respect to the model designs versus the MLO for all lot types

(A, B, E, and SC) are outlined in this recap:

While most of the designs were able to meet IES/IDA MLO zone LZ3 compliance,

very few designs met LZ1 compliance. All designs except the two HEP models

were Z3 complainant. Furthermore, 40 of the 49 designs were also MLO LZ2

compliant. LZ 1 however, was another issue - only 11 of the 49 designs (22%)

were compliant; the other 38 designs (78%) did not comply as designed.





Designing to minimum 0.2fc targets with 20:1, or better uniformity while

meeting MLO LZ1 compliance, is very difficult, and, in most scenarios, is not

practical. Minimum footcandle as well as uniformity must be compromised if

the lower total lumens required by MLO LZ1 are mandated.

The IES matrix for recommended illuminance and uniformity, which is still

being refined for outdoor open lots and roadway/pathway design, must accept

lower minimum footcandles and poorer uniformity when MLO LZ1 targets are

mandated by code or design standards. If going this route, liability with

regard to adequate light enters the unacceptable realm.

ANALYSIS RESULTS – DESIGN FC VERSUS NEW IES AVERAGE FC TARGETS

The IES matrix for outdoor illumination is still being refined. Nevertheless,

comparisons were made of average maintained footcandles for AGI-32 model

designs versus new IES recommended average illuminance targets. This was done by

lighting zone (zones LZ1, LZ2, LZ3), and done in an effort to benchmark potential

revised design criteria when designing to IES/IDA MLO requirements. These

comparisons with reference to average footcandles, by design model, display in the

next series of tables for each of the lot types (A, B, E, and SC) modeled in this study.

TABLE 17. AVERAGE FOOTCANDLES LOT E (SMALL FOOTPRINT)

Average Illuminance – Models versus IES Targets by Lighting Zone (HB 10th Edition)

MODEL E DESIGNS AVE FC LZ1 AVE FC TARGET LZ2 AVE FC TARGET LZ3 AVE FC TARGET

45W LED-16 1.31 0.1 – 0.4 0.5 -0.8 0.9-3.0

45W LED-24 0.95 0.1 – 0.4 0.5 -0.8 0.9-3.0

50W HPS-16 1.06 0.1 – 0.4 0.5 -0.8 0.9-3.0

50W HPS-24 0.08 0.1 – 0.4 0.5 -0.8 0.9-3.0

60W CMH-16 0.91 0.1 – 0.4 0.5 -0.8 0.9-3.0

60W CMH-24 0.86 0.1 – 0.4 0.5 -0.8 0.9-3.0

70W PSMH-16 1.18 0.1 – 0.4 0.5 -0.8 0.9-3.0

70W PSMH-24 0.64 0.1 – 0.4 0.5 -0.8 0.9-3.0




TABLE 18. AVERAGE FOOTCANDLES LOT A (LARGE LONG FOOTPRINT)


MODEL A DESIGNS AVE FC LZ1 AVE FC TARGET LZ2 AVE FC TARGET LZ3 AVE FC TARGET

68W LED-16 1.19 0.1 – 0.4 0.5 -0.8 0.9-3.0

90W CMH-16 1.20 0.1 – 0.4 0.5 -0.8 0.9-3.0

100W HPS-16 1.25 0.1 – 0.4 0.5 -0.8 0.9-3.0

111WT5HO-16 1.60 0.1 – 0.4 0.5 -0.8 0.9-3.0

111W T5HO-32 0.87 0.1 – 0.4 0.5 -0.8 0.9-3.0

111W LED-32 0.87 0.1 – 0.4 0.5 -0.8 0.9-3.0

150W PSMH-16 1.13 0.1 – 0.4 0.5 -0.8 0.9-3.0


150W IF-16 1.60 0.1 – 0.4 0.5 -0.8 0.9-3.0

150W CMH-32 0.86 0.1 – 0.4 0.5 -0.8 0.9-3.0

250W HPS-32 1.84 0.1 – 0.4 0.5 -0.8 0.9-3.0

250W PSMH-32 1.95 0.1 – 0.4 0.5 -0.8 0.9-3.0

288W HEP-16 4.60 0.1 – 0.4 0.5 -0.8 0.9-3.0

266-288W HEP-32 2.10 0.1 – 0.4 0.5 -0.8 0.9-3.0

400W IF-32 1.89 0.1 – 0.4 0.5 -0.8 0.9-3.0




TABLE 19. AVERAGE FOOTCANDLES LOT B (LARGE IRREGULAR/COMPLEX FOOTPRINT)


MODEL B DESIGNS AVE FC LZ1 AVE FC TARGET LZ2 AVE FC TARGET LZ3 AVE FC TARGET

45W LED-24 0.70 0.1 – 0.4 0.5 -0.8 0.9-3.0

70W CMH-24 0.66 0.1 – 0.4 0.5 -0.8 0.9-3.0

70W HPS-24 0.73 0.1 – 0.4 0.5 -0.8 0.9-3.0

70W PSMH-24 0.59 0.1 – 0.4 0.5 -0.8 0.9-3.0

111W LED-32 0.90 0.1 – 0.4 0.5 -0.8 0.9-3.0

150W IF-24 1.43 0.1 – 0.4 0.5 -0.8 0.9-3.0

150W CMH-32 0.90 0.1 – 0.4 0.5 -0.8 0.9-3.0

150W HPS-32 1.00 0.1 – 0.4 0.5 -0.8 0.9-3.0

175W PSMH-32 0.69 0.1 – 0.4 0.5 -0.8 0.9-3.0

111-195W T5HO-24 1.92 0.1 – 0.4 0.5 -0.8 0.9-3.0

111-195W T5HO-32 1.06 0.1 – 0.4 0.5 -0.8 0.9-3.0

250W IF-32 1.30 0.1 – 0.4 0.5 -0.8 0.9-3.0

266-288W HEP-24 3.97 0.1 – 0.4 0.5 -0.8 0.9-3.0

266-288W HEP-32 2.12 0.1 – 0.4 0.5 -0.8 0.9-3.0




TABLE 20. AVERAGE FOOTCANDLES LOT SC (LARGE OPEN MALL/VENUE FOOTPRINT)


MODEL SC DESIGNS AVE FC LZ1 AVE FC TARGET LZ2 AVE FC TARGET LZ3 AVE FC TARGET

90W LED-24 0.81 0.1 – 0.4 0.5 -0.8 0.9-3.0

111W T5HO-24 1.51 0.1 – 0.4 0.5 -0.8 0.9-3.0

140W CMH-24 1.17 0.1 – 0.4 0.5 -0.8 0.9-3.0

150W HPS-24 0.96 0.1 – 0.4 0.5 -0.8 0.9-3.0

175W PSMH-24 0.76 0.1 – 0.4 0.5 -0.8 0.9-3.0

195W T5HO-40 1.14 0.1 – 0.4 0.5 -0.8 0.9-3.0

210W CMH-40 0.84 0.1 – 0.4 0.5 -0.8 0.9-3.0

221W LED-40 0.94 0.1 – 0.4 0.5 -0.8 0.9-3.0

250W IF-40 1.51 0.1 – 0.4 0.5 -0.8 0.9-3.0

250W HPS-40 0.86 0.1 – 0.4 0.5 -0.8 0.9-3.0

288W HEP-40 0.78 0.1 – 0.4 0.5 -0.8 0.9-3.0

400W IF-40 1.08 0.1 – 0.4 0.5 -0.8 0.9-3.0

400W PSMH-40 1.07 0.1 – 0.4 0.5 -0.8 0.9-3.0

ANALYSIS RECAP – EXTERIOR OPEN LOTS AVERAGE FC COMPARISONS

Recurring findings with respect to the average footcandles of all the model designs

versus the average footcandle targets for low-level (IES basic) exterior lighting

follows:

Average footcandles for all designs were well above the recommended LZ1

fc averages as defined under guidelines in the IES Handbook 10 th Edition.

Many designs (at least half) exhibited average footcandles attributed to LZ3 (urban

high activity) targets as defined in the new IES Handbook 10th Edition.

HEP technology designs exhibited overly high average footcandles (3-1/2 to 4fc)

in several cases, higher than even the high end of LZ3 targets. One exception

was lot SC where the HEP at 40-foot mounting exhibited the lowest average

footcandles.




Legacy IES recommended practice of 0.2fc minimum with uniformity of 20:1

was the prime driver for average footcandles on the high side with reference

to targets set for average footcandles under the IES Handbook 10th Edition.

IES legacy 0.2fc minimum and 20:1 uniformity results in average footcandles

substantially above new IES average footcandle criteria for outdoor area

lighting as referenced in the Handbook 10th Edition. Revisions to

recommended minimum footcandle points and uniformity ratios are in

process. These revisions need to align with the lower average footcandles as

recommended in the new Handbook 10th Edition as well as stringent

maximum site lumens allowed under the IES/IDA MLO.




EVALUATIONS

ANALYSIS OF AGI-32 MODELING Summary of the analysis and observations with reference to the AGI-32 follow:

Most models exhibited uniformities well above the IES recommended 20:1

uniformity for base open lot illumination. Lot A models had the best

uniformity with all designs under 10:1 uniformity ratios. Note; the models in

this study are basic models built without landscape and sight obstructions

that may arise in real-world designs. Therefore, expectations are that the

uniformities are superior to those that might be found in more complex and

real world designs.

Legacy technology (HPS and PSMH) models were designed to the lowest

recommended minimum horizontal illuminance of 0.2fc maintained. Higher

illuminance targets are required if safety and security are site issues, or if

there are potential obstructions and other site conditions that can interfere

with the illuminance.

LPD of all models, including incumbent HPS and PSMH designs were well

under the allowed LPD’s for CA Title 24 2008 and the proposed Title 24 2013

compliance maximums. The design models LPD’s were only one-third to half

of Zone 3’s allowed LPD, and for the most part in compliance with the more

stringent Zone 2 compliance targets. These light levels could be increased to

the IES higher 0.5fc regarding (safety/ security) illumination targets and still

fall within Title 24 LPD targets.

Total design lumens, for most models, easily met compliance with maximum

site lumens allowed under the IES/IDA MLO for lighting zones 2 and 3, but fell

short of compliance under lighting Zone 1 of the MLO. Only a handful of

models met Zone 1 compliance under the MLO.

DETAILED EVALUATION; ILLUMINANCE AND UNIFORMITY Evaluation of results and findings gained from AGI-32 modeling of legacy and the

various advanced and emerging technology alternatives:

LOT E MODELS (small footprint)

All designs, incumbent and advance/emerging technologies, met or exceeded

the 0.2fc horizontal target and 20:1 uniformity target.

Uniformity of all designs were significantly better than the base IES target

and well within the 15:1 uniformity required for safety/security needs.




However, the virtual models did not include adverse site conditions and

obstructions (trees, landscape, etc.) that are found in real-world designs.

One design (45W LED at 16-foot mounting) obtained a horizontal minimum

illuminance of 0.6fc, which qualifies for the IES 0.5fc higher safety/security

target.

LOT A MODELS (large long footprint)

All designs, incumbent and advance/emerging technologies, met or exceeded

the 0.2fc horizontal target (minimum illuminance) and 20:1 uniformity target.

Uniformities of all but three designs were somewhat better than the base IES

target and within the 15:1 uniformity required for safety/security needs.

However, the virtual models did not include adverse site conditions and

obstructions (trees, landscape, etc.) that are found in real-world designs.

The LED and CMH advanced/emerging technologies designs obtained

uniformities of 9:1 or better, which is significantly better than the IES 15:1

safety/security target uniformity.

LOT B MODELS (large irregular/complex footprint)

All but two designs (175W PSMH at 32-foot and 70W CMH at 24-foot) met or

exceeded the 0.2fc horizontal target (minimum illuminance). All designs met

or exceeded the uniformity target of 20:1 uniformity.

Uniformities of all but one design were substantially better than the base 20:1

IES target and well within the 15:1 uniformity required for safety/security

needs. However, the virtual models did not include adverse site conditions

and obstructions (trees, landscape, etc.) that are found in real-world designs.

The LED and CMH advanced/emerging technologies designs, for the most

part, obtained uniformities of 7:1 or better, which is significantly more

uniform than the IES 15:1 safety/security target uniformity.

LOT SC MODELS (large open lot event/mall footprint)

All but one design (250W HPS at 40 foot) met or exceeded the 0.2fc

horizontal target (minimum illuminance). All but one design met or exceeded

the uniformity target of 20:1 uniformity.

