CBEA High Efficiency Parking Structure Lighting Specification (text version)

Below is the text version of the webinar titled "Commercial Building Energy Alliances (CBEAs) High Efficiency Parking Structure Lighting Specification," originally presented on May 6, 2011. In addition to this text version of the audio, you can the presentation slides and a recording of the Webinar (WMV 15 MB).

Linda Sandahl:
Welcome, ladies and gentlemen. I'm Linda Sandahl with Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, and I'd like to welcome you to today's webcast, the Commercial Building Energy Alliances: High Performance Lighting for Parking Structure Specification, brought to you by the U.S. Department of Energy's Commercial Building Initiative.

Today's speakers will provide an overview of the High Performance Parking Structure Lighting Performance Specification developed by members of the Department of Energy's Commercial Building Energy Alliances, who will discuss lighting options to consider, review financial incentives, and highlight a parking structure lighting renovation that's underway at one of Cleveland Clinic's sites in Cleveland, Ohio.

I'm happy to announce our speakers today, Michael Myer of the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and John D'Angelo of Cleveland Clinic.

Michael Myer, who's been with PNNL for about four years now, prior to joining the Lab, Michael worked as an architectural lighting designer in New York, and since joining PNNL, Michael has worked on a wide variety of lighting projects. Currently, he splits his time between three major programs, the Solid State Lighting Commercialization Program, Federal Appliance Standards, and the Commercial Building Energy Alliances.

John D'Angelo is the Senior Director for Facilities, Construction, and Real Estate at Cleveland Clinic. This position gives him the opportunity to develop professionally through his responsibility over in-house and outsource facility directors, managing a portfolio of 203 buildings at over 23 million square feet in 10 Northeast Ohio counties, two Southeast Florida counties, and Las Vegas. John also chairs the U.S. Department of Energy's Hospital Energy Alliance and participates in several local and state energy committees and working groups.

Michael Myer:
Thanks, Linda. Moving into the agenda for today's presentation, there'll be an introduction about the energy alliances and some basic information about energy usage in buildings, and then we'll spend a little time on estimates about parking structures, energy use, typical fixtures, design issues; also discuss a review of the CBEA specification - - that'll be the center part of the presentation. There are other presentations that are archived on the Department of Energy website, if you really want to go in-depth on the specification. This presentation's going to give some highlights of the specification, but we've done a number that have gone into great depth on them, in case people are very interested in them. Then, we'll also discuss a review of financial incentives. Those are always important because people always like a little help in doing stuff, and those are some - listed there are some places where their financial centers exist; and, then, finally, John D'Angelo will present an example in action in his use of the Cleveland Clinic.

So, that completes the introduction phase and we'll move into the rest of the presentation.

This is data from the Department of Energy, Energy Information Agency. It's a breakdown of energy use. You know, the pie graph on the left shows you, roughly, that buildings use 40% of the energy, and then it breaks out the buildings by, you know, residential and commercial, and then if you look at the bottom of commercial, the single largest single use in lighting, at 21%, of commercial buildings - of course, depending on your building type, that number's going to vary - - heating, HVAC, heating/cooling, when combined, is the largest, but when you separate the two out, they are less than lighting, usually, but it's always good to know that lighting is such a large player in buildings, and sometimes often overlooked.

In the last couple of years, the Department of Energy has formed energy alliances. The three current energy alliances are listed here. There's a retailer energy alliance, a commercial real estate energy alliance, and a hospital energy alliance. The end goal of the energy alliances is to group similar organizations, whether they may be retailers or, in John's case, be hospitals and healthcare entities, and/or commercial real estate. Commercial real estate is, by far, the most diverse just because you could have something like a shopping mall or an office building, which are different, but they're still commercial real estate. The idea is to pool them together, share resources, concerns, knowledge, and develop projects; and, ideally, the project would cut across one or multiple energy alliances, and they can pool buying power and other things to help bring energy-efficient solutions to the energy alliance.

We have developed an LD site lighting specification that came out of one of the energy alliances early on, and would then - - there was a request for a parking structure specification, and that's what brings us here today. It has been out for a while and this is just another presentation on the specification.

The next part of the presentation will be on estimates about parking structures. I think it's always good to know what types, some good information about the parking structures and how they operate and typical energies to see what the potential is. So, here's some quick facts. You know, I was surprised when I came across this, 110 million spaces are estimated of parking structures across the United States. Now, again, that's not structures themselves, but that's, collectively, that there's about 110 million spaces. That number is used because you sometimes factor in number of fixtures per space, so that gives you, at least, an estimate of, roughly, how many fixtures you'll need, or other type of things, other metrics.

The fixture wattage for a parking structure, because of a low mounting height and some other issues, typically can be anywhere from 50 watts up to 200 watts, you sometimes go about 200 watts, but, definitely, the large bulk of input power for lighting fixtures tends to be in this range. Long daily operation, it's estimated that typical parking structures operate 18 hours per day. Obviously, there are many structures that operate much longer than that, but estimates the Department of Energy has done is 18 hours per day, which translates to just over 6500 hours per year, and then energy use. So, when you combine the hours and the wattage estimate - - not that range, but the way the Department of Energy has done some of these calculations, you'll get a pretty large number, 28.1 terawatt hours. Put in perspective, a terawatt hour - - well, let's just think of power. So, you have watts, that we all know of, then the next unit up is kilowatt, then the next unit up is megawatt, then the next unit up is gigawatt, then the next unit up is terawatt. So, it's a very large number. There's a lot of zeros, and I didn't write it out just to make it easier.

