Retrofit Market Memo - HMGh-m-g.com/T24/Lighting/Retrofit Market Memo.pdf · e types of pr y are commo ation Study p RR study1). It gered by eac Type n NRR Clas nance Emer repla Plann

ConsultanEnergy & B

11211 Gold

Suite 103

Gold River

phone: 916

fax: 916 9

web: www.

Oakland Of

Old Centra

436 14th St

Oakland C

ts Buildings

d Country Blvd.

CA 95670

6 962-7001

962-0101

h-m-g.com

ffice:

al Building

t., Suite 1123

CA 94613

\\Fairoaks1

MEM

To: Calif

Cc: Non

From: Owe

Re: The

This memo oto proposed characterizethe utilities alighting retro

We have col

The

Typi

Typi

Note that alt“alterations”term “altera

At the end owhich a briequestions tochanges.

1\all_proj\0920 P

ORAN

fornia Statew

residential Lig

en Howlett, C

Current State

outlines the cenergy code the followingand lighting sofit projects.

lected data o

major types o

cal factors inf

cal project ch

though this m” to the existitions” in this

of the memo wf discussion oo which we wi

PG&E NR 2011 C

NDUM

ide Utilities C

ghting Stakeh

athy Chappel

e of the Light

urrent state o revisions. Thg aspects of ttakeholders a

on the followi

of alteration

fluencing alte

haracteristics

market is comng lighting (amemo where

we set out vaof the implicaill seek answe

CASE\0920c Indo

Code and Stan

holder Group

ll (HMG)

ting Retrofit M

of the non‐rehe purpose ofthe lighting reabout potent

ng aspects of

project that a

eration projec

monly referreas opposed toe possible.

rious code chtions of eachers, to inform

oor Lighting (NR

ndards Team

Market

esidential lighf the memo ietrofit markettial changes to

f the market:

are conducted

cts

ed to as “retro “additions”)

hange optionsh. The memo m the utilities’

R3)\Retrofits\Ret

ting retrofit ms to gather sut, to inform ao the Title 24

d

rofits”, it is cl). We have th

s that are undends with a l final recomm

trofit Market Me1/31/2011

January 3

market as it rupporting data discussion a4 requirement

assified in Titherefore used

der consideralist of outstanmendations fo

emo.docx 1 1:12 PM

31, 2011

elates ta to mong ts for

tle 24 as d the

ation, nding or code

MEMORANDUMTo: California IORe: The Market

TYPES OF

Changes to lreplacing cosystems. Thprojects.

The table bethe most extNonresidentCalifornia En24, and whic

Activity

Maintenancereplacement,and burnout replacement

Replacementand lamp

Luminaire re

Luminaire re

Additional luadded

Installing ne+ wiring in athat had <0.5

Installing anin an existingpreviously u

Installing ligduring new construction

1 NonresidentWork LLC for

M (continued) OUs Codes and St for Lighting Ret

ALTERATIO

ighting systemmponents, tois section sum

elow gives a stensive. It shtial Remodelinnergy Commisch Title 24 sec

CDo

e –lamp , cleaning L

t of ballast L

eplacement L

elocation T

uminaires T

w lighting a space 5 W/sf

T

ny lighting g but

unlit space N

ghting N

Figure

tial Remodelingthe California

Standards Teamtrofit Projects

ON PROJECT

ms can come o comprehensmmarizes and

ummary of thows how theng and Renovssion (the NRctions are trig

Common Description of of Constructio

Lighting mainte

Lighting upgrad

Lighting upgrad

Tenant improve

Tenant improve

Tenant improve

New constructi

New constructi

1. Classificat

g and RenovatEnergy Commi

T in many formsive tenant imd categorizes

he types of pry are commovation Study pRR study1). Itggered by eac

f Type on

NRRClas

enance

EmerreplaPlannmain

de Retro

de Retro

ement Rem

ement Rem

ement Rem

ion Reno

ion Newconst

tions of Ligh

tion Study. Preission. Final vo

ms, from the mprovementsthe broad ra

roject, from tonly categorizprepared by At also shows ch.

RR Study ssification

rgency acement / ned

ntenance

ofit

ofit

modeling

modeling

modeling

ovation

w truction

hting Retrofit

epared by ADMolumes publish

most basic ms, replacing ennge of lightin

the most simpzed in the maADM and Techow they are

2008 Title 24 category

Repair

Repair

Alteration

Alteration

Alteration

Alteration

Alteration

Addition

t Project Typ

M Associates, Inhed March 200

January

Pag

maintenance, ntire lighting ng alteration

ple (at the toprket, and in tcMRKT Work e categorized

2008 Titlesections triggered

None

None

ss130 and if >50%

ss130 and if >50%

ss130 and if the connload is inc

ss119, ss13ss131, ss13ss143(c), s

ss119, ss13ss131,ss13ss134, 143ss146, ss14

All

pes

nc. and TecMR02.