Uniformities of all but one design (250W HPS at 40 foot) were substantially

better than the base 20:1 IES target and well within the 15:1 uniformity

required for safety/security needs. However, the virtual models did not

include adverse site conditions and obstructions, i.e., trees, landscape, etc.,

that are found in real world designs.




The LED advanced/emerging technologies design (90W LED at 24-foot),

obtained a uniformity of 4:1, which is significantly more uniform than the IES

15:1 safety/security target uniformity.

Several observations true for all the models were that often, to reach a vertical

illumination target (such as the 0.1 footcandle minimum vertical), horizontal

illumination exceeded the 0.2 footcandle horizontal target. In addition, to reach

minimum footcandle targets without excessive light trespass, closer luminaire

spacing and house side shields were needed. A byproduct of the closer spacing and

use of house side shields resulted in improved uniformity ratios over target

minimums.

DETAILED EVALUATION; ENERGY SAVINGS (REDUCED LPD)

INCUMBENT VERSUS ADVANCED & EMERGING TECHNOLOGY Evaluation of results and findings with respect to lighting energy (watts) gained from

AGI-32 modeling of legacy and the various advanced and emerging technology

alternatives are as follow:

TABLE 21 LPD LOT E (SMALL FOOTPRINT)

ENERGY SAVINGS

EVALUATION DESIGN

POWER BASE

HPS PWR BASE

PSMH PWR HPS

VARIATION PSMH

VARIATION % SAVED

HPS PSMH

45W LED 16FT Advanced

765W 1,156W 1,190W -391W -425W 34% 36%

60W CMH 16FT Advanced

1,139W 1,156W 1,190W -17W -15W 2% 5%

50W HPS 16FT Incumbent

1,156W 1,156W 1,190W 0W -34W 0% 3%

70W PSMH 16FT Incumbent

1,190W 1,156W 1,190W +34W 0 -3% 0


630W 952W 1,386W -322W -756W 34% 55%


952W 952W 1,386W 0W -434W 0% 31%


1,197W 952W 1,386W +245W -189W -25% 14%

70W PSMH 2FT

Incumbent

1,386W 952W 1,386W +434W 0W -45% 0%

Maximum energy savings (lowest LPD) for Lot E designs was accomplished with the

45W LED model at 24-foot mounting. This model was 55% more efficient than the

incumbent PSMH and 34% more efficient than the incumbent HPS design. At the 16-




foot mounting height, LED also performed well with an LPD 34% to 36% lower than

the incumbent HPS and PSMH technology designs. The CMH advanced technology

models did not provide any significant energy saving versus the incumbent PSMH

and HPS designs. However, the CMH provided CRI, which improves visual acuity and

works well when controlled (lowering power consumption through dimming). These

features, while not reducing the static LPD, can result in a design plan that offers

overall improved lighting, lower LCC, and reduced kilowatt (kW) demand.

Fluorescent T5HO, IF and HEP technologies were not modeled in the lot E footprint.

The small scale of this lot did not lend itself to the geometries and optical

distributions available with the T5/HO and IF luminaires. The HEP luminaires

currently available, while having the necessary optic, do not have a small enough

lumen package for the application needs of this small lot. Managing light trespass (a

component required under the MLO) on a small site (footprint E) is difficult with the

FL T5/HO and IF technologies.


ENERGY SAVINGS

EVALUATION DESIGN

POWER BASE

HPS PWR BASE

PSMH PWR HPS

VARIATION PSMH

VARIATION % SAVED*

HPS PSMH

68W LED 16 FT Advanced

12,580W 18,500W 27,000W -5,920W -14,420W

32% 53%

90W CMH 16 FT Advanced

18,315W 18,500W 27,000W -185W -8,685W 1% 32%

100W HPS 16 FT Incumbent

18,500W 18,500W 27,000W 0W -8,500W 0% 31%

111W T5/HO 16 FT Advanced

20,535W 18,500W 27,000W +2,035W

-6,465W -10% 24%

150W PSMH 16 FT Incumbent

27,000W 18,500W 27,000W +8,500W

0W -32% 0%

150W IF 16 FT

Advanced 29,027W 18,500W 27,000W +10,527

W +2,027

W -57% -7%

288W HEP 16 FT Emerging

53,280W 18,500W 27,000W +34,780W

+26,280W

-65% -49%


9,990W 27,000W 25,470W -17,110W

-15,480W

63% 61%

195W T5/HO 32 FT

Advanced 12628W 27000W 25470W -14372W -

12,842W 53% 51%

150W CMH 32 FT

Advanced 25,300W 27,000W 25,470W -1,700W -170W 7% 1%

250W PSMH 32 FT

Incumbent 25,470W 27,000W 25,470W -1,530W 0W 6% 0%




ENERGY SAVINGS

EVALUATION DESIGN

POWER BASE

HPS PWR BASE

PSMH PWR HPS

VARIATION PSMH

VARIATION % SAVED*

HPS PSMH

288W HEP 32 FT

Emerging 25,920W 27,000W 25,470W -1,080W +450W 4% -2%


27,000W 27,000W 25,470W 0W +1,530W

0% -6%

400W IF 32 FT

Advanced 37,107W 27,000W 25,470W +10,107

W +11,637

W -27% -31%

*= percent lost if a negative number

Maximum energy savings (lowest LPD) for the Lot A designs were also accomplished

with the advanced lighting LED designs. The 111W LED model at 32-foot mounting

proved 63% more efficient than the incumbent HPS, and 61% more efficient than

the incumbent PSMH design. Sixty-eight Watt LED designs at 16 foot were also

excellent performers with a 53% savings against PSMH and 32% against HPS. At 16

foot mounting the CMH provided a 32% lower LPD versus PSMH but was about equal

in LPD to the HPS. At the 32-foot mounting height, the FL T5HO design also provided

a significant (51% to 53%) lower LPD versus the incumbent HPS and PSMH

technology designs. Neither the IF or HEP, with reference to LPD, performed well

compared to the incumbent technologies.


ENERGY SAVINGS

EVALUATION DESIGN

POWER BASE

HPS PWR BASE

PSMH PWR HPS

VARIATION PSMH

VARIATION % SAVED*

HPS PSMH

45W LED 24-FT Advanced

6-570W 10,220W 10,220W -3,650W -3,650W 36% 36%

70W HPS 24-FT

Incumbent 10-220W 10,220W 10,220W 0W 0W 0% 0%

70W PSMH 24-FT

Incumbent 10-220W 10,220W 10,220W 0W 0W 0% 0%

70W CMH 24-FT Advanced

12-483W 10,220W 10,220W +2,263W

+2,263W

-22% -22%

111/195 T5HO

24- FT Advanced

21-601W 10,220W 10,220W +11,381

W

+11,381

W

-53% -53%

150W IF 24-FT Advanced

22-854W 10,220W 10,220W +12,634W

+12,634W

-55% -55%

266/288 HEP 24 FT Emerging

42,048W 10,220W 10,220W +31,828W

+31,828W

-76% -76%

111W LED 32 FT

Advanced 9,102W 15,604W 15,890W -6,502W -6,788W 42% 43%

111/195 T5HO 32

FT 12,838W 15,604W 15,890W -2,766W -3,052W 22% 24%




ENERGY SAVINGS

EVALUATION DESIGN

POWER BASE

HPS PWR BASE

PSMH PWR HPS

VARIATION PSMH

VARIATION % SAVED*

HPS PSMH

Advanced

150W HPS 32 FT

Incumbent 15,604W 15,604W 15,890W 0W -256W 0% 2%

175W PSMH 32 FT Incumbent

15,890W 15,604W 15,890W +256W 0W -2% 0%


17,264W 15,604W 15,890W +1,660W

+1,374W

-11% -9%

250W IF 32 FT Advanced

20,992W 15,604W 15,890W +5,380W

+5,102W

-26% -24%

266/288 HEP 32 FT

Emerging 23,616W 15,604W 15,890W +8,012

W +7,726

W -34% -33%

*= percent lost if a negative number

As with LED models in Lot A, at Lot B LED designs produced the lowest LPD. Savings

were not as impressive as in lots E and A, but still good. The 111W LED model at 32-

foot mounting proved 42% more efficient than HPS and 43% more efficient than PSM

H. At the 24-foot mounting, the 45W LED design used 36% less power than the

incumbent HPS and PSMH models. At the 24-foot mounting height, the LED model

was the only advanced/emerging technology design that performed better (with

respect to energy savings) than the incumbent HPS and PSMH designs. At 32 feet,

the T5HO design provided 22% to 24% energy savings (less connected load) versus

the incumbent technologies’ designs. Other than the LED and T5HO designs, the

advanced/emerging technologies did not provide reduced lighting load in the lot B

design scenarios.

TABLE 24. LPD LOT SC (LARGE OPEN LOT EVENT/MALL FOOTPRINT)

ENERGY SAVINGS

EVALUATION

DESIGN

POWER

BASE

HPS PWR

BASE

PSMH PWR

HPS

VARIATION

PSMH

VARIATION

% SAVED*

HPS PSMH

90W LED 24-FT

Advanced 4,230W 8,836W 9,870W -4,606W -5640W 52% 57%


7,248W 8,836W 9,870W -1,588W -2622W 18% 27%

111W T5/HO 24-FT Advanced

8,658W 8,836W 9,870W -178W -1212W 2% 14%

150W HPS 24-FT Incumbent

8,836W 8,836W 9,870W 0W -1034W 0% 11%

175W PSMH 24-FT

Incumbent 9,870W 8,836W 9,870W +1,034

W 0W -12% 0%




ENERGY SAVINGS

EVALUATION DESIGN

POWER BASE

HPS PWR BASE

PSMH PWR HPS

VARIATION PSMH

VARIATION % SAVED*

HPS PSMH

250W IF 24-FT

Advanced 11,776W 8,836W 9,870W +2,940

W +1,906

W -33% -19%


5,304W 6,900W 10,848W -1,596W -5,544W 23% 51%

210W CMH 40-

FT Advanced 5,496W 6,900W 10,848W -1404W -5,352W 14% 49%


6,900W 6,900W 10,848W 0W -3,948 0% 36%

288W HEP 40-FT Emerging

6,912W 6,900W 10,848W +12W -3,936W -02% 36%

195W T5/HO 40-

FT Advanced

7,617W 6,900W 10,848W +717W -3,231W -9% 30%

400W IF 40-FT Advanced 9,895W 6,900W 10,848W

+2,995W

-9,530W -30% 12%

400W PSMH 40-FT

Incumbent 10,848W 6,900W 10,848W +3,948

W 0W -57% 0%

*=percent lost if a negative number

Lot SC LED models also exhibited low LPDs with the 90W LED at 24-foot mounting,

proving 52% more efficient than HPS and 57% more efficient than PSMH. At 40-foot

mounting, the 215W LED design used 36% less power than the incumbent HPS and

PSMH models. At 40-foot mounting, the LED used 51% lower wattage than the PSMH

and 23% lower than HPS. At 40-foot mounting, the CMH also performed well with

49% less power consumption than PSMH and 14% less than the HPS design at the

same mounting height. While the other advanced and emerging technologies (T5HO,

IF, and HEP) produced some energy savings against the PSMH incumbent

technology, they used more total energy than the incumbent HPS at the 40-foot

mounting height.

ANALYSIS RECAP – EVALUATION OF ENERGY SAVINGS (LPD)

Lowest LPD (best energy options) plus comments on the modeled technologies with

respect to LPD targets follows:

Advanced technology LED designs provided the lowest LPD for all the lot

footprints, at all the various mounting heights, modeled in this study.

On lot SC, advanced technology CMH designs also delivered significantly

lower LPD than incumbent PSMH and HPS designs.




On lot A, at the 32-foot mounting height, the T5/HO advanced technology

provides a low LPD, which was close to that of the LED design and well

below the incumbent PSMH and HPS designs.

Except for the LED designs, advanced/emerging technologies did not

consistently provide lower LPDs even though the inherent efficacy of the

lamps and luminaires was often higher than that of the incumbent

technologies. Well-designed well-chosen LED, smartly applied, simply

consistently puts light where one wants it most efficiently.

HEP designs often exhibited significantly higher LPDs than the other

technologies, incumbent and advance, with all the models explored in this

report. This poor performance by HEP was the result of the current HEP

offerings having much higher lumen packages than are appropriate for the

designs of this study.