What else do we know about parking structures? Well, there are infrequent occupancies at times just because you don't spend a lot of time there. You drive around, you find your spot, and you get out and you go into your building or the plaza that you're parking at, for whatever reason. So, people aren't spending great deals of time there, and as well as they're not continuously operated, they're operating related to the building or a site that they're located at. So, in some cases, you might have high use for seasonal if the parking structure was located near a mall, and then maybe low use on the weekends or on Sundays when the mall's closed. The two pictures on the right are examples that were taken. One is Old Orchard Mall, that's in Skokie, Illinois. This is early - - not too early in the morning, but it was early in the morning. Notice, no one's there. The other one above is Tufts University. Its mid-day in the afternoon on a Saturday, and the parking structure's rather empty as well. So, the infrequent occupancy of the spaces and the low occupancy at times really allow for some great control savings, which we'll discuss in a second. Also, the image on the bottom, it really shows that daylight is prevalent there and that, again, that's a great thing that you can use to save energy is to either turn off or dim or reduce the output of a fixture in response to daylight. The specification really tries to go after these additional control savings, because the controls can mean so much more than just using more efficient equipment.

Again, this is more information. The previous data that I showed and now this, it all came from a Department of Energy estimate on niche lighting applications. While the report was focusing on LEDs, the background numbers are still the same regardless of what technology we're looking at, so those hours of use and terawatt hours all came from this report. What I like about this breakdown is it really breaks down all the different technology types and what we're seeing. So, this is dated in 2011. You'll see, if you look, induction represents about 7% of installed equipment; hyper sodium and metal halide, 23 and 15%. Fluorescent's pretty large, 45.9%. So, we're seeing a lot of fluorescent - - a high number of fluorescent equipment installed, but that's, typically, because you need more fluorescent fixtures in a parking structure than you would of other technologies, and then a small potential of LED technology installed.

And, you know, it's important to see that, if you look at combining hyper sodium and metal halide, that those two really add up to 48%, almost 50% of all structures are lighted by those two technologies, and the specification really tries to target those technologies, because, currently, there are some options you can do, but the majority of HID sources have problems either being used with an occupancy sensor or being used with a dimmer, and so we're trying to target, again, the control advantages of other technologies.

Moving into the next slide, this is a breakdown from a great book. If you ever want to read a lot about parking structures, the reference is at the bottom. It is a very long book; it is very thorough, though, at the same time, covering everything from construction to operation of parking structures. But the interesting thing here is that you think about it, utilities constitute about $10 - - I'm sorry, 10% of your cost of a parking structure, or $50 per space, and, as I mentioned, you know, I said earlier, there's 110 million spaces in the United States; that number adds up quickly; and if you think also about most parking structures are not heated or cooled, so all of a sudden the utility costs, it's a lot of lighting and some other stuff, and so when it's representing 10% of your structure costs, that's something to think about, and it's great potential to possibly reduce some of your costs.

Materials also matter in the parking structure. This is not really included in the specification, but I always feel I need to bring it up because too often, as a person who works in the field of lighting, people always say, "Well, how do I get my space to look brighter? What fixture do I use?" You know, what light source do you want and, you know, materials matter. I apologize, I may have misspoken on the previous slide. I may have added incorrectly on the slide; I apologize for that. Materials matter in parking structures, and so what I like about these two pictures, one in Needham [sic], Massachusetts and the other in Tempe, Arizona, they're white. They're using a white ceiling and white columns. Too often, the parking structures are left untreated, either painted or bare concrete, that absorbs a light, and regardless of the technology you're using, the dark surface or untreated surface absorbs light, and that just makes it more of a challenge when you try to do an efficient design. So, material matters. Just kind of a shout out for, hey, let's think about that before we start thinking about the lighting.

Possible use of controls. This is an ongoing demonstration the Department of Energy is doing with the Department of Labor. This is great data, so I really wanted to include it. It is just a preliminary data, though. It is the Department of Labor headquarters in Washington, D.C. It's a subterranean parking deck, about six floors of parking below the building, shown on the right. It is directional flow of traffic, and why that's important is that it affects your use of occupancy sensors, so as you enter you have to go one way. So, if you're parking on the fourth level, you have to go all the way down, and you have to leave the same way, and so that affects how the sensors are triggered. It is for an office building, and that becomes really important when you see the office - - the usage profile.

Originally, the parking structure was lighted with T-12. Then, a couple of years ago, they replaced it with hyper sodium, and then they are testing out a small portion of it with light-emitting diodes, and they use occupancy sensors. One of the interesting things is the Department of Energy has another LED program focusing on it, called Next Generation Luminaires™, and this was using one of their products.

So, what this graph shows is time versus power. So, on the bottom of the figure, you're seeing the minute breakdown for the course of the day, and on the left-hand side, you're seeing the current draw, which we can use to roughly estimate what the power usage of the light fixture is. So, what we see is that, you know, if you look at the left-hand graph, around 12: 01, it spiked, but then from about 12: 30 up till about 3: 00am nothing happens, so that means the fixtures are operating in their low state, saving energy. Then, at roughly around 3: 00am or 2: 30am, somebody came in, drove by, maybe it's a security personnel or maybe it's a person working late nights or early morning, and then the lights went down.

So, you start seeing the profile. Then, all of a sudden, there's less, you know, there's no one in the space, so they stay low again. And then, all of a sudden, when you start getting into normal operating times for an office building, around 5: 00am through 10: 00am, you see a lot of high usage, and then you see kind of in the lull in the mid-morning when most people have already arrived and are in are at their desks, then you see a lot of usage again in the afternoon and late hours, and then at about 7: 00pm, 8: 00pm you start seeing less people leaving, and then a lull again, and then a spike around 10: 00, and that's it. And why that's interesting is that shows you that by not operating them all the time, there was no one there, essentially, because the sensors didn't trigger.

And then, this graph contrasts that. So, this is a Sunday - - I'm sorry, it's a Saturday, and it shows that, for the most part, somebody came in - - again, I don't know, we don't know if it was a person coming to work or if it was a security patrol or what, but around 5: 30 or 6: 00am the lights turned on, then they went down, and then they turned on again around 7: 50 to 8: 00, and that's it. And so, you know, rather than lighting a space that is completely empty for all that time, the occupancy sensors allowed a fair amount of energy savings.

So, this slide is preliminary results so far that we're seeing, that the fixtures are operating in the high state about 30% of the time and they're operating in the low state almost 70% of the time. There's a number of things that are going to factor into how those happen, one being your timeout. Right now, the sensors operate in 10 minutes of timeout, meaning that for once the sensor is triggered until there is movement again, then it stays on, and then it times out.