y 31, 2011

ge 2 of 21

p) to he for the in Title

e 24

ss146

ss146

ss146 nected reased

30, 34, ss146

30, 32, 3(c), 47

RKT


A. LigThese are thmaintenanceballasts. All alterations w

Secta nesubj

It should be a given lightirequirementlamps or bal

Similarly, “re

Sectof th

B. LigThese projecreplacementcompliance,

Most utility‐programs, asprogram eva

Lighting upgeligible for laincentives arwhich is usu

C. TenThese projectriggered by simultaneouequipment.

These projeccontrols to mTitle 24 requ

2 Oregon LighDecember 203 2006‐2008 E


hting Maine least compe such as cleaof these are within Title 24

ion 149(b)1 Nw ballast or nect to the req

noted that wing system ast for like‐to‐lilasts may cha

epairs” are de

ion 149(c): “Rhe repaired co

hting Upgcts can includts across a givwhereas the

sponsored ligs suggested baluation repo

rades are comarge incentivere paid on proally higher th

nant Improcts are the motenant impro

us upgrades to

cts typically inmeet the chanuirements.

ting Market As09. Energy Efficien


ntenance Plicated lightinaning, replaceregular aspec4:

Note: “Replacnew lamps, wquirements o

while there is as consistent ake replacemeange.

efined in code

Repairs. Repaomponent, sy

rade Projee either ballaven lighting sysecond does

ghting efficienby a market asrt.3

mmonly incenes because thojected savinan the applic

ovements, ore extensiveovements or o the space, s

nvolve replacnging needs o

ssessment. Pre

cy Evaluation R

Projects ng projects. Lement of burncts of luminai

cement of parwithout replacf Section 149

a cultural pres possible, inent, so the ex

e as follows:

airs shall not iystem, or equ

cts ast‐and‐lamp ystem. The f if more than

ncy programsssessment re

ntivized by thhey do not triggs relative tocable Title 24

Remodelse and are usuarenovations,such as new f

ement, relocaof a space, an

epared by HM

Report. Prepa

Lighting equipned out lampre maintenan

rts of an existcing the entire9(b)1.”

eference for k the Title 24 dxact type and

increase the puipment.”

replacementirst of these dn 50% of the l

s have focuseeport in Orego

he utilities as gger Title 24 o the existing LPDs.

s and Renoally part of a , due to a chafurniture layo

ation and/or nd to upgrade

G for the Ener

red by the CPU

pment requirps, and replacnce, and are n

ting luminairee luminaire is

keeping lampsdefinition thecorrespondin

preexisting en

ts or whole ludoes not trigguminaires are

ed primarily oon2, as well as

“retrofit” procompliance alighting powe

ovations larger set of ange in tenanouts, new surf

addition of lue to new volu

rgy Trust of Ore

UC. Published

January

Pag

res regular bacement of failnot considere

e, including ins not an alter

s and ballastsere is not a ng energy use

nergy consum

uminaire ger Title 24 20e replaced.

n lamp‐replas a recent Ca

ojects, and areand thereforeer density (LP

improvemency or other faces and/or

uminaires andntary standar

egon. Publishe

July 2010.

y 31, 2011

ge 3 of 21

asic ed ed to be

nstalling ation

s within

e of

mption

008

cement lifornia

e often e the PD) ,

ts

HVAC

d rds or

ed


Tenant imprprojects, althpayments arexisting instaprojects.

TYPICAL FSince “alterasections des

Incentive A study of hihigh bay lighfixtures durithe incentivethe largest owere havingwith and witstudy concluhave benefit

The NonresidSavings by Dbreakdown o

4 High Bay Lig


ovements anhough in the re based on saalled load, an

FACTORS INations” are recribes the typ

Programs igh bay lightinhting purchaseng that time e program waor repeat custequal succesthout incentivuded that thists beyond just

dential RemoDesign programof participatio

hting Market E


d remodels acase of theseavings relativd are therefo

NFLUENCIN

quired to compical factors i

and Progrng in IOU terrers received speriod were ras reaching a tomers. Howss selling highves, i.e. that ms was becauset energy effic

odeling and Rem in 2000 aveon by building

Effects Study.

are commonlye projects Titleve to the curreore likely cons

G ALTERAT

mply with Titlnfluencing alt

ram Particritories betwesome programrebated throubroad range ever, the studher efficiency many of the pe the contractciency to justi

enovation stueraged aroung type is show

Prepared by K

y incentivizede 24 is usuallyent Title 24 bsiderably less

TION PROJE

le 24 (whereateration proje

ipation een 2006 andm incentives,ugh the incenof market acdy also foundT5HO high baparticipants mtors and custify the higher

udy found thand 2% of remown in Figure 2

Kema, Inc for th

d by the utilitiy triggered. Tbaseline, not rs than for “lig

ECTS as “repair” prects.