Induction fluorescent advanced technology designs typically did not

produce lower LPDs than incumbent technologies or other advanced

technologies such as LED, CMH, or T5HO fluorescent.

On a number of the application models, incumbent HPS and PSMH

technology designs exhibited LPD targets that were the lowest except for

LED models in those lots.

Two key findings from the LPD analysis are (1): All things being equal - LED technology

provides the lowest LPD with the best uniformity and often the highest illumination, (2):

With use of superior optics, geometries and “best practice” design application it is often

possible to design well-lit parking lots with lower than average LPD and good uniformity.

DETAILED EVALUATION OF LIGHTING POWER DENSITY (LPD) Evaluation of LPD of the design models for California Title 24 energy code compliance

is presented in this evaluation. A detail of findings by parking lot footprint is shown

below. Results and findings gained from AGI-32 modeling of legacy (base designs)

and the various advanced and emerging technology alternatives are as follows:


All designs, incumbent technologies and advance/emerging technologies, met

current California Title 24 2008 requirements as well as the more stringent

proposed Title 24 2013 requirements.

Doubling the “As Designed” LPD of the models to allow for a higher 0.5fc

minimum target (safety/security) would not negate compliance under Zone 3.

Under Zone 2 however, only the 45W LED design would qualify at the higher

LPD.




Note: One design (45W LED at 16-foot mounting) obtained a horizontal

minimum illuminance of 0.6fc, which qualifies for the IES 0.5fc higher

safety/security target at the current low LPD.




proposed Title 24 2013 requirements for LZ Z3. However, as designed three

of the four incumbent designs and one of the advanced designs did not meet

compliance under LZ Z2 qualifications.

Those designed that did not meet Title 24 compliance under Z2 were not that

far from compliance, suggesting that fine-tuning of the design might result in

reaching the compliance threshold.




proposed Title 24 2013 requirements for LZ Z3 as well as for LZ Z2.

However, for the designs to reach the 0.5fc level required for the

safety/security illumination target, LPD’s need to triple. Under this scenario

while most designs will maintain compliance under Z3 criteria, only one design

(LED 90W at 24 foot) will comply with LZ Z2's allowed LPD.




proposed Title 24 2013 requirements for lighting zones Z3 and Z2.

However, for the designs to reach the 0.5fc level required for the

safety/security illumination target, LPD’s need to be doubled. Under this

scenario while most design will maintain compliance under Z3 criteria only,

three designs (LED 90W at 24-foot, LED 221W at 40-foot, and CMH 210W at

40-foot) will comply with lighting zone Z2 allowed LPD.

ANALYSIS – EVALUATION OF LIGHTING POWER DENSITY (LPD)

An observation true for all the models are that the LPD of the model designs with a

0.2fc minimum target were well under the Title 24 maximum allowed LPD. This

suggests that Title 24 set its allowed LPD targets for the higher illuminance target of

0.5fc as recommended by the IES for safety/security illuminance.




DETAILED EVALUATION- DESIGN MODEL LUMENS VERSUS MLO

ALLOWED LUMENS Total site lumens for each of the design models (incumbent and advanced/emerging

technologies) were compared against the allowed maximum site lumens by lighting

zone under the IES/IDA MLO. Evaluation of results and findings gained from AGI-32

modeling of legacy and the various advanced and emerging technology alternatives

are as follows:


Site lumens for all designs, incumbent technologies and advance/emerging

technologies, were under the maximum allowed lumens for lighting zones Z2

and Z3 of the IES/INS MLO. However, most of the designs failed to meet the

maximum allowed lumen targets for lighting zone Z1 of the MLO. Two

exceptions were advanced/emerging technology designs using 60W CMH at

16 foot and 45W LED at 24 foot.

Several other models were close to MLO Z1 compliance, and with minor

design modifications could comply.

LOT A MODELS (large irregular/complex footprint)

Site lumens for most designs, incumbent technologies and advance/emerging

technologies, were under the maximum allowed lumens for lighting zones Z2

and Z3 of the IES/INS MLO. One exception, 250W HPS at 32 foot, met

compliance under zone Z3 but failed under zone Z2 of the MLO.

Site lumens of all designs, except one, failed to meet MLO Z1 maximum

allowed lumens. The one exception, 111W LED at 32 foot, complied with MLO

Zone Z1 maximum allowed lumens.

The other advanced/emerging technology models were close to MLO Z1

compliance and with minor design modifications could comply. However, site

lumens of all the incumbent technology models were significantly higher than

the allowed maximum under Z1; making it doubtful that minor redesign will

achieve compliance.

LOT B MODELS (large long footprint)


technologies, were well under the maximum allowed lumens for lighting zones

Z2 and Z3 of the IES/IDA MLO. In addition, most of the designs met

maximum allowed lumen targets for lighting zone Z1 of the MLO.

Two exceptions, 150W HPS at 32 foot and 150W CMH at 32 foot had site

lumens above the allowed maximums for lighting zone Z1 of the MLO.




The advanced/emerging technology model 150W CMH at 32-foot site lumens

was about 9% above the maximum allowed under MLO Z1. With minor design

modification this model would comply

LOT SC MODELS (large open mall/venue footprint)


technologies, were well under the maximum allowed lumens for lighting zones

Z2 and Z3 of the IES/IDA MLO. In addition, two of the designs, 210W CMH at

40 foot and 90W LED at 24 foot met maximum allowed lumen targets for

lighting zone Z1 of the MLO.

Several other models were close to MLO Z1 compliance and with some design

modification could comply.

The advanced/emerging technology 111W LED model was very close to Z1

compliance with design site lumens less than 3% above the allowed Z1

maximum site lumens. Tweaking the current design would no doubt result in

achieving Z1 compliance.

ANALYSIS OF COSTS – FIRST COST AND LIFECYCLE Analysis of the first cost (lamp, luminaire and installation) and life cycle cost (initial

costs plus maintenance and energy use) of the technologies studied was conducted

as part of the evaluation process. For the most part the incumbent technologies

evaluated in this paper study suitable for exterior open lot parking illumination

exhibited lifecycle costs higher than the advanced and emerging technology sources.

However, the advanced and emerging technologies sources tend to have very high

first costs that can be a market deterrent for some customers.

The most pertinent findings from the cost analysis are as follows.

Source and luminaire packages with the lowest first costs are:

o PSMH

o HPS

o FL

Source and luminaire packages with the highest first costs are:

o LED

o CMH

o IF

o HEP

Source and luminaire packages with the lowest (best) LCC are:

o FL

o CMH

o LED




Source and luminaire packages with the highest (poorest) LCC are:

o PSMH

o IF

The following tables compare the LCC of each test model (incumbent designs and

advanced/emerging technologies designs) by lot application and mounting height.

TABLE 25. LCC FOR LOT E

SOURCES/LCC TYPE MOUNTING LCC TOTAL

NEW CONSTRUCT LCC TOTAL RETROFITS

Light Emitting Diode (LED) 16 foot $53,300 $26,000

High Pressure Sodium (HPS) 16 foot $53,800 $26,000

Ceramic Metal Halide (CMH) 16 foot $55,100 $28,000

Pulse Start Metal Halide (PSMH) 16 foot $58,800 $31,000





Twenty-four foot mounting height designs at Lot E, which is a small footprint lot,

exhibited slightly better (2% to 3%) LLCs than the lower 16-foot mounting height

designs. The LED design at 24-foot mounting was the most cost effective. However,

there was little difference (less than 10%) among the LCC’s of all the Lot E designs.

In addition, although the incumbent technology HPS designs exhibited good LCC, the

light quality is inferior to the other light sources modeled. HPS is not dimmable and

is not suited to motion sensor application. LED and CMH sources are well suited to

motion sensor applications providing improved energy savings and often improved

LCC’s. The order of cost effectiveness, by technology as well as the minimum

differences between sources with respect to LLC was the same for new construction

and remodel (retrofit) scenarios. LCC’s for retrofits was half that of new construction

as poles and bases were reused in the retrofit scenarios.

TABLE 26. LCC FOR LOT A

SOURCES/LCC TYPE MOUNTING

LCC TOTAL

NEW CONSTRUCT

LCC TOTAL

RETROFITS

T5HO Fluorescent (FL) 16 foot $655,000 $358,000










Induction Fluorescent (IF) 16 foot $838,000 $541,000

High Efficiency Plasma (HEP)) 16 foot $1,175,000 $878,000






High Efficiency Plasma (HEP)) 32 foot $701,000 $427,000


As with Lot E, at lot A the higher (32-foot) mounting height designs exhibited better

LLCs than the lower (16- foot) mounting height designs. The T5HO design at 32-foot

mounting was the most cost effective, followed by the LED advanced technology

design also at the 32-foot mounting height. The CMH design produced the third

lowest LCC, at the 32-foot mounting height. All three of the lowest LCC designs

T5HO, LED, and CMH sources are suited to motion sensor control. When coupled with

motion sensors, additional energy savings is captured that often results in improved

LLCs for these sources. These respective technologies (T5HO, LED, and CMH)

exhibited the lowest LCCs on Lot A for both new construction and retrofits (new

luminaires mounted to existing poles). LCCs for retrofits were half that of new

construction as poles and bases were reused in the retrofit scenarios.

TABLE 27. LCC FOR LOT B









High Efficiency Plasma (HEP) 24 foot $1,012,000 $693,000












High Efficiency Plasma (HEP) 32 foot $647,000 $394,000

At Lot B, designs at the higher (32-foot) mounting height also tended to exhibit

better LLCs than those at the lower (24 foot) mounting height. As with Lot A, at the

32-foot mounting, the T5HO design exhibited the lowest LLC followed by the

incumbent technology HPS design with LED with the third lowest LCC. However, at

the 24-foot mounting, LED, CMH and HPS delivered the three lowest LCCs. At the

24-foot mounting, the T5HO was on the higher end of the LCCs with an LCC 25%

higher than the leading LED design at the 24-foot mounting height. The order of cost

effectiveness, by technology, with respect to LLC analysis was the same for new

construction and retrofit scenarios. LCCs for retrofits were half that of new


TABLE 28. LCC FOR LOT SC
















T5HO Fluorescent (FL) 40 foot 209,000 $48,000





Lot SC designs followed the other lots with respect to the lowest LCC occurring at the

higher 40-foot mounting height. However, other than this trend, LCC results by

technology did not follow the same pattern observed in the analysis of the various

designs at lots E, A, and B. At Lot SC the advanced technology CMH design was the

winner with the lowest LCC at the 40-foot mounting height under the new

construction scenario. However, with the retrofit scenario, the T5HO fluorescent

design at 40-foot mounting provided the lowest LCC. Under the retrofit scenarios,

CMH came in with the second lowest LCC, which was 80% higher than the T5HO

retrofit design at the 40-foot mounting. Furthermore, the advanced technology LED

designs at 40 foot did not exhibit favorable LCC, which was contrary to study findings

of the LCC analysis on the other (E, A, B) lot footprints.

The IF modeled at the 24-foot mounting height had the poorest LCC. At the 40- foot

mounting, the LCC for IF slightly improved, coming in second to last. Interestingly

enough, the HEP, which had the poorest LCC when used on lots A and B, exhibited a

better LCC at the 40-foot mounting height in Lot SC, placing midway in the LCC

calculations.

Note, LED, CMH, and HEP technologies are well suited to control coupling when used

in step or continuously dimmable form. When and where lighting controls dim and/or

execute reliable sensor controlled on/off operation, this added depth of control

results in significant energy savings and can potentially lower the LCC of these

systems significantly versus the baseline LCC of a similar, non-controlled, system.

LCCs for retrofits (poles & bases reused) were 40% to 70% lower than for those of

new construction. Recapping the evaluation of lifecycle costing:

LED advanced technology lighting exhibits the lowest LCCs in a wide range of

parking lot lighting applications

Often, but not always, lowest LCCs are obtained by advanced lighting

technology designs at higher mounting heights.

With some applications, a low LCC is achieved with incumbent HPS lighting.

Note that quality of HPS lighting is inferior to the other technology options

typical for parking lot illumination. Therefore, even with a low LCC, this

source is not recommended for most lighting applications.