And so why that's important is that in - - if this fixture, where these fixtures are located happens to be near the entrance of the garage, and so that if some person's just driving around, as soon as they enter, they trigger it on. So, a shorter timeout might actually yield greater energy savings, which is something we're doing, and that's why I'm showing you preliminary data, we're investigating that. The flow of traffic also affects it, as well as the columns are affecting some of the coverage of the fixtures. The fixture on the left shows the LED fixture on the left and the high pressure sodium fixture on the right.

So, then, the next part of the presentation moves us into an overview of the CBEA specification. I wanted to quickly just touch base on what is a specification? There are different types of specifications. So, this specification is more what we would call a performance-based specification. The idea is that, really, it's adopted by an end user or a site. In the example you're going to hear later on, John D'Angelo used it - - I'm sorry, John D'Angelo, working for the Cleveland Clinic, used it and sent it out to - - you could ask either a designer or an architect or an engineer to use it and design to it, or you could ask a manufacturer and their application engineer to meet a specification, as well. It's pretty direct. It's saying that, you know, the product needs to deliver something.

In this case, we actually require a certain amount of light, measured in foot-candles, some uniformity requirements, and then you set it against a unit of energy. In this case, we said watts per square foot, but I know that the National Renewable Energy Laboratory is actually doing some metering and they're actually setting kilowatt hour because they're trying to incorporate controls. A kilowatt hour is probably a little more - - it's aggressive in terms of energy savings, but it also requires some assumptions and some calculations that may not everybody want to do. In contrast, there's what a lot of people are familiar with, which is a technology specification, or a product or a widget specification, and those can be done via request for proposals and mass procurement of the technology, and they can easily be incentivized by energy programs and utilities.

It's really easy to say, you know, I'd give $50 to replace probe-start metal halide with pulse-start metal halide, or you could do something as, you know, such as the ENERGY STAR® specification or the CEA Premium T8 specification. You could say the product delivers 95 lumens per watt - - I mean lumens such as what the CA - - like similar to the CEE Premium T8 specification does. But that's, again, it's on the technology side, it's not talking about what the light's doing, it's just saying how much light is going somewhere and the power draw, whereas the performance specification is more trying to get a look at the whole system and how much energy is being used by the system.

So, the first thing that the specification does is it goes for energy conservation and it sets a power density, which is - - lighting power density, for those who may not know the term, is total watts installed per square foot, in this case, and we set it at .18 watts per square foot. When the specification was developed, that was probably the lowest power density being encouraged at that type of level. Recently, I know California had Title 24. They've been looking into possibly reducing their power density to a value near or lower than this value, as well as the ASHRAE 90.1 in 2010, I believe they're - - in the 2010 version, has reduced it from the previous version to a value similar but not at this level. Why did we pick .18 watts per square foot? Well, actually, because it ties into something else that we're going to talk about later on, but I mention it here. So, in 2005, Congress, they passed what's called EPACT, and part of EPACT has a tax deduction, and I listed it below because the Internal Revenue Service specifically made sure that parking structures were covered under this tax deduction. So, the idea is that if you install you install lighting that it's 40% below a standard 90.1 2001, you're eligible for the maximum tax deduction, and so that's why we picked that number.

So, this is another part of the specification. As I said, so we set the power density, trying to encourage energy savings, but then we came up with minimum horizontal and vertical lighting requirements. These, actually, mimic the current version of RP20, which is, for those who may not know the term, RP20, RP is the IESNA's recommended practice, and 20 is their parking structure - - actually, I'm sorry, parking facility document. It covers parking lots and parking garages plus structures. So, these values mimic those values, as well. The only thing that's slightly different is, in one case, the committee - - and I should have stepped back into this earlier on - - the specification was developed by a number of people, as well as it was sent out and invited manufacturers to comment on it. We actually did an entire presentation, just two manufacturers, to solicit comments on it, and so this is not a Department of Energy specification's sole project. We actually worked with the energy alliances to develop it, so it's really the energy alliance's specification.

So, they wanted better uniformity in covered parking areas, and that's why they required a 7 to 1 max to min uniformity there. They also wanted on the top deck better uniformity, so that's why they went with 10 to 1. Top deck is the top floor of a parking structure that's open to the open air. We also require uniformity - - another metric of uniformity, which is called the coefficient of variation, which looks at more of the data. Max to min only really looks at two points; it looks at your highest point and your lowest point. And in the previous example they showed, there's, you know, columns and other elements. Well, what happens if your minimum point is behind one column and your maximum point is on the far end of the other part of the parking structure? They're still the min and the max, but they're really not almost in context of each other, whereas the coefficient of variation is a statistical analysis that looks at many of the data points. It's a, as I said, a statistical analysis. All it is is a standard of deviation divided by the mean, and so it looks at more of the data than just one single point.

The specification encourages - - well, actually, allows fluorescent induction, or LED. Again, the idea was that technologies that do not allow for controls easily, that's why we're - - it's trying to move away from technologies that can't really be controlled through occupancy sensors or daylight sensors, so it does allow fluorescent, as I said, induction and LED. These three pictures are from different places. They're not using the specification; I'm just showing them for context. It does require daylight controls within 20 feet of the perimeter if the wall is open to 40%, as well as it requires a reduction in output in the vehicle entry/exit area. Too often, you know, a lot of vehicle entry areas are over lighted during the day - - or not - - so, I'll rephrase this - - are lighted during the daytime to deal with adaptation from driving into the parking structure during the daytime so your eye has adequate time to adapt. The problem is that at night many of those same fixtures are left on, so now all of a sudden you're leaving a very bright spot going into a darker area, and so it requires reduction in the entrance area at night.

This picture is from a parking structure at a hotel in Cupertino, California, and I just love it because, I mean, I love it from the point of it shows why it's really important to daylight dim there. You know, it's a full open façade other than some safety grills, and yet, note how that fixture is on, and it's about 10 feet away from the window.

It also encourages the use of occupancy sensors. The top picture is a parking structure - - is a natural occupancy sensor in a parking structure mounted to a fixture. The bottom one is a fixture in action. This is at a university at Shady Grove in Rockville, Maryland. They use both occupancy sensors and daylight sensors, depending on where the fixture's located, to save energy.