d 2008 found , only 22% of ntive programctors rather thd indications tay lighting tomay have beetomers foundr initial cost o

at rates of paodel and reno2.

he CPUC. (prog

January

Pag

ies as “retrofThus, the incerelative to thehting upgrad

rojects are no

that while 57purchased hi

ms. This implihan focusing othat contract their customen free riders. T5HO systemf the technol

rticipation inovation proje

gram years 200

y 31, 2011

ge 4 of 21

it” entive e e”

ot), this

7% of igh bay ies that only on ors

mers . The ms to ogy.4

the ects. A

06‐2008)


Figure 2Participate

An evaluatioparticipants indicated in install highe

5 Evaluation o


2. Percentageed in Savings

of

on of Ecology would not haFigure 3, belor efficiency lig

of the 2004‐200


es of New Cos by Design inf bars add up

Action’s Righave installed how. Only 14%ghting withou

05 RightLights

onstruction n 2000 (R&Rp to 100%? S

htLights progrhigher efficie% of participaut the progra

Program. Prep

and RetrofitR = retrofit aSeems to bu

ram found thancy lighting wnts were eithm.5

pared by Quan

t and Remodand renovatiout unclear.

at a majority without the pher somewha

ntec, LLC for PG

January

Pag

del Projects ton) ?? do bo

of program program, as t or very likel

G&E.

y 31, 2011

ge 5 of 21

that oth set

ly to


Figure 3. Li

Decision According toefficient lighpotential to influence coinfluence codifficult to elease segmesegment to uencourage e

Essentially, ahow easy it iinterest they

The same stuprojects, as s

6 NonresidentTecMRKT Wo7 NonresidentTecMRKT Wo


kelihood thawith

Makers o the NRRR stting measureinfluence owmmercial devmmercial reancourage enent is similar tundertake enfficiency in th

as would be eis for that decy have in the

udy included shown below

tial Remodelingrk LLC for the Ctial Remodelingrk LLC for the C


at Program Pout the Prog

udy, the oppoes depends onwners in ownevelopers who al estate firmsergy efficienco the owner nergy efficienche replaceme

expected, thecision‐maker efficiency (or

a breakdownw in Figure 4.7

g and RenovatCalifornia Energ and RenovatCalifornia Ener

Participants gram (NRRR

ortunity to inn the role of tr‐occupied bubuy/renovats that buy/reny among tripsegment in mcy projects went market is

opportunity to act autonor leasability) o

n of typical de

tion Study, Volrgy Commissiotion Study, Volrgy Commissio

would havereport Vol. 3

nfluence decisthe decision muildings is qute/sell is low wnovate/hold ile net lease omany ways, it when they rengenerally low

to influence omously, andof the buildin

ecision maker

ume I. Preparn. Published Jume III. Prepan. Published M

e Installed th3, figure 14)

sion makers tmaker. For inite high. The while the oppis low moderoperators. Beis possible toovate. The opw.6

decision‐makd how much og.

rs in renovati

ed by ADM Asuly 2001. ared by ADM AMarch 2002.

January

Pag

he same Equi)

to adopt enernstance the opportunity tportunity to ate. It is very ecause the groo influence thpportunity to

kers depends ongoing finan

on and remo

sociates, Inc. a

Associates, Inc.

y 31, 2011

ge 6 of 21

ipment

rgy

to

ound his o

on cial

deling

and

and


Figure 4.

A study that found that oretrofit/remprofessionalretrofits. Figspecification

8 Process EvalCharacterizat


. Relative Fre

included an oowners/custoodeling projes such as enggure 5, belown for new con

uation of 2006ions. Prepared


equency of DRemodel

overview of cmers were sigects than theygineers and arw, describes thstruction and

6‐2008 PG&E Md by Kema, Inc

Different Typling and Ren

commercial liggnificantly moy are on new rchitects are he relative imd for retrofit/

Mass Markets P for PG&E.

pes of Firms novation Proj

ghting retrofore importanconstructionmore influen

mportance of vremodeling p

Program Portfo

among Decijects

it programs innt in the speci, and converstial in new covarious actorprojects.8

olio and CFL, S

January

Pag

ision Makers

n 200x for PGification procsely that desigonstruction ths in lighting

Swimming Poo

y 31, 2011

ge 7 of 21

s for

G&E cess for gn han in

l Market


Figure

A report fromcorrelations

• d

• S

Funding For projects percent of ca

9 Commercial Nadel, ACEEE10 NonresidenTecMRKT Wo


e 5. Most Im

m ACEEE9 loobetween pro

Large buildingdesigners, arcprojects.