In addition, recent IES design recommendations covering mesopic lighting levels

(approximately 6 lux down to 1 lux), modeled and investigated in this study, show

white light (all the other sources herein) markedly superior to HPS. A very

conservative design recommendation would be to consider PSMH HPS’s photometric

equal at equal nominal wattages. That is, a 400W PSMH will provide the visual acuity

of a 400W HPS. In a similar vein a CMH of 315W would equal a 400W HPS as would

a best practice 275W LED. Note: LED is improving at a rate so that this is expected

to be in the 225W to 250W range within 18 months.




RECOMMENDATIONS Results and data gained from this paper study can guide customers in planning, designing,

funding, and installing open lot lighting. Using this data can assist customers, designers,

engineers and others in determining those technologies, products, and systems that will

provide maximum energy and investment savings.

As was demonstrated by this study, many variables must be considered when selecting a

light source as well as the luminaire used to deliver that source. The ultimate success or

failure of an installation to provide the desired illumination, energy efficiency, low

maintenance, cost effectiveness, and meeting all applicable regulations and recommended

practices will depend on how well these variables interact and rank, and in no small

measure the adeptness and experience of its designer, and its installer/commissioner/tuner.

Variables to consider are:

For maximum performance, luminaire design is as critical as the light source selected.

Luminaire optics, as well as other luminaire characteristics, can greatly influence

overall performance including energy savings.

For optimum design results, luminaire placement and configuration should be site

and luminaire specific.

As a rule luminaires with HID and/or LED sources offer a wider array of optics with

better optical control than typical fluorescent and/or induction luminaires

LED sources offer an array of performance benefits and energy savings but command

a high first cost. This high first cost is a significant hurdle to achieving a competitive

LCC.

Where/when color perception and visual acuity are important, higher color rendering

sources (CRI 72 and >) are advisable for best visual performance.

FL sources (such as the advanced T5HO modeled in this report) can provide high

color rendering and good energy efficiency with low first cost. LCCs are relatively

high because poor fixture forward and lateral throw (of light) makes the designer use

more fixtures and/or poles.

In addition to AGI-32 modeling, analysis of modeling results and life cycle costing of light

source technologies were evaluated using a Kepner Tregoe Decision Matrix. Performance

rankings appear in Table 29. A blend of subjective and objective factors, higher scores are

better.




TABLE 29. RELATIVE LIGHT SOURCE RANKING

Another somewhat more objective evaluation tool was the creation of a matrix that scored

the lighting designs and technologies used in this study with respect to significant voluntary

(recommended) and mandatory (code compliance) criterion. The scoring used for this

evaluation is as follows:

SCORING MATRIX: Illumination Objectives - Number of points

Fails to meet min 0.2fc requirement = 0 Meets min 0.2fc target = 2 Exceeds 0.2fc target by 25% to 50% = 5 Exceeds 0.2fc target by more than 50% =10

Uniformity Objectives - Number of points Fails to meet 20:1 uniformity requirement = 0 Meets 20:1 uniformity target = 2 Betters 20:1 uniformity target by 25% to 50% = 5 Betters 20:1 uniformity target by more than 50% =10

Title 24 Code Compliance - Number of points Fails to meet T24 Compliance LZ2 and LZ3 requirement = 0 Fails to meet T24 Compliance LZ2 but passes LZ3 requirement = 5 Meets both LZ2 and LZ3 compliance requirements = 10 LPD lower than LZ2 compliance max allowed by 25% to 50% = 15 LPD lower than LZ2 compliance max allowed by more than 50% = 20

IES/IDA MLO Compliance - Number of points

Fails to meet IES/IDA MLO Compliance all lighting zones = 0 Fails to meet IES/IDA MLO Compliance LZ1 and LZ2 but passes LZ3 = 5 Fails to meet IES/IDA MLO Compliance LZ1 but passes LZ2 and LZ3 = 15 Passes all MLO lighting zones compliance = 20

Conducive to Lighting Control Management - Number of points

Not suited for use with occupancy/vacancy sensor control = 0 Compatible with occupancy/vacancy sensor control for high/low dimming functions: 10 Compatible with occupancy/vacancy sensor control for high/low dimming and on/off functions: 20

Lifecycle Cost (LCC) rating - Number of points




Falls within the highest (poorest) 25% of LCC analysis = 0 Falls within the lower middle to 25% of LCC analysis = 5 Falls just below the 25% to middle (50%) of LCC analysis = 10 Falls within the lowest (best) 25% of LCC analysis = 20

Maximum possible score = 100

Scoring results for each of the designs modeled at the four lot footprints (E, A, B, and SC)

are shown in the next series of tables beginning with Table 29. Table 33 is a recap of all the

scoring, showing the three highest-ranking designs for each of the four lot footprints.


Lot E (New Construction)

LUMINAIRE

DESIGN ILLUMINANCE

(MIN FC) UNIFORMITY

RATIO T24

COMPLIANCE

MLO

COMPLIANT DIMMING

ON/OFF LCC OVERALL

SCORE

LED 16 ft. 10 10 20 10 20 10 90

HPS 16 ft. 10 10 15 10 0 10 55

CMH 16 ft. 10 10 15 20 10 5 70

PSMH 16 ft. 10 10 10 10 0 0 40

LED 24 ft. 10 10 20 20 20 20 100

HPS 24 ft. 10 10 15 10 0 20 65

CMH 24 ft. 10 10 15 10 10 5 60

PSMH 24 ft. 5 10 15 10 0 0 40





Lot A (New Construction)

LUMINAIRE

DESIGN

ILLUMINANCE

(MIN FC) UNIFORMITY

RATIO

T24

COMPLIANCE

MLO

COMPLIANT

DIMMING

ON/OFF LCC

OVERALL

SCORE

LED 16 ft. 10 10 20 15 20 5 80

HPS 16 ft. 2 2 10 15 0 0 29

CMH 16 ft. 10 5 10 15 10 5 55

PSMH 16 ft. 2 2 5 15 0 0 22

T5HO 16

ft. 5 0 15 5 20 15 60

IF 16 ft. 2 0 5 5 0 0 12

HEP 16 ft. 10 2 0 0 20 5 37

LED 32 ft. 0 15 20 20 20 20 95

HPS 3-2ft 2 2 5 5 0 15 29

CMH 32 ft. 2 10 5 15 10 20 62

PSMH 32 ft. 2 10 5 15 0 15 47

T5HO 32

ft. 5 0 20 15 20 20 80

IF 32 ft. 0 0 5 5 0 0 10

HEP 32 ft. 10 5 5 15 20 5 60





Lot B (New Construction)

LUMINAIRE

DESIGN

ILLUMINANCE

(MIN FC) UNIFORMITY

RATIO

T24

COMPLIANCE

MLO

COMPLIANT

DIMMING

ON/OFF LCC

OVERALL

SCORE

LED 24 ft. 10 10 20 20 20 15 95

HPS 24 ft. 2 5 20 20 0 10 57

CMH 24 ft.

0 10 15 20 10 10 65

PSMH 24 ft.

2 10 20 20 0 10 62

FL 24 ft. 10 5 10 15 20 0 60

IF 24 ft. 2 2 10 5 0 0 19

HEP 24 ft. 10 10 5 0 20 0 45

LED 32 ft. 10 10 20 15 20 20 95

HPS 32 ft. 2 5 15 20 0 20 62

CMH 32 ft.

10 10 15 20 10 15 80

PSMH 32 ft.

0 10 15 20 0 15 60

FL 32 ft. 2 5 15 15 20 20 77

IF 32 ft. 0 0 10 5 0 10 25

HEP 32 ft. 10 5 5 5 20 0 45





Lot SC (New Construction)

LUMINAIRE

DESIGN

ILLUMINANCE

(MIN FC) UNIFORMITY

RATIO

T24

COMPLIANCE

MLO

COMPLIANT

DIMMING

ON/OFF LCC

OVERALL

SCORE

LED 24 ft. 10 10 20 20 20 10 90

HPS 24 ft. 5 5 15 15 0 5 45

CMH 24 ft.

10 10 10 15 10 5 60

PSMH 24 ft.

2 5 10 15 0 0 32

T5HO 24 ft. 2 2 15 15 20 10 64

IF 24 ft. 2 0 10 15 0 0 27

LED 40 ft. 5 10 20 15 20 5 75

LUMINAIRE

DESIGN

ILLUMINANCE

(MIN FC) UNIFORMITY

RATIO

T24

COMPLIANCE

MLO

COMPLIANT

DIMMING

ON/OFF LCC

OVERALL

SCORE

HPS 40 ft. 0 0 15 15 0 20 50

CMH 40

ft.

5 10 20 20 10 20 85

PSMH 40 ft.

10 10 10 15 0 0 45

FL 40 ft. 2 10 15 15 20 20 82

IF 40 ft. 2 5 10 15 0 0 23

HEP 40 ft. 2 5 15 15 20 10 67





Recap of Three Best Performers Each of Four Lots (New Construction)

LOT LUMINAIRE DESIGN OVERALL

SCORE COMMENTS AND REMARKS

E 45W LED at 24-foot mounting 100 LED technology designs produced significantly

better performance than any other technology

with this lot footprint.

While not run through this matrix, retrofit designs

should produce similar parallel results.

E 45W LED at 16-foot mounting 90

E 60W CMH at 16-foot mounting 70

A 111W LED at 32- foot mounting 95 LED technology designs also produced better

performance than most other technologies with

this lot, although the T5HO scored well at the 32-

foot mounting height.


should produce similar parallel results

A 68W LED at 16-foot mounting 80

A 195W FL at 32-foot mounting 80

B 45W LED at 24-foot mounting 95 As with Lots E and A, LED technology designs

produced significantly better performance than

most other technologies with this lot footprint.

CMH also fared well at the 32-foot mounting

height in this lot application.



B 111W LED at 32-foot mounting 95

B 15W CMH at 32-foot mounting 80

SC 90W LED at 24-foot mounting 90 LED, CMH, and T5HO technology designs

produced good to excellent results in the Lot SC

designs - significantly better performance than

any other technology with this lot footprint.



SC 210W CMH at 40-foot mounting 85

SC 195W FL at 40-foot mounting 82

DESIGN APPLICATION GUIDE Outdoor Open Lots Paper study

When structuring the design process, follow the following hierarchy of needs and

requirements with respect to mandatory and various voluntary criteria.

California Title 24 compliance mandatory (statewide)

IES/IDA MLO voluntary unless the MLO, or similar, except with cities that adopt the

MLO or “Dark Sky’s” ordinance (mandatory).

IES recommended practice is voluntary, should be followed, but not dictated by or

mandated by code (unless cities or counties adopt).




Note: Attorneys predominantly use IES recommended practice as a benchmark

reference when liability issues related to adequacy of light are present.


CONCEPT / VISION

Interview and familiarize self with customer and/or owner (client)

Discuss and review concept ideas, design objectives, needs and wants

FIELD ASSESSMENT /

BENCHMARK

Obtain site geometries (as-built documents, architects plans, or site

measurement with images/photos)

Baseline illumination readings on existing site (remodels and retrofits)

Computer model baselines (new construction and major remodels)

DESIGN CONCEPTS &

BUDGET

Illumination targets, energy targets (LPD), code compliance (Title 34), and MLO,

if applicable

AGI-32 computer model options targeting design concepts and design

parameters (illumination targets, codes, etc.)

Compare incumbent (baseline technologies) to advance and emerging

technologies alternates as part of computer modeling process. Identify best

performing designs

Perform (LLC to determine most cost effective options

DESIGN REVIEW & PRE-

INSTALLATION

(or bid option)

Review best options with customer and/or owner (client)

Outline design choices and construction (implementation plan)

Review LLCs with customer and/or owner (client)

Develop procurement documents (turnkey installation, bid documents

INSTALLATION

MONITORING

Periodic job site visits – monitor progress and verify correct installation

Reports to customer and/or owner and contractor – Status, problems,

corrections (perform routine inspections and generate punch list if part of scope)

PUNCH LIST - FINAL Final punch list inspection prior to commissioning (document noncompliance and

corrective action items and verify prior punch list items corrected)

COMMISSION

Post installation inspection and report verifying compliance with design and

engineering specifications and operational requirements

As-built illumination measurements (light meter readings) to certify compliance

with performance objectives and design specifications

Provide maintenance plan (cleaning and lamping schedule and maintenance

repair action plan)

PROJECT COMPLETE

(DONE)

Reports to customer and/or owner and contractor – If/when required as part of

project scope – Also reports/documents to SCE and /or other agencies as may

be required or appropriate




RECOMMENDED FURTHER STUDY AND EVALUATION Analysis of “Real World” Existing Applications and Design Practice

Study and analysis of real-world applications using comparisons of similar lots to the lots

used in this paper study would provide valuable additional information with respect to the

lighting of open exterior lots. The designs and use of technology application in this study

followed best-applied theory and modeling practices. It is not known how well these

practices have been followed in real-world applications. A project’s ability to pass California

Title 24 compliance or meet MLO targets is not in itself an indication that best practices

were employed. As was demonstrated by our models, the best designs were well under the

allowed maximum Title 24 wattages and maximum MLO allowed total lumens while hitting

or surpassing IES recommendations for illumination and uniformity. Data gathered from a

“real-world” applications study would help to define and set design standards and

recommendations that will best provide proper illumination while minimizing LPD and

conforming to best practice MLO requirements.