Moving into financial incentives, definitely most people are interested in possible ways to ease cost, how to buy it down, and so, the next part of the presentation, we'll look at what I call the - - it's not what I call it, but when I mentioned earlier the EPACT tax credit, a portion of the Tax Code is called 179D. I'll also mention DSIRE, which is a website, and then I'll provide some utility and energy efficiency program incentive examples.

So, financial incentives for LPDs. So, as I said earlier, the 179D tax incentive, it provides two different levels. We set ours at the maximum level, which is, essentially, $0.60 per square foot when lighting is .18 watts per square foot for a parking structure. It's applicable to all covered floors, so your floor that's open, the top deck, that's open to the open air, would not be covered. It was recently extended from expiring in 2009 to December 31st of 2013. I should also mention that it actually allows you to go almost four years back, as well. So, if you've recently installed something in the last four years that can meet the requirements of the power density and meets the IS requirements for lighting, you essentially just have to go measure it and you can write a certification letter, and you can go back. I recommend reading some of the tax language because there's some things you have to do, but it's pretty easy to do, from the documentation I've read.

Government structures are available for the money, but they have through, they pass the money. Government agencies are not - - are tax exempt, so they can actually pass the money on to a design team through a pass-through mechanism created by the IRS. There's documentation out there that exists to show you how to do it and how it's written. Parking structures are somewhat low-hanging fruit in terms of the tax incentive. The reason is, is that they're a large footprint, but when you think about them, they're actually low equipment density, so you can actually, hopefully, maximize your tax incentive with a low capital outlay.

So, here's an example. So, when you start talking about tax deduction, many people hear the word "credit" and "deduction" and think they're interchangeable. I'm not a tax lawyer or a representative, but they're very different, and so it's very important to know the difference.

The key difference is that a deduction is applicable to your tax bracket. So, in this example, I used a parking structure that we had looked at and just picked their area out. This is, actually, a rather small parking structure, at 41,400 square feet. So, if they had set their power density at 41,400 - - I'm sorry, their power density at .18 watts per square foot, you multiply that times the area of 41,000, and then you have to multiply that number again times .6 watts - - sorry, point - - for $0.60 per square foot, and then times your tax bracket, and that's where you get these numbers. So, in the end, that's what they would be able to use in terms of their financial incentive. It's a different number, and I don't want people to think that it's a larger number than it is.

There's some cautions about the 179D tax incentive. Industry has found that there's low consumer awareness. A recent report estimated by - - that was a joint report by NEMA and BOMA estimated that 82% of building owners did not know about it. It is not applicable to tax-exempt organizations. However, while doing research, I discovered that Senators Bingaman and Snowe proposed to allow REITs, which are real estate investment trusts, to be covered under it. That has not gone through, but there definitely is a proposal out there. I would definitely encourage people to contact their legislative members, if they're interested in that, and trying to encourage those types of proposals. They do exist.

There's other modifications proposed by other agencies, and also, if you even go look at NEMA's website on this whole topic, they have a list of a number of organizations that encourage increasing the dollars per square foot for it. It is currently extended to December 31st, 2013, and it's not - - I say it does require some post-inflation documentation and verification. You have to fill out a couple forms that shows the power density. You actually have to measure some of the lighting in there to show that you've done that and that it deviates within certain standards, because the way it exists, you still have to meet IS requirements, and then you have to fill out some forms. NEMA has a good website as well, but other agencies have good websites that show - - provide more information, which brings us to the NEMA website.

So, this is www.lightingtaxdeduction.org. This is supported by NEMA, and they provide a fair amount of information in here. The screenshot on the right is actually their website, and they have a lot of information in there. They also separate out lighting versus the other mechanical systems that are covered. They also have draft letters in there that you can use and shows you the type of language that you have to use, including IRS bulletins, because they have - - the IRS has made changes here and there to certain parts of it. They also have Frequently Asked Questions and resources. It's a good resource to use. I go to it and look at it from time to time when I'm wondering about something.

This is a tool GE created. I'm not endorsing GE in any way; it's just a tool they created that is worth taking a look at. It is, actually, specifically a tax deduction eligibility estimator. I've done a screenshot here, and so the first thing you do is you select your building type. They develop theirs from many different building types, but I, of course, have selected a parking garage. You put in different information about what your power density is and what you're proposing to go to and it does some calculations for you. It also can do some lighting estimates and whether or not your space is meeting it. It is a tool that is definitely, I think, worth taking a look at and, you know, before you go doing any long-term design, it gives you kind of a back-of-the-envelope estimate. It's a good tool, though.

The next website is DSIRE. This is a website supported by the Department of Energy. It is a database of state incentives for renewable energy. This is a website you can click on. So, if I live in Texas, you can select it and it'll bring up a list of all the different incentives. This is not just for lighting; it covers a lot of different technologies, both mechanical, and built in the building side as well as on the actual renewable power side. As well, they also have links to legislative changes and other things like that. It does have some search functions. I don't think the search functions are as granular as putting in a parking structure, but it definitely, if you're looking for either a specific technology or something, it's worth a good place to start, because many - - the nice thing about these incentives is that the 179D is a federal one, and so you can combine it with a local incentive, which brings me into this next example.

So, utilities offer money. So, in this case, this is a parking structure in Skokie, Illinois, again. ConEd would be their local utility. They offer between $115 and $110 - - I'm sorry, between $15 and $110 per induction fixture, depending on the HID fixture replaced, and then they also offer $100 per ceiling fixture under "Smart Buy Level Option." This came of their parking structure flyer, so that's why I use those values. So, in this case, the total incentive money kind of adds up. So, if the parking structure was 41,000 square foot, which I showed earlier, and we assume that they needed 39 fixtures to light the parking structure, they would then - - and I'm using examples here, but, you know, we picked $50 because it was in the middle of the range above - - they could get roughly $2,000 from ConEd based on that, but then they can also get the federal tax deduction when you apply the tax bracket, and I picked a number here of 25%, so that is $6,000. So, in the end, they get almost $8,000 in incentives, some from the federal level, some from their local level, but it is additive, and that is very nice.