Smaller buildlighting supp

completed inases”10. This

Lighting Retro. Published Apntial Remodelinrk LLC for the C


mportant Ma

oked at a rangoject size or cl

g owners andchitect, and e

ing owners aliers when de

n leased spacemeans that li

ofits: A Briefingpril 1, 2003. ng and RenovaCalifornia Ener

arket Actors i

ge of studies alient type and

d developers engineers to d

re more likelyeveloping or r

e, the “projecighting altera

g Report for Pro

tion Study, Vorgy Commissio

in the Lightin

and was able d decision ma

often work wdesign lightin

y to work witretrofitting th

ct [is] compleations are usu

ogram Implem

olume III. Prepn. Published M

ng Specifica

to identify soaking process

with professiong systems for

th electrical cheir lighting d

eted for the leually funded b

menters. Jennif

ared by ADM AMarch 2002. P.

January

Pag

tions Proces

ome broad s:9

onal lighting r new or retro

ontractors anesign.

essee in nearlby the tenant

fer Amann and

Associates, Inc.4‐1

y 31, 2011

ge 8 of 21

ss

ofit

nd

ly 90 , and

d Steve

c. and


therefore thproject, are

Figure 6 showhereas the

Figure 6. C


at decisions amade accord

ws that the me majority of r

Comparison


about the ecoing to the ten

majority of offretail is leased

of Owned v

onomic viabilinant’s expect

fice space in Pd space.

vs. Leased Flo

ity of a projecations and cr

PG&E and SC

oor Space in

ct as a wholeriteria for cost

CE’s territories

n PG&E and S

January

Pag

, or elementst‐effectivene

s is owner‐oc

SCE Service A

y 31, 2011

ge 9 of 21

s of a ss.

ccupied,

Areas


Criteria foThe nonresidmakers who variety of semaking proc“Energy efficaware of thelight quality

Figure 7

11 NonresidenTecMRKT Wo


or Project-dential remodhad made sulection critercess was “Titleciency of iteme necessity toand energy e

7. Importance

ntial Remodelinrk LLC for the C


-Level Decdeling and reubstantial chaia. Figure 7, be 24 requiremm.” These find meet energyefficiency.11

e of Various

ng and RenovaCalifornia Ener

ision Makinovation studanges to lightbelow, indicaments,” followding suggest ty code require

Criteria whe


ing dy prepared fing systems tates that the pwed by “Imprthat decisionements, but t

en Making C


for the CEC suto determine primary factooved lightingn makers in ththat they are

Changes to L

ared by ADM AMarch 2002.

January

Page

urveyed decisthe importanor in the decisg quality” andhese scenarioalso motivat

ighting Syst

Associates, Inc

y 31, 2011

e 10 of 21

sion nce of a sion s are ed by

ems

c. and


The same stusubstantial cmaking chanefficient. Thimprovemensavings of ligdifferent priowith code anand that themade to ligh

Figure 8. A



udy also lookchanges to lignges to lightinhe next three nts, suggestinghting improvorities in the nd light qualit role of the dhting systems

Average Imp



ed at factors ghting systemng systems ashighest rankeg that these dvements. Thirenovation pty, while landecision make.12

portance RatEff


that influencs. As shown part of a rened criteria aredecision maks may also suprocess (desiglords and dever may impact

tings for Reaficiency Impr


ced decision min Figure 5‐4,novation was e all related tkers may not duggest that digners and engvelopers are t whether or

asons Prevenrovements


makers that d, below, the mthat the systeto costs of effdirectly benefferent decisigineers may bmost concernnot substant

nting Lightin


January

Page

did not make main reason fem was alreaficiency fit from the eion makers habe more concned with paybtial changes a

ng‐Related En

Associates, Inc

y 31, 2011

e 11 of 21

for not ady

energy ave erned back), re

nergy

c. and


A study condprojects as idenergy effici

13 Process EvaMarket Chara


ducted for PGdentified by cency was me

aluation of 200acterizations. P


G&E identifiedcontractors wentioned most

06‐2008 PG&E Prepared by Ke

d lighting specwho offer retrt frequently,

Mass Markets ema, Inc for PG

cification critofit services. followed by c

Program PortfG&E.

teria for retro As shown incost.13

folio and CFL, S

January

Page

ofit/remodelin Figure 3‐3 be

Swimming Poo

y 31, 2011

e 12 of 21

ng elow,

ol


In coreasbeloinstathat light

TYPICAL PSince “alterasection desc

FrequencyThe NRRR st

14 Evaluation o15 NonresidenTecMRKT Wo


ontrast, a studons that busiow, cost was talled efficient11% of non‐pting.14

PROJECT CH

ations” are reribes the typi

y of Retrofudy found th

of the 2004‐20ntial Remodelinrk LLC for the C


dy evaluatingnesses chosethe most comt lighting” (8%participants h

HARACTERI

quired to comical character

fit Projectsat turnover a

005 RightLightsng and RenovaCalifornia Ener

g Ecology Actie not to particmmon deterre%) and “Did hahad already re

ISTICS mply with Titlristics of alter

s and changes i

s Program. Pretion Study, Vorgy Commissio

ion’s RightLigcipate in the pent. Also of nave or will haetrofitted or

le 24, wherearation project

n commercia

epared by Quaolume I. Prepan. Published J

ghts program program. As note are respoave it installedinstalled high

as “repair” prts.

al buildings ar

tec, LLC for PGred by ADM Asuly 2001.