A ”real world” applications survey and analysis should include at least 10 to 12 exterior

open lot sites currently in operation that are similar to each of the 4 model footprints used

in this study. The survey and documentation objective of these “real-world” sites should

include:

Visual review/analysis with photographs and commentary

Documentation of existing illumination and uniformity

Documentation of equipment used, design techniques, etc., and

Verification of compliance with Title 24 and the MLO, if applicable

Data recorded from real world surveys is to be compared to IES, IES/IDA standards, and

recommendations as well as CA Title 24 compliance and MLO compliance, if applicable. Data

collected from real-world applications and design would be compared against design models

from the original open lot parking study (this report).

Determine the differences between best practices and real-world design

implementation.

Identify practices, technology changes, and other elements that will most affect and

influence better real-world application.

Develop strategies and provide recommendations for design formulas that provide

desired and/or mandated illumination while offering the lowest LPD targets (Title 24

friendly) and meet or exceed MLO compliance criteria.

Findings and results of this follow-up open lot “real world” study would provide valuable

substantiated documentation for utilities such as SCE, promoting advanced and emerging

technologies via incentives and education. The data collected and recommendations

formulated from this follow-up would be useful to code developers working on next

generation energy codes.




APPENDIX A: IES RECOMMENDED PRACTICES

Mesopic multipliers (new in HB 10th Edition)

Light Source – CCT/CRI Multiplier Comments and Remarks

HPS – 2000K/20CRI 1.07 For illuminance range of 4 Lux to 8 Lux. Factors increase as Lux declines and decrease as Lux increases until transition to photopic illuminance at which point factors are no longer applicable and/or applied.

PSMH – 4100K/65CRI 1.00

CMH – 3000K/80CRI 0.95

CMH – 4000K/80CRI 0.90

LED – 5000K/75CRI 0.85

New Avg. Lux Targets by Lighting Zone and Activity Function (HB 10th Edition)

Category Avg. H Illuminance

Lux FC Activity and/or Function Description

A 1 0.1 Dark ambient adaptive, basic convenience, and very low density and activity (rural and/or inactive suburban environment) as is synonymous with LZ-1 B 2 0.2

C 4 0.4 Dark to moderate ambient adaptive, slow paced low density with low to moderate activity as is synonymous with LZ-1 or possibly some LZ-2

D 6 0.6 Moderate ambient adaptive, medium paced activity and medium density (active suburban environment) as is synonymous with LZ-2

E 8 0.8

F 10 1.0 High ambient adaptive, fast paced (high density, high activity (urban environment)) as is synonymous with LZ-3

G 15 1.5

H 30 3.0

Note: Designer discretion; vertical illumination 1/3 to 1/2 of horizontal illuminance. Uniformity ratios not publicized for exterior open parking lots in HB 10th Edition. Covered parking states 10:1 (Max: Min), which is same as HB 9th Addition. Tenth edition refers to legacy documented HB 9th edition and RP-33 for guidance with open lot design. (Design process set up in HB 10th Edition for interior lighting and much of exterior lighting has not been fully developed for parking lot and roadway lighting.)




Lumen Depreciation - Various Light Sources (extracted from HB 10th Edition) PSMH and CMH Sources

PSMH Versus Induction and Fluorescent Sources (extracted from HB 10th Edition)




Dirt Deprciation Factors (extracted from HB 10th Edition)

Luminaire Optics (extracted from HB 10th Edition

Luminaire Distribution Types (optics)




APPENDIX B: IES/IDA MODEL LIGHTING

ORDINANCE

Lighting Zones – Descriptions and Recommendations




Allowed Maximum Lumens by Lighting Zone




APPENDIX C: CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION

TITLE 24

Lighting Zones – Descriptions and Recommendations

Hardscape LPD Allowances




Method for Defining Hardscape Elegable for LPD Allowances

Method for caculating allowed LPD:

Gray area, shown above, is eligible hardscape LPD square footage and red line is

eligible lineal eet of eligible hardscape LPD

1. Calculate square footage of gray area and multiply by appropriate LPD per

square foot as shown in table for the lighting zone for which compliance is

calculated.

2. Calculate lineal footage (total of red line) and multiply by appropriate LPD per

lineal foot as shown in table for the lighting zone for which compliance is

calculated.

3. Select an initial allowed base wattage (taken from the appropriate lighting

zone) as shown in Table 147A.

4. Add the square footage calculation total, the lineal footage calculation total,

and the allowed base wattage. The combined total number is the allowed

maximum LPD for application compliance.




APPENDIX D: OUTLINE SPECIFICATIONS LUMINAIRES USED IN AGI-32 MODELING - BASELINES

“*1” SUPERSCRIPT IN OPTICS COLUMN MEANS PATTERN VARIES FROM IES STANDARD GROUND PATTERN

WATTS INCUMBENT TECH. OPTICS LUMINAIRE LUMENS POLE HEIGHT LOT DESIGN

50 HPS Type III 2887 16 foot E

50 HPS Type III 2887 24 foot E

70 HPS Type III*1 3075 24 foot E & B

70 HPS Type V 4365 24 foot B

70 PSMH Type III*1 2987 24 foot E & B

70 PSMH Type V 4276 24 foot B

100 HPS Type III*1 4637 16 foot A

100 HPS Type V 6582 16 foot A

100 PSMH Type III*1 3712 16 foot A

150 PSMH Type V 8613 16 foot A

150 HPS Type V 9797 24 foot SC

150 HPS Type III 11337 32 foot B

150 HPS Type V 9797 32 foot B

175 PSMH Type V 9228 24 foot SC

175 PSMH Type III*1 6507 32 foot B

175 PSMH Type V 9228 32 foot B

250 HPS Type III 20300 32 foot A

250 HPS Type V 18163 32 foot A

250 PSMH Type III*1 11451 32 foot A

250 PSMH Type V 13521 32 foot A

250 HPS Type III 20300 40 foot SC

250 HPS Type V 18163 40 foot SC

400 PSMH Type III*1 21482 40 foot SC

400 PSMH Type V 26157 40 foot SC




LUMINAIRES USED IN AGI-32 MODELING – ADVANCED/EMERGING

WATTS NEW TECHNOLOGY OPTICS LUMINAIRE LUMENS POLE HEIGHT LOT DESIGN

45 LED Type III*1 2473 16 foot E

45 LED Type III*1 2473 24 foot E & B

45 LED Type V 3709 24 foot B

60 CMH Type IV 1874 16 foot E

68 LED Type III*1 2662 16 foot A

68 LED Type V 5493 16 foot A

70 CMH Type III*1 2834 24 foot E & B

70 CMH Type III 3950 24 foot E & B

90 CMH Type IV 2838 16 foot A

90 CMH Type V 6653 16 foot A

90 LED Type V 7323 24 foot SC

111 LED Type III*1 6088 32 foot A & B

111 LED Type V 9131 32 foot A & B

111 T5/HO Type III 7114 16 foot A

111 T5/HO Type III 7114 24 foot B & SC

111 T5/HO Type III 7114 32 foot A

140 CMH Type V 10505 24 foot SC

150 CMH Type III*1 7742 32 foot A & B

150 CMH Type V 10711 32 foot A & B

150 IF (induction) Type II 9347 16 foot A

150 IF (induction) Type II 9347 24 foot B

150 IF (induction) Type V 9082 24 foot B

195W T5/HO Type II 11315 24 foot B

195W T5/HO Type II 11315 32 foot A & B

195W T5/HO Type II 11315 40 foot SC

210 CMH Type IV 7834 40 foot SC

210 CMH Type V 17408 40 foot-foot SC

221 LED Type III*1 12121 40 foot SC




WATTS NEW TECHNOLOGY OPTICS LUMINAIRE LUMENS POLE HEIGHT LOT DESIGN

221 LED Type V 18180 40 foot SC

250W IF (induction) Type V 16008 32 foot B

250W IF (induction) Type V 16008 40 foot SC

266W HEP (Plasma) Type III 17421 16 foot A

266W HEP (Plasma) Type III 17421 24 foot B

266W HEP (Plasma) Type III 17421 32 foot A & B

288W HEP (Plasma) Type V 18428 16 foot A

288W HEP (Plasma) Type V 18428 24 foot B

288W HEP (Plasma) Type V 18428 32 foot A & B

288W HEP (Plasma) Type V 18428 40 foot SC

400W IF (induction) Type V 24255 40 foot A

400W IF (induction) Type V 24255 40 foot SC




APPENDIX E: DETAILS OF AGI-32 LIGHTING

MODELS

MODEL E - SMALL LOT Design Studies (CEC Footprint E)

[Incumbent Technologies Models]

Adobe Acrobat Document

Model E-Small Lot 50W HPS 16 foot16 foot Poles

Lot E HPS 50W at 24 Feet Vertical.pdf

Model E-Small Lot 50W HPS 24-foot Poles


Model E-Small Lot 70W PSMH 16 foot16 foot Poles

Lot E CMH 70W at 24 Feet Vertical.pdf

Model E-Small Lot 70W PSMH 24-foot Poles

MODEL E - SMALL LOT Design Studies (CEC Footprint E)

[Advanced and Emerging Technologies Models]


Model E-Small Lot 60W CMH 16 foot16 foot Poles

Lot E CMH 70W at 24 Feet Vertical.pdf

Model E-Small Lot 70W CMH 24-foot Poles


Model E-Small Lot 45W LED 16 foot16 foot Poles

Lot E LED 45W at 24 Feet Vertical.pdf

Model E-Small Lot 45W LED24-foot Poles

MODEL A – LARGE LONG LOT Design Studies (CEC Footprint A)



Model A-Long Lot 100W HPS 16 foot16 foot Poles

Lot A PSMH 250W at 32 Feet Vertical.pdf

Model A-Long Lot 250W HPS 32 foot Poles


Model A-Long Lot 150W PSMH 32 foot Poles

Lot A PSMH 250W at 32 Feet Vertical.pdf

Model A-Long Lot 250W PSMH 32 foot Poles





Model A-Long Lot 90W CMH 16 foot16 foot Poles


Model A-Long Lot 150W CMH 32 foot Poles


Model A-Long Lot 68W LED 16 foot16 foot Poles


Model A-Long Lot 111W LED 32 foot Poles

MODEL A – LARGE LONG LOT Design Studies (CEC Footprint A)



Model A-Long Lot 68W LED 16 foot16 foot Poles


Model A-Long Lot 90W CMH 16 foot16 foot Poles


Model A-Long Lot 111W T5/HO 16 foot16 foot Poles


Model A-Long Lot 111W LED 32 foot Poles


Model A-Long Lot 150W CMH 32 foot Poles


Model A-Long Lot

111W/195W T5/HO 32

foot Poles


Model SC-Large Open Lot 150W IF 16 foot16 foot Poles


Model B-Multi-shape Lot 288W HEP 16 foot16 foot Poles


Model B-Multi-shape Lot 288W HEP 32 foot Poles


Model SC-Large Open Lot 400W IF 32 foot Poles




MODEL B – LARGE MULTI SHAPE LOT Design Studies (CEC Footprint B)


Lot B HPS 70W at 24 Feet.pdf

Model B-Multi-shape Lot 70W HPS 24-foot Poles

Lot B HPS 150W at 32 Feet.pdf

Model B-Multi-shape Lot 150W HPS 32 foot Poles

Lot B CMH 70W at 24 Feet.pdf

Model B-Multi-shape Lot 70W PSMH 24-foot Poles

Lot B PSMH 175W at 32 Feet.pdf

Model B-Multi-shape Lot 175W PSMH 32 foot Poles

MODEL B – LARGE MULTI SHAPE LOT Design Studies (CEC Footprint B)