Other financial examples, so I tried to touch on - - so, the specification covers fluorescent, induction, and LED, and I tried to show other resources that you could go look at. This one is the DesignLights Consortium. It is a group of many different utilities and energy efficiency programs. This is specifically for - - they have many different programs, but they also have a LED-specific website, so I'm showing that here. Now, these are product-specific specifications, so they could actually be used with the energy alliance performance specification, as well. It has been updated over time. It also allows you to find products that comply with it. And they have a parking structure one, which I zoomed in on. Here, it showed their current one is, you know, these are the requirements. You know, they require 2,000 lumens. They have a zonal distribution of 20% in the 60 to 70-degree range, and 15% of the distribution needs to be in the 70 to 80-degree range. The fixture efficacy has to be 56 lumens per watt, and so on, and then it provides more information, so I'm really just trying to show you how they all can work together to end at one end goal.

But, also, there is another specification out there, if you're not familiar with it. This is the CEE commercial lighting fluorescent specification for T8 high performance systems. It's specific only, really, to the source, not the application, so it doesn't look at the light fixture. It just says, you know, your lamp and ballast combination have to be this efficacious. Again, multiple utilities refer to it. It's, I think, a very successful program, from what I understand. I think the specification is very good, as well. But, it's out there, so if people are looking for fluorescent-type stuff, it's out there, as well.

Then, I had a hard time finding a nationwide induction program. Many utilities offer incentives for induction fixtures, like ConEd or PG&E or other places, but I've not found a program like either the one I just mentioned by CEE or the DesignLights Consortium that's really trying to promote induction, that is, people from across the country participating in it. There is one comment I want to make about induction. So, we'd encourage the use of bi-level operation through occupancy sensors or dimming, and bi-level induction generators, there are not too many of them made. One thing that some manufacturers use are two lamps, so the fixture has a high-wattage lamp and a low-wattage lamp, and that's how they do the bi-level operation. So, when you're going down that route, you know, there's definitely disadvantages and advantages to each technology, one of them being temperature, certain sources work better in some places than others, but these are all things to think about, but I just wanted to mention that about induction.

Finally, at this point, I'm going to turn the presentation over to John D'Angelo of the Cleveland Clinic, who is going to provide great information on his recent use of specification in a very large parking structure in Cleveland.

John D'Angelo:
Thank you, Michael. I appreciate it. A lot of information, thank you very much. For those of you who don't know anything about the Cleveland Clinic, it's a fairly large health system that is acuity-based. So, we're 203 locations in North America, 13 hospitals, 16 very large family health/ambulatory surgery centers, altogether about 23.2 million square feet and growing about 1 million square foot a year through either new construction or acquisition. Our main campus, which is where this particular project is located, is rated as the highest acuity hospital in the U.S. by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid studies, and consistent top four in outcomes and number one in cardiovascular for the last 16 years as ranked by U.S. News & World Report. Our main campus is about 50 buildings; that's the whole foreground of the photo that you're looking at, at about 13 million square feet. The big white circle is the parking garage that is the subject of this presentation.

Existing for that parking garage is high pressure sodium, as you can tell by the pretty orange lights, and our desire was, really, to go to LED. I have, honest and open, I have a personal bias against induction lighting for a garage based on some discussions with some other Commercial Building Energy Alliance members who had tried them and been dissatisfied. I love fluorescent, but not for open garages in Cleveland. They do suffer some degradation in the winter. Our winters have been known to be a little cold in Cleveland. I had a lot of underground garages, and my primary lighting in the underground garages is fluorescent, but for this particular garage, if you remember the previous photo, it's very open, the wind blows through here, it gets pretty chilly in the wintertime, and so we did want to restrict the solution set to LED only.

The garage itself is just over 970,000 square feet, about 1500 spaces. Its six stories with an open roof on top. It's divided in half. The north half is for patients and the south for employees. You can see it's about 830 main garage fixtures. The perimeter fixtures are to have photo and motion sensors, whereas the inner fixtures are just to have motion sensors. We wanted to go ahead and change out the entire building, so we did also include the site fixtures on the roof and the stairwell fixtures as part of this RFP. The Commercial Building Energy Alliance specification that Michael had talked about was the basis for our RFP. In fact, one of the nice things I really liked, as an owner, I did not hire any A&E firms to package my project. I took the CBEA specification and I modified it for my specific desires.

As I'd mentioned previously, I redacted the sections on induction and fluorescent, so that only the LED sections applied. I added some depreciation conditions. I strengthened some of the warranty provisions. I set the temperature between 4000 and 5000 Kelvin - - that's a Cleveland Clinic standard - - and I did a little of sensor and controls changes to bring that in line with our Cleveland Clinic standards, and I also specified some measurement and verification requirements as part of this package with the intent to be able to help shape both the manufacturing industry and us on this call as commercial building owners. I wanted to be able to do some type of a case study for those that are on the fence, so that you could show that a true accepted measurement and verification protocols these are no longer theoretical values; these are the actual values that we're able to achieve.

What I did then was I took the specification as the basis of bid, and I used a best-value approach for my request for proposal; 51% of the request for proposal was based on price. We have a large program here where we encourage local female-owned and minority-owned businesses, and so that is really part of our mission as the Cleveland Clinic, so 10% of the best-value award was set aside to encourage that from the participants. Total system wattage was also 10%. You know, I didn't want first cost to rule; I want it to incentivize the participants towards a solution that looked at the lifecycle costs. Glare and appearance, obviously, very important. My patients and my staff are not going to appreciate a solution, no matter how much energy it saves or how cheap the cost, that drives them nuts when they drive in and out of the garage because of glare or some other appearance function. And then I offered some warranty extension points. So, the base in the specification is five years and I offered additional points for every year that a respondent to the RFP wanted to extend that warranty.