January

Page

for PG&E ideshown in Figonses of “Alred” (3%), indicher efficiency

ojects are no

re frequent:15

G&E. ssociates, Inc.

y 31, 2011

e 13 of 21

entified ure 18 eady cating

ot, this

5

and


•

• T

• e

e

Figure 9 shooccurring eaconstructionare demolishmore likely i

MS

O

O

R

R

In

O

Figure 9.


Renovation abuildings (moin retail space

Tenant turno

Lighting equiequipment anlikely to be chLighting is likeexample, from

ws the likelihch year in a gn/remodelinghed and rebun leased spac

Market Segment

Office/owner

Office/leased

Retail/sole

Retail/multisite

nstitutional

Other

Likelihood o


and retrofit prore frequentlye, and every e

over is highest

pment may ond its conditihanged, espeely to be chanm a warehou

ood of variougiven building” category incilt, or extensice whereas re

New ConstrucRemodeli

1.9%

0.5%

2.2%

e 3.3%

0.2%

1.5%

of Various Ty

rojects occur y in leased speight years in

t in small offic

or may not beon. If the remcially if the lignged if the buse to office sp

us types of cog, depending cludes both eively remodeenovations ar

ction/ ing

Reno

% 5

% 3

% 0

% 2

% 6

%

ypes of ConsBuilding

approximatepace than in on schools and

ce, retail and

e changed depmodel is fairlyghting is of anuilding is undpace.

onstruction pron the buildientirely new cled. Note thare more likely

ovation R

5.3%

3.8%

0.9%

2.1%

6.8%

1.8%

struction ProType

ely once everyowned space)other institu

restaurant s

pending on thy extensive, lign older and leergoing a cha

rojects (not jung type. Theconstruction at in office spy in owned sp

Retrofit Perof A

1.4%

6.5%

1.1%

1.8%

5.1%

0.7%

oject Occurri

January

Page

y ten years in), every fifteetional spaces

ectors.

he vintage of ghting equipmess efficient tange in its use

ust lighting) “new and buildingspace, retrofitspace.

rcentage All Space

8.5%

10.7%

4.2%

7.3%

12.1%

4.0%

ing Each Yea

y 31, 2011

e 14 of 21

office n years s.

the ment is type. e, for

s that s are

ar, by


FrequencyAs shown in “changed” inchanged in achanges in thlayout 69 pecommon: “Csystem occu

This informatwo or threework inside tsystems may

Figure 10. B

Lighting RAccording tolighting systereplaced fixtof those whosystems wer



y of LightiFigure 10, a sn 76 percent oa retrofit It alshe HVAC distercent of the tChanges to ligr with change

ation suggestse of the main the ceiling any be cost‐effe

Building Com

Relocationo other surveyems, only 22%tures. When o replaced ligre more energ



ng and Otsurvey of tenof retrofit proso found thatribution systetime.” Retrofhting that wees in layout a

s that the majelements of tnd other partsective in many

mponents Su(NRRR

s vs. Replays conducted% of projects asked if the sghting fixturesgy efficient af


ther Alteraants conductojects, and tht “lighting chaem 85 percenfit projects there combinedbout 64 perc

jority of retrothe space. Bes of the buildiy cases.

bstantially CR study, Vol.

acements for the NRRRreused existisystems weres and 83% of fter the remo


ations ted for the NRhus was the manges were liknt of the timehat include alld with changeent of the tim

ofit projects aecause these ing structure,

Changed dur 2, Table 8‐4

R, of the respng fixtures, we more efficiethose who reodeling and re

olume II. Prepan. Published F

RRR study foumost commonkely to be acce and by chanl three elemees to the HVAme.”

are total reha projects like, changes to l

ring Remode4)

pondents whowhile the remnt after they eused fixturesenovation.16

ared by ADM AFebruary 2002

January

Page

und that lightn element to bcompanied byges in interioents were alsoAC distribution

abilitations, inly involve signlighting contr

eling or Reno

o made changmainder said thwere replaces said that the

Associates, Inc..

y 31, 2011

e 15 of 21

ing was be y or o n

nvolving nificant rol

ovation

ges to hey ed, 98% e

and


Project VaThe Nonresidrenovation sOffice buildiit is importan

Figure 11. Anby building t

As shown in addition prothe square fohave increaslinear extrapnext code cy2000 remainprojects in th