Lot B LED 45W at 24 Feet.pdf

Model B-Multi-shape Lot 45W LED 24-foot Poles


Model B-Multi-shape Lot 70W CMH 24-foot Poles


Model B-Multi-shape Lot 111W LED 32 foot Poles

Lot B FLUOR 111-195W at 24 Feet.pdf

Model B-Multi-shape Lot 111W -195W T5/HO 24-foot Poles


Model B-Multi-shape Lot 111W -195W T5/HO 32 foot Poles


Model B-Multi-shape Lot 150W CMH 32 foot Poles

Lot B IND 150W at 24 Feet.pdf

Model B-Multi-shape Lot 150W IF 24-foot Poles

Lot B IND 250W at 32 Feet.pdf

Model B-Multi-shape Lot 250W IF 32 foot Poles

Lot B PLASMA 266-288W at 24 Feet.pdf

Model B-Multi-shape Lot 288W HEP 24-foot Poles

Lot B PLASMA 266-288W at 32 Feet.pdf

Model B-Multi-shape Lot 288W HEP 32 foot Poles




MODEL SC – LARGE OPEN LOT Design Studies (Mall/Event Venue Lot Type SC)


Lot SC HPS 150W at 24 Feet.pdf

Model SC-Large Open Lot 150W HPS 24-foot Poles

Lot SC HPS 250W at 40 Feet.pdf

Model SC-Large Open Lot 250W HPS 40 foot Poles

Lot SC PSMH 175W at 24 Feet.pdf

Model SC-Large Open Lot 175W PSMH 24-foot Poles

Lot SC PSMH 400W at 40 Feet.pdf

Model SC-Large Open Lot 400W PSMH 40 foot Poles

MODEL SC – LARGE OPEN LOT Design Studies (Mall/Event Venue Lot Type SC)


Lot SC LED 90W at 24 Feet.pdf

Model SC-Large Open Lot 90W LED 24-foot Poles

Lot SC FLUOR 111W at 24 Feet.pdf

Model SC-Large Open Lot 111W T5/HO 24-foot Poles

Lot SC CMH 140W at 24 Feet.pdf

Model SC Large Open Lot 140W CMH 24-foot Poles

Lot SC FLUOR 195W at 40 Feet.pdf

Model SC-Large Open Lot 195W T5/HO 40 foot Poles

Lot SC CMH 210W at 40 Feet.pdf

Model SC-Large Open Lot 210W CMH 40 foot Poles

Lot SC LED 221W at 40 Feet.pdf

Model SC-Large Open Lot 221W LED 40 foot Poles

Lot SC IND 250W at 24 Feet.pdf

Model SC-Large Open Lot 250W IF 24-foot Poles

Lot SC PLASMA 288W at 40 Feet.pdf

Model SC-Large Open Lot 288W HEP 40 foot Poles

Lot SC IND 400W at 40 Feet.pdf

Model SC-Large Open Lot 400W IF 40 foot Poles




APPENDIX F: KEPNER TREGO ANALYSIS


Kepner Trego Decision Analysis

light source performance chart.xlsx

Luminaire Performance Matrix




APPENDIX G: DETAILS OF LIFECYCLE COSTS

ANALYSIS

LifeCycleCost.xls




OPEN LOT PARKING STYLES VERSUS LCC’S

open parking lot styles vs LCC's vs SF 1 3 12 final draft .xlsx

LCC work table 12 30 11 final ALL PROJECT LUMINAIRES USED TO DATE 12-30-11 ADDED.xlsx




APPENDIX H: DETAILS OF RESULTS – LIGHTING POWER DESIGNED WATTS VERSUS ALLOWED WATTS

ANALYSIS RESULTS – LIGHTING POWER DENSITY (LPD) The next series of tables show power density in total watts LPD code compliances

with CA Title 24 for each of the lots modeled.

TABLE 36. LPD LOT E (SMALL FOOTPRINT)










COLOR KEY



well within both current Title 24 2008 and the proposed Title 24-2013 compliance for

lighting zones Z2 and Z3. The advanced technology LED designs exhibited especially

low LPD with power densities less than half of that allowed - even under the more

stringent Zone LZ2 compliance.




















COLOR KEY


The LPD of all designs, incumbent technologies and advanced and emerging, except

for the 288W HEP design at 16 foot, were well within both current Title 24 2008 and

the proposed Title 24 2013 compliance for lighting zone Z3. However, in this model

(lot A footprint), half of the designs failed to meet California Title 24 zone Z2

compliance. Four of the eight designs not meeting zone Z2 compliance could comply

with minor design modification (tweaking). The other four designs would require

major re-design to obtain compliance. One design, the 288W HEP failed all

compliance targets. This confirmed that the current higher wattage HEP systems

available have limited application and cannot meet energy compliance in a number of

scenarios even though the light source is inherently highly efficient. As with other

models, the advanced technology LED designs exhibited especially low LPD with

power densities less than half of that allowed under even the more stringent zone

LZ2 compliance.



















266-288W HEP 32- Foot Poles Emerg.

23,616W 23,445W 45,153W 47,660W

COLOR KEY




lighting zone Z3. Furthermore, all but two of the designs (HEP) at 24-foot and

32- foot) also comply with the more stringent T-24 zone Z2 LPD allowance. Lot B

LED designs as with lot A LED designs demonstrated that advanced technology LED

designs can have LPDs of less than half that allowed by maximum LPDs under even

the more stringent CA Title-24 zone LZ2 compliance.



















COLOR KEY




lighting zones Z2 and Z3. As with most of the other lot design scenarios, advanced

technology LED designs exhibited especially low LPD with power densities of less

than half that allowed under even the more stringent Zone LZ2 compliance. Several

other lot SC designs also failed with respect to low LPD. These designs included the

210W CMH at 40-foot, the 288W HEP at 40-foot, and the 240W HPS incumbent

technology at 40-foot. However, the HPS lighting exhibits poor color rendering (CRI)

and is therefore not recommended for new or retrofit designs. All of the other low

LPD designs exhibited good to excellent CRI.




APPENDIX I: DETAILS OF RESULTS – DESIGN LUMEN VERSUS MLO ALLOWED MAXIMUM LUMENS

ANALYSIS RESULTS – DESIGN LUMEN VERSUS MLO ALLOWED MAXIMUM LUMENS

The next series of tables show compliance with IES/IDS MLO for each of the lots modeled.

TABLE 40. TOTAL LUMENS LOT E (SMALL FOOTPRINT)

LUMEN TARGET – MLO COMPLIANCE DESIGN LUMENS ZONE 1 MAX ZONE 2 MAX ZONE 3 MAX

50W HPS 16-Foot Poles 49,079 35,780 60,800 121,600

50W HPS 24-Foot Poles 40,418 35,780 60,800 121,600

70W PSMH 16-Foot Poles 50,779 35,780 60,800 121,600

60W PSMH 24-Foot Poles 39,732 35,780 60,800 121,600

60W CMH 16-Foot Poles 31,858 35,780 60,800 121,600

60W CMH 24-Foot Poles 55,300 35,780 60,800 121,600

45W LED 16-Foot Poles 40,041 35,780 60,800 121,600

45W LED 24-Foot Poles 34,662 35,780 60,800 121,600

COLOR KEY





TABLE 41. TOTAL LUMENS LOT A (LARGE LONG FOOTPRINT)


100W HPS 16-Foot Poles 1,013,445 723,500 1,207,000 2,414,000

250W HPS 32-Foot Poles 1,758,616 723,500 1,207,000 2,414,000

150W PSMH 16-Foot Poles 1,078,800 723,500 1,207,000 2,414,000

250W PSMH 32-Foot Poles 1,096,830 723,500 1,207,000 2,414,000

68W LED 16-Foot Poles 823,950 723,500 1,207,000 2,414,000

90W CMH 16-Foot Poles 830,230 723,500 1,207,000 2,414,000

111W T5HO 16-Foot Poles 1,316,090 723,500 1,207,000 2,414,000

111W LED 32-Foot Poles 645,296 723,500 1,207,000 2,414,000

111-195W T5HO 32-Foot Poles 774,692 723,500 1,207,000 2,414,000

150W CMH 32-Foot Poles 791,788 723,500 1,207,000 2,414,000

150W IF 16-Foot Poles 1,729,195 723,500 1,207,000 2,414,000

288W HEP 16-Foot Poles 3,292,368 723,500 1,207,000 2,414,000

266-288W HEP 32-Foot Poles 1,600,114 723,500 1,207,000 2,414,000

400W IF 32-Foot Poles Adv. 2,182,950 723,500 1,207,000 2,414,000

COLOR KEY





ABLE 42. TOTAL LUMENS LOT B (LARGE IRREGULAR/COMPLEX FOOTPRINT)


70W HPS 24-Foot Poles. 546,990 693,613 1,157,188 2,314,375

150W HPS 32-Foot Poles 883,351 693,613 1,157,188 2,314,375

70W PSMH 246-Foot Poles 526,332 693,613 1,157,188 2,314,375

175W PSMH 32-Foot Poles 646,200 693,613 1,157,188 2,314,375

45W LED 24-Foot Poles 454,994 693,613 1,157,188 2,314,375

70W CMH 24-Foot Poles 498,580 693,613 1,157,188 2,314,375

111W LED 32-Foot Poles 623,981 693,613 1,157,188 2,314,375

150W IF 24-Foot Poles 1,346,112 693,613 1,157,188 2,314,375

150 CMH 32 Foot Poles 758,477 693,613 1,157,188 2,314,375

111-195W T5/HO 24 Foot Poles 1,307,508 693,613 1,157,188 2,314,375

111-195W T5/HO 32 Foot Poles 1,344,522 693,613 1,157,188 2,314,375

250W IF 32 Foot Poles 1,328,664 693,613 1,157,188 2,314,375

266-288W HEP 24 Foot Poles 2,619,998 693,613 1,157,188 2,314,375

266-288W HEP 32 Foot Poles 1,489,244 693,613 1,157,188 2,314,375

COLOR KEY





TABLE 43. TOTAL LUMENS LOT SC (LARGE OPEN MALL/VENUE FOOTPRINT)


150W HPS 24-Foot Poles 470,256 386,777 645,795 1,291,590

250W HPS 40-Foot Poles 424,160 386,777 645,795 1,291,590

175W PSMH 24-Foot Poles 442,944 386,777 645,795 1,291,590

400W PSMH 40-Foot Poles 595,043 386,777 645,795 1,291,590

90W LED 24-Foot Poles 351,504 386,777 645,795 1,291,590

111W T5HO 24-Foot Poles 554,892 386,777 645,795 1,291,590

140W CMH 24-Foot Poles 493,735 386,777 645,795 1,291,590

195W T5HO 40-Foot Poles 441,285 386,777 645,795 1,291,590

210 CMH 40-Foot Poles 350,774 386,777 645,795 1,291,590

221W LED 40-Foot Poles 393,907 386,777 645,795 1,291,590

250W IF 24-Foot Poles 752,376 386,777 645,795 1,291,590

288W HEP 40-Foot Poles 442,272 386,777 645,795 1,291,590

400W IF 40-Foot Poles 582,120 386,777 645,795 1,291,590

COLOR KEY





APPENDIX J: DETAILS OF RESULTS – DESIGN FC VERSUS

NEW IES AVERAGE FC TARGETS

ANALYSIS RESULTS – DESIGN FC VERSUS NEW IES AVERAGE FC TARGETS

The IES matrix for outdoor illumination is still being refined. Nevertheless, comparisons

were made of average maintained footcandles for AGI-32 model designs versus new IES

recommended average illuminance targets. This was done by lighting zone (zones LZ1, LZ2,

LZ3), and done in an effort to benchmark potential revised design criteria when designing to

IES/IDA MLO requirements. These comparisons with reference to average footcandles, by

design model, display in the next series of tables for each of the lot types (A, B, E, and SC)

modeled in this study.