CRI, the color rendition index, is important to us, because of the size of our campus and the fact that we cover security concerns using cameras, and having a higher CRI allows us to have better visibility with those cameras. With the old high pressure sodium, you couldn't tell the difference between a black and dark blue or a dark green car, so having a good Keller temperature and a good CRI do allow you to do that. And, then, as Michael talked previously, we started with the minimum allowable max to min ratio within the specification, and I offered points for contractors that were able to reduce the max to min ratio. And since this was a design build or a turnkey project, essentially, that incentivized the respondents to have to make some design decisions on whether or not to use the existing locations, which may not get them the most max to min ratio but would get them the cheapest price, or whether to change some of those locations, which might cost them a little but more but might earn them some additional points on the max to min ratio and on the total wattage. So, that was - - the intent was to have them actually do a little bit of homework in responding to this RFP.

The other thing that we did that was definitely different for us, and I think it might have been different for industry, is we invited only lighting manufacturers. So, I did not invite contractors, I did not invite distributors, I did not invite engineering firms to bid. It was only the manufacturers, and the prime contracts had to be between Cleveland Clinic and the manufacturers. We had, through a pre-selection program, selected six of what I considered to be the top manufacturers in the country to participate. Five bid; one declined. Actually, one of the manufacturers bid two different product lines, so we had six product lines to go through. It was very competitive. I will be honest, that I was very pleasantly surprised at how much work the manufacturers put into their bids. I think I probably learned more in reading their bids than in everything I knew about garage lighting beforehand. I was truly impressed with the level of effort they put into it, and I was extremely impressed with how competitive they priced the project. We had an estimate going in and they were able to beat that estimate by 28%, which is always a good thing when you're the owner.

So, the winning bid - - and I will tell you that the winning contractor was Philip Stonco. They were able to garner 78 out of 100 points. I will tell you also that it was incredibly competitive, and my guess is, if I choose to go this route again, that they have less than a 50% chance of winning the next one because the packages that came in were just that competitive from industry. When I ranked the six product lines, this one did have the lowest cost, at 51% of the total award value. You knew it had to be in the lower quartile for cost. They used the minimum, which was at 3% of their total contract value, to an MBE/FBE firms, and when you look at something like garage lighting where really a large percentage of the cost is in the cost of the Luminaires themselves, that 3% is actually a very impressive number. It's actually a very high number. They were second lowest in total system wattage and they were in the lowest quartile for glare and appearance. They did stay the standard warranty, which was the five-year all-in that is specified in the CBEA specification. They were able to bump up the CRI above the minimum, which is in the specification at 70, up to 72, and they were able to really ratchet down the max to min ratio to a 3.3. If you remember from Michael's presentation, the minimum in the - - the maximum ratio in the specification is 10 to 1.

So, the existing performance of the garage, as you can see, is just over 1.5 million kilowatt hours per year. The new projected usage is at just under 300,000 kilowatt hours per year, so some of that is sensor-based, but the majority of it is the installed Luminaires difference. So, the savings of 1.25 million kilowatt hours per year, with no incentives, the cost of the contract came out to be about a 4.2-year simple payback, and really, a lot of that - - my existing fixtures are 190 watts apiece, whereas the new fixtures that Philip's are putting in is 72 watts apiece. Now, I do qualify for incentives. I don't qualify for the tax incentives that Michael talked about because I am a not-for-profit health system, but Ohio has some very aggressive energy efficiency portfolio standards, and exterior lighting right now is selling at $0.50 a watt. Interior lighting, which I have a very small amount of in the stairwells, is selling at $0.80 a watt, and when you put those savings together, that would change my simple payback from just over four to just under four years.

So, for us right now, our next steps is to continue with the installation, the performance monitoring, the measurement and verification of this project, compile my lessons learned, and revise my RFP, and convert my next garage.

One of the things I will encourage, and I think the last slide in the presentation after I'm done talking, is next steps as a building owner class, which the majority of the participants on the phone conversation today probably fall into. I think there's two really easy things that any owner can do. First and foremost is getting involved, and there's two great programs that are very easy and, most importantly, they cost absolutely nothing to join. The first is the Commercial Building Energy Alliance, whichever one is most appropriate to your portfolio class. It is a lot of fun and an incredible amount of sharing that occurs, and it's not owners from a time perspective. And, of course, as I mentioned, the cost is free. For those healthcare organizations that may be on, please check us out for hospital energy alliance. Give me a call, send me an email or just go to the link that I think Linda's going to show you at the end.

The other one I would talk about is ENERGY STAR®. If you haven't looked at the free opportunities that are available on the energystar.gov website, I truly highly encourage you to do so, there is so much there. Even if you're not interested, for whatever reason, in becoming an ENERY STAR partner, what I can tell you is the cost to become an ENERGY STAR partner is nothing but a letter, and we, Cleveland Clinic, have gotten so much out of our partnership with ENERGY STAR that it's - - I don't finish any presentation on any topic without putting a plug in for them. The other one, if you haven't heard about Battle of the Buildings, it's coming out of the ENERGY STAR program. It's the second year of the National Building Competition. I highly encourage you to do some Google search on it. There are more portfolio types this year than there were last year in the inaugural National Building Competition, and there is some lessons learned there for all of us, as building class owners.

Linda Sandahl: Thank you very much, Michael and John, and we do have about a half an hour available for questions. You'll see on the screen now the Web address for where the presentation can be downloaded and also a Web address for the alliances.

And with that, I'd like to turn it over to John and Michael for questions.

Michael Myer: Thank you, Linda. I'm going to let John have a quick breather and maybe take a drink of water, and answer some questions we received during the presentation. Early on, I showed - - going back to the parking structure in the Department of Labor, so this is - - I forget the total number of fixtures in the parking structure. Only a portion of the parking structure was converted to LED, 19 fixtures, it's the one I mentioned earlier, and this graph that I'm showing here, someone asked: Is this graph for the whole garage or just the new LED area?

This is just, actually, not even for the whole LED area. We installed sensors on all 19 fixtures, and this is one data point from one fixture - - or one set of data from one fixture. It is on preliminary data because we're still working on the data, and we're trying to also do some tweaks to it to see if we can get a different performance out of it by changing timeouts and other stuff. If this was for the entire parking structure, where we're looking at another parking structure or we're trying to look at, essentially, what's the difference from, as you go up or down, depending on your perspective. So, if this was above ground, we would think that the most amount of use would be at the first level, and as you keep going up, there'd be less and less usage. So, someone asked that question, so I just wanted to provide that, that it was the one answer.