Figure 12

Figure 1

T



alue and Sdential Renovsquare footagngs make up nt to note tha

nnual Square type (NRRR re

Figure 12, thjects has incrootage of thosed over timepolation givesycle (2014 to 2ns constant, the next code

12. Statewide

Trend line show



quare Foovation and Rege by buildingthe largest seat not all of th

Footage Undeport, Table 6

e dollar valuereased steadiose projects, be, and NRRR res an average v2017). Assumhis suggests tcycle will be

e Annual PerAdditions (f

ws a linear extr


tage emodeling (Ng type in Califoegment, apprhese projects

dergoing Rem6‐4).

e of permits (ly over time. because the veport does novalue of $9bnming that the that the annuapproximate

rmitting Actfrom NRRR Rrapolation from


RRR) study aornia for 200roximately 34s include light

modeling or Re

(in year 2000 This may or value of thoseot give annuan per year (in ratio of permual square fooely 327 million

tivity for NonReport, Figurm 2014 to 2030


lso provided 00, as shown b4% of square ting changes.

enovation in

dollars) for amay not repre projects peal square foot2000 year domit value to flotage of altern square feet

nresidential Are 3‐1). 0 (16 year mea


January

Page

a breakdownbelow in Figufootage. How17

California in 2

alteration andresent an incrr square foottage data. A ollars) during oor space ($/ration and add.

Alterations a

asure life).

Associates, Inc

y 31, 2011

e 16 of 21

n of re 11. wever,

2000,

d rease in t may simple the /sf) in dition

and

c. and


GENERAL

Based on the

Size consof doconsaveraltersquafootreta

Ownfoot

Freqeverspacinstiat leat woccu

CodeTitledeciprofcom

Typialter1.8WTherin teannucaredissu

Reasor rechanapprto be

18 American SFebruary 201019 California CNovember 20


FINDINGS e information

of the markestruction marollar value. Tstruction marrage data fromration projectare feet per yage (42% by eil, warehouse

ned vs. leasedage is owner‐

quency of altery ten years ince), every fiftetutional spaceast six years,which tenancieur mostly whe

e compliancee 24 was a masions in lightifessionals heapliance rates

ical project oration marketW/sf18, and threfore, assumerms of LPD, mual lighting enefully whetheruade people f

sons for alteremodel the lignge of use. Throximately sixe the only op

ociety of Heat0. Commercial End010.


n presented a

et: The renovrket in terms The renovatiorket, i.e., it dom the NRRR sts during the ear. Offices menergy use), wes and school

d space: Arou‐occupied, th

erations in a n office buildieen years in rces. By compa which makeses change. Then tenancies c

e in alterationajor factor (thng alterationavily influence are likely to

utcomes: Oft. The average average for

ming (see paramany retrofit nergy consumr imposing adfrom conduct

ration projectghting in a leahe magnitudex years of potportunity to

ing, Refrigerat

d Use Survey (

bove, we rec

ation marketof square fooon market is moes not vary sstudy, the pro2014‐2017 comake up appwith approxims.

und 75% of ofe rest is lease

given space: ings (more freretail space, aarison, in mos the frequenhis is consistechange.

n projects: Evhe most impos. Also, electe lighting decbe high for a

ffices are by fage existing ligr recent constagraph aboveprojects are

mption. Fromdditional up‐fting these pro

t initiation: Tased space is e of a “lost optential savingupgrade the s

ion and Air‐Co

CEUS) Online.

commend the

t is approximaotage, and apmore constanso much with ojected size oode cycle is $roximately 34mately anoth

ffice square fed.

Alteration prequently in leand every eigst spaces, thrncy of alteratient with the f

ven in 2000, artant of thosetrical engineecisions. Therelteration proj

ar the largesthting power truction in Cae) that retrofitalready savin

m this point offront costs onojects at all.

The decision ausually prompportunity” ws. The gap ofspace, since t

onditioning. “A

Retrieved from

e following ge

ately twice asproximately ht over time theconomic cyf the market $9bn per year4% of that maher 10% made

ootage and 4

rojects occur eased space tht years in scree‐quarters ions very simifinding that a

as evidenced e listed) influers and other efore we beliejects.

t single elemedensity in U.Salifornia is 1.1tted offices ang up to 50% f view, we shon alterations p

about whethempted by a chwould therefof time betweethe disruption

SHRAE Standa

m http://www

January

Page

eneral conclus

s large as the half as large ihan the new ycles. Based ofor addition ar, and 327 milarket by squae up by each o