TABLE 44. AVERAGE FOOTCANDLES LOT E (SMALL FOOTPRINT)


MODEL E DESIGNS AVE FC LZ1 AVE FC TARGET LZ2 AVE FC TARGET LZ3 AVE FC TARGET

45W LED-16 1.31 0.1 – 0.4 0.5 -0.8 0.9-3.0

45W LED-24 0.95 0.1 – 0.4 0.5 -0.8 0.9-3.0

50W HPS-16 1.06 0.1 – 0.4 0.5 -0.8 0.9-3.0

50W HPS-24 0.08 0.1 – 0.4 0.5 -0.8 0.9-3.0

60W CMH-16 0.91 0.1 – 0.4 0.5 -0.8 0.9-3.0

60W CMH-24 0.86 0.1 – 0.4 0.5 -0.8 0.9-3.0

70W PSMH-16 1.18 0.1 – 0.4 0.5 -0.8 0.9-3.0

70W PSMH-24 0.64 0.1 – 0.4 0.5 -0.8 0.9-3.0




TABLE 45. AVERAGE FOOTCANDLES LOT A (LARGE LONG FOOTPRINT)



68W LED-16 1.19 0.1 – 0.4 0.5 -0.8 0.9-3.0

90W CMH-16 1.20 0.1 – 0.4 0.5 -0.8 0.9-3.0

100W HPS-16 1.25 0.1 – 0.4 0.5 -0.8 0.9-3.0

111WT5HO-16 1.60 0.1 – 0.4 0.5 -0.8 0.9-3.0

111W T5HO-32 0.87 0.1 – 0.4 0.5 -0.8 0.9-3.0

111W LED-32 0.87 0.1 – 0.4 0.5 -0.8 0.9-3.0

150W PSMH-16 1.13 0.1 – 0.4 0.5 -0.8 0.9-3.0


150W IF-16 1.60 0.1 – 0.4 0.5 -0.8 0.9-3.0

150W CMH-32 0.86 0.1 – 0.4 0.5 -0.8 0.9-3.0

250W HPS-32 1.84 0.1 – 0.4 0.5 -0.8 0.9-3.0

250W PSMH-32 1.95 0.1 – 0.4 0.5 -0.8 0.9-3.0

288W HEP-16 4.60 0.1 – 0.4 0.5 -0.8 0.9-3.0

266-288W HEP-32 2.10 0.1 – 0.4 0.5 -0.8 0.9-3.0

400W IF-32 1.89 0.1 – 0.4 0.5 -0.8 0.9-3.0




TABLE 46. AVERAGE FOOTCANDLES LOT B (LARGE IRREGULAR/COMPLEX FOOTPRINT)


MODEL B DESIGNS AVE FC LZ1 AVE FC TARGET LZ2 AVE FC TARGET LZ3 AVE FC TARGET

45W LED-24 0.70 0.1 – 0.4 0.5 -0.8 0.9-3.0

70W CMH-24 0.66 0.1 – 0.4 0.5 -0.8 0.9-3.0

70W HPS-24 0.73 0.1 – 0.4 0.5 -0.8 0.9-3.0

70W PSMH-24 0.59 0.1 – 0.4 0.5 -0.8 0.9-3.0

111W LED-32 0.90 0.1 – 0.4 0.5 -0.8 0.9-3.0

150W IF-24 1.43 0.1 – 0.4 0.5 -0.8 0.9-3.0

150W CMH-32 0.90 0.1 – 0.4 0.5 -0.8 0.9-3.0

150W HPS-32 1.00 0.1 – 0.4 0.5 -0.8 0.9-3.0

175W PSMH-32 0.69 0.1 – 0.4 0.5 -0.8 0.9-3.0

111-195W T5HO-24 1.92 0.1 – 0.4 0.5 -0.8 0.9-3.0

111-195W T5HO-32 1.06 0.1 – 0.4 0.5 -0.8 0.9-3.0

250W IF-32 1.30 0.1 – 0.4 0.5 -0.8 0.9-3.0

266-288W HEP-24 3.97 0.1 – 0.4 0.5 -0.8 0.9-3.0

266-288W HEP-32 2.12 0.1 – 0.4 0.5 -0.8 0.9-3.0




TABLE 47. AVERAGE FOOTCANDLES LOT SC (LARGE OPEN MALL/VENUE FOOTPRINT)


MODEL SC DESIGNS AVE FC LZ1 AVE FC TARGET LZ2 AVE FC TARGET LZ3 AVE FC TARGET

90W LED-24 0.81 0.1 – 0.4 0.5 -0.8 0.9-3.0

111W T5HO-24 1.51 0.1 – 0.4 0.5 -0.8 0.9-3.0

140W CMH-24 1.17 0.1 – 0.4 0.5 -0.8 0.9-3.0

150W HPS-24 0.96 0.1 – 0.4 0.5 -0.8 0.9-3.0

175W PSMH-24 0.76 0.1 – 0.4 0.5 -0.8 0.9-3.0

195W T5HO-40 1.14 0.1 – 0.4 0.5 -0.8 0.9-3.0

210W CMH-40 0.84 0.1 – 0.4 0.5 -0.8 0.9-3.0

221W LED-40 0.94 0.1 – 0.4 0.5 -0.8 0.9-3.0

250W IF-40 1.51 0.1 – 0.4 0.5 -0.8 0.9-3.0

250W HPS-40 0.86 0.1 – 0.4 0.5 -0.8 0.9-3.0

288W HEP-40 0.78 0.1 – 0.4 0.5 -0.8 0.9-3.0

400W IF-40 1.08 0.1 – 0.4 0.5 -0.8 0.9-3.0

400W PSMH-40 1.07 0.1 – 0.4 0.5 -0.8 0.9-3.0




APPENDIX K: DETAILED EVALUATION; ENERGY SAVINGS

(REDUCED LPD) INCUMBENT VERSUS ADVANCED

& EMERGING TECHNOLOGY

Evaluation of results and findings with respect to lighting energy (watts) gained from AGI-32

modeling of legacy and the various advanced and emerging technology alternatives are as follow:

TABLE 48 LPD LOT E (SMALL FOOTPRINT)

ENERGY SAVINGS

EVALUATION DESIGN

POWER BASE

HPS PWR BASE

PSMH PWR HPS

VARIATION PSMH

VARIATION % SAVED

HPS PSMH


765W 1,156W 1,190W -391W -425W 34% 36%


1,139W 1,156W 1,190W -17W -15W 2% 5%


1,156W 1,156W 1,190W 0W -34W 0% 3%


1,190W 1,156W 1,190W +34W 0 -3% 0


630W 952W 1,386W -322W -756W 34% 55%


952W 952W 1,386W 0W -434W 0% 31%


1,197W 952W 1,386W +245W -189W -25% 14%


1,386W 952W 1,386W +434W 0W -45% 0%

Maximum energy savings (lowest LPD) for Lot E designs was accomplished with the 45W LED

model at 24-foot mounting. This model was 55% more efficient than the incumbent PSMH

and 34% more efficient than the incumbent HPS design. At the 16-foot mounting height, LED

also performed well with an LPD 34% to 36% lower than the incumbent HPS and PSMH

technology designs. The CMH advanced technology models did not provide any significant

energy saving versus the incumbent PSMH and HPS designs. However, the CMH provided CRI,

which improves visual acuity and works well when controlled (lowering power consumption

through dimming). These features, while not reducing the static LPD, can result in a design

plan that offers overall improved lighting, lower LCC, and reduced kilowatt (kW) demand.

Fluorescent T5HO, IF and HEP technologies were not modeled in the lot E footprint. The

small scale of this lot did not lend itself to the geometries and optical distributions available

with the T5/HO and IF luminaires. The HEP luminaires currently available, while having the

necessary optic, do not have a small enough lumen package for the application needs of this




small lot. Managing light trespass (a component required under the MLO) on a small site

(footprint E) is difficult with the FL T5/HO and IF technologies.


ENERGY SAVINGS

EVALUATION

DESIGN

POWER

BASE

HPS PWR

BASE

PSMH PWR

HPS

VARIATION

PSMH

VARIATION

% SAVED*

HPS PSMH

68W LED 16 FT

Advanced 12,580W 18,500W 27,000W -5,920W -14,420W 32% 53%


18,315W 18,500W 27,000W -185W -8,685W 1% 32%


18,500W 18,500W 27,000W 0W -8,500W 0% 31%


20,535W 18,500W 27,000W +2,035W -6,465W -10% 24%

150W PSMH 16 FT

Incumbent 27,000W 18,500W 27,000W +8,500W 0W -32% 0%


29,027W 18,500W 27,000W +10,527W +2,027W -57% -7%

288W HEP 16 FT Emerging

53,280W 18,500W 27,000W +34,780W +26,280W -65% -49%

111W LED 32 FT

Advanced 9,990W 27,000W 25,470W -17,110W -15,480W 63% 61%


12628W 27000W 25470W -14372W -12,842W 53% 51%


25,300W 27,000W 25,470W -1,700W -170W 7% 1%

250W PSMH 32 FT

Incumbent 25,470W 27,000W 25,470W -1,530W 0W 6% 0%


27,000W 27,000W 25,470W 0W +1,530W 0% -6%


37,107W 27,000W 25,470W +10,107W +11,637W -27% -31%

*= % lost if a negative number.

Maximum energy savings (lowest LPD) for the Lot A designs were also accomplished

with the advanced lighting LED designs. The 111W LED model at 32-foot mounting

proved 63% more efficient than the incumbent HPS, and 61% more efficient than

the incumbent PSMH design. Sixty-eight Watt LED designs at 16 foot were also excellent performers with a 53% savings against PSMH and 32% against HPS. At 16-

foot mounting, the CMH provided a 32% lower LPD versus PSMH but was about

equal in LPD to the HPS. At the 32-foot mounting height, the FL T5HO design also

provided a significant (51% to 53%) lower LPD versus the incumbent HPS and PSMH




technology designs. Neither the IF or HEP, with reference to LPD, performed well

compared to the incumbent technologies.


ENERGY SAVINGS

EVALUATION

DESIGN

POWER

BASE

HPS PWR

BASE

PSMH PWR

HPS

VARIATION

PSMH

VARIATION

% SAVED*

HPS PSMH

45W LED 24-FT

Advanced 6-570W 10,220W 10,220W -3,650W -3,650W 36% 36%


10-220W 10,220W 10,220W 0W 0W 0% 0%

70W PSMH 24-FT Incumbent

10-220W 10,220W 10,220W 0W 0W 0% 0%

70W CMH 24-FT

Advanced 12-483W 10,220W 10,220W +2,263W +2,263W -22% -22%

111/195 T5HO 24- FT Advanced

21-601W 10,220W 10,220W +11,381W +11,381W -53% -53%

150W IF 24-FT Advanced

22-854W 10,220W 10,220W +12,634W +12,634W -55% -55%

266/288 HEP 24 FT Emerging

42,048W 10,220W 10,220W +31,828W +31,828W -76% -76%


9,102W 15,604W 15,890W -6,502W -6,788W 42% 43%

111/195 T5HO 32 FT Advanced

12,838W 15,604W 15,890W -2,766W -3,052W 22% 24%


15,604W 15,604W 15,890W 0W -256W 0% 2%

175W PSMH 32

FT Incumbent 15,890W 15,604W 15,890W +256W 0W -2% 0%


17,264W 15,604W 15,890W +1,660W +1,374W -11% -9%


20,992W 15,604W 15,890W +5,380W +5,102W -26% -24%

266/288 HEP 32 FT

Emerging 23,616W 15,604W 15,890W +8,012W +7,726W -34% -33%

*= % lost if a negative number.

As with LED models in Lot A, at Lot B LED designs produced the lowest LPD. Savings were

not as impressive as in lots E and A, but still good. The 111W LED model at 32-foot

mounting proved 42% more efficient than HPS and 43% more efficient than PSM H. At the

24-foot mounting, the 45W LED design used 36% less power than the incumbent HPS and

PSMH models. At the 24-foot mounting height, the LED model was the only

advanced/emerging technology design that performed better (with respect to energy

savings) than the incumbent HPS and PSMH designs. At 32 feet, the T5HO design provided

22% to 24% energy savings (less connected load) versus the incumbent technologies’




designs. Other than the LED and T5HO designs, the advanced/emerging technologies did

not provide reduced lighting load in the lot B design scenarios.