And then there's been a couple of questions about temperature. I'm going to step into that one as well real fast. So, fluorescent technology is not always the biggest (inaudible) of temperature. It has a set point. It has kind of a sweet spot, and when the temperature drops below - - when the ambient temperature drops below freezing, it affects the amalgam temperature in certain fluorescent technologies and you can have output depreciated, and this is true for all fluorescent technology, the very amount depends on the fluorescent technology, and, actually, IES calculations tell - - or when you start doing IES calculations, one of them is luminaire ambient temperature factor. It's sometimes an overlooked one, but it's something to think about.

The reason why I brought us back to this slide is that - - so this is two different diverse slides here. One is, on the left is Massachusetts, which has a - - at least this year had a very brutal winter, and on the right is Arizona, which in the summer is very warm. Now, on the left here, they're using fluorescent technology in this parking structure and on the right here they're using LED. In some cases, you would probably reverse that. LEDs like the cold, they're solid state, so they actually get a little more efficient as temperature decreases. Heat is not the friend of LEDs. So, that's something to be aware of, which is kind of the direct opposite of fluorescent where cold is not the friend of fluorescent. So, in fact, in certain municipal structures in the State of Arizona, I was reading they actually have a requirement that they have to use fluorescent because they were happy with a retrofit, and so they mandated it, but I think also there's the temperature.

I also wanted to step back into this slide here for a second, as well. This provides that reference to that book that I mentioned earlier. There's a great chapter on lighting in this book. In fact, the author of the lighting chapter actually published a table based on NOA values and temperature and making recommendations, and, actually, it also talks about fluorescent and shows you how the depreciation's affected by it with temperature, and actually makes some recommendations on, depending on where your site is lighted - - where your structure is located, what recommendations and what sources you should do based on that. So, I just wanted to mention that there's resources out there, as well as the EIS, which is always a great resource out there.

Stepping into another question here. So, these are the values that were used at the time. There's been comments and questions that came in. One was about, there's - - so, I mentioned RP20, which is the recommended practices for parking facilities and is currently in revision, and I believe it'll be out, I think, somewhere in 2011 or maybe 2012. We did get a draft copy of it at one time and we were trying to match our values to it. It is a committee-based, so we couldn't always match our values to theirs, as well as we tried to - - we wanted to reference when we could citable documents, and draft documents we couldn't always mention. So, if the new version of RP20 changes these, we will try to update our specification to try to be in sync with the specification with the RP20 where we can, but at the same time, as John demonstrated, sometimes owners want more. RP20, in some cases, is just the minimum requirements. Specifically, for our parking structure, their values are often on minimums, and so John might want a different value. He wanted better uniformity. So, in this case, RP20 might recommend a 10 to 1, but the people on the committee might want something more aggressive, and so that's why our values don't always match RP20's values.

John D'Angelo:
Hey, let me take one, Michael, so you can catch a breather. There's a couple of questions in there on M&V process used at Cleveland Clinic. Currently, we use International Performance Measurement and Verification Protocol, which has four different cases that you can use to validate, and so that is what is specified for this particular project, but we're also a pilot location for a DOE program called Global Sustainable - - excuse me, Global Superior Energy Performance, which is trying to adopt the ISO 50001, if it ever gets signed, into a commercial building portfolio. So, that might be a change that we make in the future. Although the ISO is more process-based, as ISOs are, but right now it's the IPMVP, you can Google it, it's downloadable for free. I happen to be a Certified Measurement and Verification professional, which is also done through that particular organization.

Michael Myer:
There's been another request for the URL access to the presentation, so I will hold it here for a second.

There's also a question about: Have there been any studies to show the savings from having painted reflected surfaces or compared the cost of painting and upkeep of painted surfaces?

I've come across different studies, not specifically of parking structures, but of parking lots and looking at different surface reflectances, you know, and when you do your calculation, you factor in your surface material. So, it tells you, you know - if you just did a paper calculation, you could say, well, if the reflected value's changed by this factor, I would get this much light, and then I could reduce it. So, in some cases, you could do a paper calculation. In other cases, I don't know of anyone that has actually done a parking structure, you know, half painted, half unpainted, and demonstrated what they could change by it - but it's a good request, I should actually look into it.

In terms of maintenance of painted parking structure, I'm not aware of anyone that knows the cost of painting - - of keeping a parking structure painted or keeping it more reflective than others. I've been to a lot of parking structures as part of this project. I've been into some really abysmal ones, and I've been to some really immaculate ones. So, it probably comes down to the owner, the type of cars associated with the building, the weather, of course, whether or not - - you know, I grew up in Arizona and that's why there's a lot of references to Arizona, because I'm there a lot. You know, we don't have nearly as much salt and other stuff from the winter coming in there, but we do get sand, so it's different aspects of it. But it's definitely something to look into.

Going into - hopefully, enough people have gotten the URL out. So the next question, a couple of induction questions. So, this picture is, you know, they're saying, hey, they could change to induction. So, one person says: What is the current efficacy for induction lighting?

Well, I did a couple calculations. You can look at different lamp sources, and one value, you could say is initial lamp efficacy would be about 72 lumens per watt. I do say that's initial and that it's lamp efficacy. The two caveats there; one is that, of course, when you install it inside a fixture you're going to get some loss of some type probably. It all depends on the design of the fixture and the attributes of the fixture of what your losses are going to be. Also, like all light sources, induction is going to have a lumen depreciation of some type and so that the efficacy that I just mentioned will not be constant across the operation of the fixture, and it's definitely worth looking into manufacturer documentation on what the efficacy looks like.

The other thing I wanted to mention is that a question came in about vibration in induction. Specifically, the question says: For induction lighting, I've been told that the technology's not as good in areas where there is vibration, like parking structures and bridges, say, as LEDs. Please comment.