40% of retail s

approximatethan in ownedchools and othof tenants stailar to the frelteration proj

by the NRR stencing designlicensed eve that code

ent of the lighS. office space13W/sf19. re code compof the office’ould considerprojects migh

er or not to uhange in tenanore be en tenancies n to the tena

rd 90.1 – 1989

w.energy.ca.gov

y 31, 2011

e 17 of 21

sions:

new in term

on and llion are of:

square

ly once d her ay for equency jects

tudy, n

e

hting e is

pliant s r ht

pgrade ncy or a

is likely nts

9.”

v/ceus/


wouThercase

The desig

Whoabovtherreloctenaarrathe las to

¾ ofpaybten y

TypirehaHVAaccochanbecaof thman

Arourepla

We hdolla

Retrwithcontbecacontus to

Progstakexist(rathin Ti


ld be too grerefore the dees, it “has to b

NRRR study fgn. But for th

o pays? Who ve, it is usuallefore makes cated or replaant may not bngement withlighting (or tooo onerous.

f tenants stayback horizonsyears—more

ical scope of aabilitations”, iAC, furniture lompanied by nges in interioause these prhe building stny cases.

und one fifth ace the fixtur

have not founar value or sq

rofit of lightinh which lightintrols upgradeause the wirintrols upgradeo believe that

gram criteria eholders thatting LPDs rathher than the stle 24.


at to conductcision to upgbe done”.

found that prhose who cho

makes decisiy the tenant decisions aboaced. Often, be highly cost h the landlordo upgrade wit

y in the same s (3‐6 years) aoften in scho

alteration proinvolving twoayout). The Nchanges in thor layout 69 pojects likely iructure, chan

of projects reres.

nd any informquare footage

ng controls: Nng controls ars only if certang is unlikely s are rare. Ht controls retr

for incentivet incentive prher than Titlespace) is repla

t a remodelinrade lighting

ice of equipmose not to rem

ions? Despitewho pays forout how mucthe tenant hasensitive, bud, it is possibthout a permi

space for moa possibility. ools, less ofte

ojects: The mo or three of tNRRR report fhe HVAC distrpercent of thenvolve signifinges to lightin

euse or reloca

mation about e per project.

None of the avre included inain segments to be replaceMG’s experierofits are unc

e payments. Wrograms often 24 LPDs if leaced. This is

ng project duris probably n

ment was lessmodel, cost w

e the necessir the work (inh lighting andas a “TI allowut depending le that the teit) if the requ

ore than six yeAlteration pren in retail.

majority of retthe main elemfound that “lribution systee time.” This icant work insng control sys

ate existing fi

the typical si

vailable data n alteration prof the lightined in most altence with utilcommon.

We have learn base their inss than 50% oinconsistent

ring normal onot a discretio

s important thwas a major fa

ity of tenant un leased spaced/or controls wance” from ton the termsenant may decuirements of c

ears, which mrojects typical

trofit projectsments of the sighting changem 85 percentleads us to cside the ceilinstems may be

ixtures, while

ze of retrofit

sources indicrojects. Title ng wiring are terations, we ity retrofit pr

rned from a nncentive paymof the lightingwith the curr

January

Page

occupancy. onary one in m

han other drivactor.

upgrades deses) and the teequipment wthe landlord, s of their cide not to upcode are perc

makes mediumlly occur once

s are total “guspace (lightinges were likelt of the time onclude that ng and other e cost‐effectiv

e the majority

projects in te

cate the frequ24 requires lreplaced, andbelieve that rograms also

number of ment calculatg in the buildrent (2008) la

y 31, 2011

e 18 of 21

most

vers of

scribed enant will be so te

pgrade ceived

m‐term e every

ut ng ly to be and by

parts ve in

y

erms of

uency ighting d lighting leads

tions on ing anguage


POTENTIA

This section projects. Whdata collecte

All the requichanges des

Redulight

Titleof Se

It mbeinupdainstacoderepla

Therhavereplalumither

Rem

Titlelumi

Nbs

This somprobsommainrequ

This sincein or

Requ

Area

1s


AL CODE CH

describes altehere possibleed for this wh

rements for lcribed below

ucing the thrting replaced

e 24 2008 reqection 146 if m

may be meaninng replaced, bated LPDs by alled lighting e‐compliant liaced.

refore, a revise two possibleace the entireinaires, or, b)eby losing th

moving the ex

e 24 2008 defiinaires.