ENERGY SAVINGS

EVALUATION DESIGN

POWER BASE

HPS PWR BASE

PSMH PWR HPS

VARIATION PSMH

VARIATION % SAVED*

HPS PSMH


4,230W 8,836W 9,870W -4,606W -5640W 52% 57%

140W CMH 24-

FT Advanced 7,248W 8,836W 9,870W -1,588W -2622W 18% 27%

111W T5/HO 24-

FT Advanced

8,658W 8,836W 9,870W -178W -1212W 2% 14%


8,836W 8,836W 9,870W 0W -1034W 0% 11%

175W PSMH 24-FT Incumbent 9,870W 8,836W 9,870W

+1,034W

0W -12% 0%


+2,940W

+1,906W

-33% -19%

221W LED 40-FT

Advanced 5,304W 6,900W 10,848W -1,596W -5,544W 23% 51%


5,496W 6,900W 10,848W -1404W -5,352W 14% 49%


6,900W 6,900W 10,848W 0W -3,948 0% 36%

288W HEP 40-FT

Emerging 6,912W 6,900W 10,848W +12W -3,936W -02% 36%

195W T5/HO 40-FT Advanced

7,617W 6,900W 10,848W +717W -3,231W -9% 30%


+2,995W

-9,530W -30% 12%

400W PSMH 40-FT Incumbent 10,848W 6,900W 10,848W

+3,948W

0W -57% 0%

*=% lost if a negative number

Lot SC LED models also exhibited low LPDs with the 90W LED at 24-foot mounting, proving

52% more efficient than HPS and 57% more efficient than PSMH. At 40-foot mounting, the

215W LED design used 36% less power than the incumbent HPS and PSMH models. At 40-

foot mounting, the LED used 51% lower wattage than the PSMH and 23% lower than HPS.




At 40-foot mounting, the CMH also performed well with 49% less power consumption than

PSMH and 14% less than the HPS design at the same mounting height. While the other

advanced and emerging technologies (T5HO, IF, and HEP) produced some energy savings

against the PSMH incumbent technology, they used more total energy than the incumbent

HPS at the 40-foot mounting height.




APPENDIX L: DETAILED EVALUATION OF LIGHTING POWER

DENSITY (LPD)

Evaluation of LPD of the design models for California Title 24 energy code compliance is

presented in this evaluation. A detail of findings by parking lot footprint is shown below.

Results and findings gained from AGI-32 modeling of legacy (base designs) and the various

advanced and emerging technology alternatives are as follows:



current California Title 24 2008 requirements as well as the more stringent proposed

Title 24 2013 requirements.

Doubling the “As Designed” LPD of the models to allow for a higher 0.5fc minimum

target (safety/security) would not negate compliance under Zone 3. Under Zone 2

however, only the 45W LED design would qualify at the higher LPD.

Note: One design (45W LED at 16-foot mounting) obtained a horizontal minimum

illuminance of 0.6fc, which qualifies for the IES 0.5fc higher safety/security target at

the current low LPD.




Title 24 2013 requirements for LZ Z3. However, as designed three of the four

incumbent designs and one of the advanced designs did not meet compliance under

LZ Z2 qualifications.

Those designed that did not meet Title 24 compliance under Z2 were not that far

from compliance, suggesting that fine-tuning of the design may result in reaching

the compliance threshold.




Title 24 2013 requirements for LZ Z3 as well as for LZ Z2.

However, for the designs to reach the 0.5fc level required for the safety/security

illumination target, LPD’s need to triple. Under this scenario while most designs will

maintain compliance under Z3 criteria, only one design (LED 90W at 24 foot) will

comply with LZ Z2's allowed LPD.







Title 24 2013 requirements for lighting zones Z3 and Z2.

However, for the designs to reach the 0.5fc level required for the safety/security

illumination target, LPD’s need to be doubled. Under this scenario while most design

will maintain compliance under Z3 criteria only, three designs (LED 90W at 24-foot,

LED 221W at 40-foot, and CMH 210W at 40-foot) will comply with lighting zone Z2

allowed LPD.

ANALYSIS RECAP – EVALUATION OF LIGHTING POWER DENSITY (LPD)

An observation true for all the models are that the LPD of the model designs with a 0.2fc

minimum target were well under the Title 24 maximum allowed LPD. This suggests that

Title 24 set its allowed LPD targets for the higher illuminance target of 0.5fc as

recommended by the IES for safety/security illuminance.




APPENDIX M: DETAILED EVALUATION- DESIGN MODEL LUMENS

VERSUS MLO ALLOWED LUMENS

Total site lumens for each of the design models (incumbent and advanced/emerging

technologies) were compared against the allowed maximum site lumens by lighting zone

under the IES/IDA MLO. Evaluation of results and findings gained from AGI-32 modeling of

legacy and the various advanced and emerging technology alternatives are as follows:



technologies, were under the maximum allowed lumens for lighting zones Z2 and Z3

of the IES/INS MLO. However, most of the designs failed to meet the maximum

allowed lumen targets for lighting zone Z1 of the MLO. Two exceptions were

advanced/emerging technology designs using 60W CMH at 16 foot and 45W LED at

24 foot.

Several other models were close to MLO Z1 compliance, and with minor design

modifications could comply.

LOT A MODELS (large irregular/complex footprint)

Site lumens for most designs, incumbent technologies and advance/emerging

technologies, were under the maximum allowed lumens for lighting zones Z2 and Z3

of the IES/INS MLO. One exception, 250W HPS at 32 foot, met compliance under

zone Z3 but failed under zone Z2 of the MLO.

Site lumens of all designs, except one, failed to meet MLO Z1 maximum allowed

lumens. The one exception, 111W LED at 32 foot, complied with MLO Zone Z1

maximum allowed lumens.

The other advanced/emerging technology models were close to MLO Z1 compliance

and with minor design modifications could comply. However, site lumens of all the

incumbent technology models were significantly higher than the allowed maximum

under Z1; making it doubtful that minor redesign will achieve compliance.

LOT B MODELS (large long footprint)


technologies, were well under the maximum allowed lumens for lighting zones Z2

and Z3 of the IES/IDA MLO. In addition, most of the designs met maximum allowed

lumen targets for lighting zone Z1 of the MLO.

Two exceptions, 150W HPS at 32 foot and 150W CMH at 32 foot had site lumens

above the allowed maximums for lighting zone Z1 of the MLO.

The advanced/emerging technology model 150W CMH at 32-foot site lumens was

about 9% above the maximum allowed under MLO Z1. With minor design

modification this model would comply




LOT SC MODELS (large open mall/venue footprint)


technologies, were well under the maximum allowed lumens for lighting zones Z2

and Z3 of the IES/IDA MLO. In addition, two of the designs, 210W CMH at 40 foot

and 90W LED at 24 foot met maximum allowed lumen targets for lighting zone Z1 of

the MLO.

Several other models were close to MLO Z1 compliance and with some design

modification could comply.

The advanced/emerging technology 111W LED model was very close to Z1

compliance with design site lumens less than 3% above the allowed Z1 maximum

site lumens. Tweaking the current design would no doubt result in achieving Z1

compliance.




APPENDIX N: DETAILS OF COST ANALYSIS Analysis of the first cost (lamp, luminaire and installation) and life cycle cost (initial costs

plus maintenance and energy use) of the technologies studied are reviewed in detail within

this appendix.

The following tables compare the LCC of each test model (incumbent designs and

advanced/emerging technologies designs) by lot application and mounting height.

TABLE 52. LCC FOR LOT E

SOURCES/LCC TYPE MOUNTING

LCC TOTAL

NEW CONSTRUCT

LCC TOTAL

RETROFITS









Twenty-four foot mounting height designs at Lot E, which is a small footprint lot,

exhibited slightly better (2% to 3%) LLCs than the lower 16-foot mounting height

designs. The LED design at 24-foot mounting was the most cost effective. However,

there was little difference (less than 10%) among the LCC’s of all the Lot E designs.

In addition, although the incumbent technology HPS designs exhibited good LCC, the

light quality is inferior to the other light sources modeled. HPS is not dimmable and

is not suited to motion sensor application. LED and CMH sources are well suited to

motion sensor applications providing improved energy savings and often improved

LCC’s. The order of cost effectiveness, by technology as well as the minimum

differences between sources with respect to LLC was the same for new construction

and remodel (retrofit) scenarios. LCC’s for retrofits was half that of new construction

as poles and bases were reused in the retrofit scenarios.




TABLE 53. LCC FOR LOT A









High Efficiency Plasma (HEP)) 16 foot $1,175,000 $878,000






High Efficiency Plasma (HEP)) 32 foot $701,000 $427,000


As with Lot E, at lot A the higher (32-foot) mounting height designs exhibited better

LLCs than the lower (16- foot) mounting height designs. The T5HO design at 32-foot

mounting was the most cost effective, followed by the LED advanced technology

design also at the 32-foot mounting height. The CMH design produced the third

lowest LCC, at the 32-foot mounting height. All three of the lowest LCC designs

T5HO, LED, and CMH sources are suited to motion sensor control. When coupled with

motion sensors, additional energy savings is captured that often results in improved

LLCs for these sources. These respective technologies (T5HO, LED, and CMH)

exhibited the lowest LCCs on Lot A for both new construction and retrofits (new

luminaires mounted to existing poles). LCCs for retrofits were half that of new





TABLE 54. LCC FOR LOT B









High Efficiency Plasma (HEP) 24 foot $1,012,000 $693,000








At Lot B, designs at the higher (32-foot) mounting height also tended to exhibit

better LLCs than those at the lower (24 foot) mounting height. As with Lot A, at the

32-foot mounting, the T5HO design exhibited the lowest LLC followed by the

incumbent technology HPS design with LED with the third lowest LCC. However, at

the 24-foot mounting, LED, CMH and HPS delivered the three lowest LCCs. At the

24-foot mounting, the T5HO was on the higher end of the LCCs with an LCC 25%

higher than the leading LED design at the 24-foot mounting height. The order of cost

effectiveness, by technology, with respect to LLC analysis was the same for new

construction and retrofit scenarios. LCCs for retrofits were half that of new





TABLE 55. LCC FOR LOT SC











T5HO Fluorescent (FL) 40 foot 209,000 $48,000





Lot SC designs followed the other lots with respect to the lowest LCC occurring at the

higher 40-foot mounting height. However, other than this trend, LCC results by

technology did not follow the same pattern observed in the analysis of the various

designs at lots E, A, and B. At Lot SC the advanced technology CMH design was the

winner with the lowest LCC at the 40-foot mounting height under the new

construction scenario. However, with the retrofit scenario, the T5HO fluorescent

design at 40-foot mounting provided the lowest LCC. Under the retrofit scenarios,

CMH came in with the second lowest LCC, which was 80% higher than the T5HO

retrofit design at the 40-foot mounting. Furthermore, the advanced technology LED

designs at 40 foot did not exhibit favorable LCC, which was contrary to study findings

of the LCC analysis on the other (E, A, B) lot footprints.

The IF modeled at the 24-foot mounting height had the poorest LCC. At the 40- foot

mounting, the LCC for IF slightly improved, coming in second to last. Interestingly

enough, the HEP, which had the poorest LCC when used on lots A and B, exhibited a

better LCC at the 40-foot mounting height in Lot SC, placing midway in the LCC

calculations.




Note, LED, CMH, and HEP technologies are well suited to control coupling when used

in step or continuously dimmable form. When and where lighting controls dim and/or

execute reliable sensor controlled on/off operation, this added depth of control

results in significant energy savings and can potentially lower the LCC of these

systems significantly versus the baseline LCC of a similar, non-controlled, system.

LCCs for retrofits (poles & bases reused) were 40% to 70% lower than for those of

new construction. Recapping the evaluation of lifecycle costing:

LED advanced technology lighting exhibits the lowest LCCs in a wide range of

parking lot lighting applications

Often, but not always, lowest LCCs are obtained by advanced lighting

technology designs at higher mounting heights.

With some applications, a low LCC is achieved with incumbent HPS lighting.

Note that quality of HPS lighting is inferior to the other technology options

typical for parking lot illumination. Therefore, even with a low LCC, this

source is not recommended for most lighting applications.

In addition, recent IES design recommendations covering mesopic lighting levels

(approximately 6 lux down to 1 lux), modeled and investigated in this study, show

white light (all the other sources herein) markedly superior to HPS. A very

conservative design recommendation would be to consider PSMH HPS’s photometric

equal at equal nominal wattages. That is, a 400W PSMH will provide the visual acuity

of a 400W HPS. In a similar vein a CMH of 315W would equal a 400W HPS as would

a best practice 275W LED. Note LED is improving at a rate so that this is expected to

be in the 225W to 250W range within 18 months.

sce design and engineering services - etcc...proceed to illuminate them with real-world current...

Documents