Note: Replaceballast or newsubject to the

exception coe alteration pbably have to e luminaires ntain IESNA reuired.

change woule they would rder to excee

uiring “Area C

a controls are

1. Each area eswitching or c


HANGE PRO

ernative appre, it includes ahite paper.

ighting alteraw would all be

eshold for lig.

uires that a smore than 50

ngless to lowbecause it woreplacing onlpower densitighting powe

sed requireme outcomes pe lighting syst. Dissuade those savings.

xception for b

ines a lighting

ement of partw lamps, withe requiremen

ould potentialprojects that include replain order to coecommended

ld also affect be required td the Title 24

Controls” in a

e defined und

enclosed by ccontrol device

OPOSALS roaches to exa discussion o

ations are con implemente

ghting power

pace must m0% of the lum

er the threshuld be imposly 10% of thety of 1.8W/sfr density of 0

ent for compper project; ittem even if the tenant/own

ballast replac

g alteration to

ts of an existihout replacingts of Section 1

lly be removeinclude ballasacement of domply with thd illumination

utility retrofito achieve ad4 baseline and

all alteration

er Title 24 Se

ceiling‐height e. This switch

xpanding the of expected co

ntained in Secd through ch

r density com

eet the lightiminaires are b

hold of complsible for mosir fixtures. T. This means0.9‐1.2 W/sf, a

pliance at lesst would eitherhey had only ner from carr

ements

o exclude bal

ing luminaire,g the entire lu149 (b) 1.

ed. This woulst replacemeiffusers/prismhe LPD requirn levels. No a

it programs thdditional redud therefore cl

projects

ection 131(a).

t partitions shhing or contro

Title 24 requosts and impa

ction 149(b)1anges to that

mpliance from

ng power deneing removed

iance down tst buildings toThe average o, in practice, all the lightin

s than 50% rer a). Force theintended to rrying out the

llast replacem

, including insuminaire, is n

ld likely incurnts, because matic controllrements of Seadditional con

hat replace ouctions (probalaim savings.

This section

hall have an inol device shal

January

Page

irements for acts, based o

1.I, so the codt code section

m 50% to 10%

nsity requiremd or replaced

o 10% of fixtuo comply withoffice has an that to reachg has to be

eplacement we tenant/ownreplace a fewproject at all,

ments in exist

stalling a newnot an alterati

r extra costs fthe project wlers, and remection 146 anntrols would b

nly the ballasably using co

n requires tha

ndependent ll be:

y 31, 2011

e 19 of 21

retrofit n the

de n.

% of

ments .

ures h

h a

would ner to w ,

ing

w ion

for would oval of d be

sts, ntrols)

at:


At throomswit

4fo

Requ

Shutshal

4. Ofand sens


A. R

B. Lcontrolled

C. Mthat mee

he same timems in Section ches that are

4. Offices 250feet, and clasoccupant sen

uiring “Shut‐o

t‐off controls l be equipped

ffices 250 squclassrooms asor(s) to shut


Readily access

Located so thad by that swit

Manually opeets the applica

e it would be l131(d)4, sinc

e required by

0 square feet ssrooms and cnsor(s) to shut

off Controls”

are defined ud with separa

uare feet or snd conferencoff the lightin

sible; and

at a person ustch, or so tha

rated, or autoable requirem

logical to instce occupant s131(a) above

or smaller; mconference rot off the lighti

” in all alterat

under Title 24te automatic

maller; multice rooms of ang.

sing the devicat the area be

omatically coments of Sectio

tall the shut‐osensor(s) can e.

multipurpose rooms of any sing.

tion projects

4 Section 131c controls to s

purpose roomany size, shall

ce can see theeing lit is annu

ontrolled by aon 119.

off controls rebe integrated

rooms of less size, shall be e

1(d): “all indooshut off the lig

ms of less thabe equipped

January

Page

e lights or areunciated; and

n occupant‐s

equired for smd into the ligh

than 1000 sqequipped with

or lighting sysghting.”

an 1000 squard with occupa

y 31, 2011

e 20 of 21

ea d

ensor

mall ht

quare h

stems

re feet, ant


OUTSTAN

The followinchanges for

Howspac

For sinitia

Whaeffec

How

How

Whacont

Whawhic


DING QUES

g additional iretrofit proje

w frequently dce?

smaller (loweation, and wh

at is the typicactiveness of c

w frequently a

w frequently is

at cost or techtrols in a retro

at are typical ch do not trig


STIONS information wects:

do retrofit pro

er % replacemhat is typically

al size of a recontrols).

are lighting co

s power wirin

hnical difficulofit project?

LPDs and EUIger (or do no

would help to

ojects include

ment) projectsy included in

trofit project

ontrols added

ng replaced d

ties are enco

Is in spaces inot pull) a perm

o inform the d

e only a mino

s, what are thscope?

t? (This will he

d during a retr

uring a lightin

ountered that

n which lightinmit?

discussion of

rity (10‐50%)

he typical driv

elp to calcula

rofit project?

ng retrofit pro

t might make

ng is replaced

January

Page

potential cod

of the lightin

vers for proje

te the cost‐

oject?

it difficult to

d or upgraded

y 31, 2011

e 21 of 21

de

ng in a

ect

add

d but

Documents

Retrofit Market Memo - HMGh-m-g.com/T24/Lighting/Retrofit Market Memo.pdf · e types of pr y are commo ation Study p RR study1). It gered by eac Type n NRR Clas nance Emer repla Plann