Well, I don't know who said that. I've not heard that. Induction technology is actually similar to fluorescent technology, except the big difference between linear fluorescent technology and induction technology is that there are no electrodes. When you get rid of electrodes, you actually are getting rid of one of the failure points in a fluorescent lamp, and so I would think that it would be able to handle some of the vibration. Of course, LED, being a solid state device, they can definitely take more impacts and vibration, typically, than a lot of other light sources. You know, great YouTube videos, if you're bored one afternoon, just go look around YouTube and look at people hitting LED fixtures with hammers and other stuff. Off hand, if I had to say, without consulting manufacturing documentation, I would think that they both would probably be fine in a parking structure where your speed is low and your vibrations, while occur, are nothing like a bridge that's elevated and the cars are moving upwards of 60 to 80 miles an hour. So, that would be, definitely, the - - so, definitely, I would separate out a parking structure from an active roadway of a bridge, and I definitely can tell from the manufacturer's literature. We know that high intensity sources definitely have a premature failure point on bridges because of the vibration either from the roadway, of the wind or other elements, so it's definitely something to consult the manufacturer if you're overly worried about, but, from my point of view or from my early guess, I don't think a parking structure has that same type of issue. But, of course, I'll probably - - someone could say, "Well, here's an example where that may not be true."

John D'Angelo:
Hey, Michael, let me take a couple…

Michael Myer:

John D'Angelo:
And catch your breath. I had a couple questions on bias against induction fixtures. What I'll tell you is one of the great things about the Commercial Building Energy Alliance is not just the agenda topics, but a lot of the sidebars and the different meetings and those sidebar conversations, and my particular bias - - and it is my bias, it is not a CBEA bias - - came from one of those sidebar conversations with another CBEA member, and she had told me where her organization - - and they're not even healthcare, they belong to a different portfolio type - - had some very negative experiences with induction lighting, and we talked some particulars, and it was enough to sway me that I didn't have to learn that lesson for myself. So, a couple of things clear on that that I want the group to understand is, one, it's not a CBEA bias, it's a John D'Angelo bias, and from my position at Cleveland Clinic, I guess it becomes somewhat of a Cleveland Clinic bias; and, two, all of the wonderful benefits you get as a member of CBEA, the stuff that we don't talk about or the sidebar conversations, which I think I've gotten just as much out of those as I have in the technical presentations. So, theirs were luminaire manufacturers. Who was responsible for project system design?

As I had mentioned in my talk, it was a turnkey or a design build, so the prime contract was held by the luminaire manufacturers with the Cleveland Clinic, and it was up to them to hire a designer to help them with their layouts within the physical garage. There was a requirement that they had to have a designer visit the garage as part of their design; they couldn't design it on paper from 3,000 miles away, somebody had to actually come and see how the garage was used as part of that RFP.

No, the installation is not complete and operational. In fact, we just had our pre-construction conference, what, last week or the week before, so we're just getting underway. In fact, I think, originally, we had tried to have this teleconference - - or have this webinar about a month ago, but I wanted to make sure that I at least had the contract awarded before we had the webinar. So, there'll be a future paper or a future webinar, if there's any interest, after they're installed on the pre-performance and the post-performance so that we can validate the projected numbers.

There are several questions on how I evaluated glare. Part of my RFP is each respondent had to bring me a sample fixture that I could mount side by side, and I had a team that evaluated them in situ side by side, and we did it from all kinds of angles, standing, sitting, driving, et cetera, et cetera, and we did it very subjectively, but the point system did not require us to give it a numerical value, just an overall ranking, you know, this one's glare and appearance was better than that one, and so that's how we did the glare. I am not a lighting designer by any means. In fact, my background is actually heavier mechanical engineering than electrical, and that just is what made sense to me.

Let's see, I mentioned earlier, somebody asked the wattage of the new fixture.
They were 72 watts.

And somebody had asked about energy efficiency incentives. I did not get any energy efficiency incentives. I have applied for them under the State of Ohio's program, and in the follow-on, hopefully, I'll be able to tell you that I got them, but I have to wait and see whether or not they get approved. And, no, I will not provide the list of manufacturers that we invited to bid. Because I intend to invite those same manufacturers back, I think it's fair to announce the winner, but the winner was a subjective winner based on some Cleveland Clinic standards. I think any of those manufacturers could easily have been the winner and, essentially, they all met a very stringent prequalification to even get invited to bid. I think it would be disservice to them to say that any of those products are inferior to the product that we selected. That said, I mean, Philip Stonco did go way above and beyond in their total offering to make sure that they had a project that - - or they had a product that we were very happy with, as well.

What were the before and after lighting levels of the garage, both initial and end-of-life levels? I'm not sure I understand that particular question.

Let's see. At a hospital, they presumably operate 24 hours a day. Did you use motion sensors as part of your upgrade, and if so, do you have any data or personal observations on how much those specifically contributed to energy savings? No, we made some assumptions, and we put those assumptions out to all of the bidders so that they could calculate their system wattages. We do operate 24 hours a day, but those garages don't tend to be fully occupied off hours. There are, certainly, peak usage hours, and I can tell you that, overall, I've got close to 10 million square foot of garage space throughout my portfolio, and to light 10 million square foot of garage 24/7, 365 probably made sense 20 years ago at the cost of energy 20 years ago versus the cost of controls. Now, the cost of controls and the cost of energy are somewhat inverted, and there's a much better understanding of healthcare's mission to community health, and part of that community health mission is sustainability. So, I think that whole model has been inverted, and so it's something that I think hospitals ought to look at very seriously as a portfolio class, is the controls and turning things off when they're not needed.

What was the range of the Cleveland Clinic bid? I apologize, but that's business confidential, and I will not share that.

How many hours of work did I personally spend on my project? Probably about an hour. I took the RFP, and I redacted things I didn't like, and I built in the best value, I guess, strategy that I did like. I sent it off to a couple of friends from the CBEA to give me an unbiased opinion of it. They sent it back to me with some comments. I incorporated those comments, and I shot that out, and the manufacturers had an opportunity to ask questions. I think I only had one amendment to the solicitation based on manufacturers' questions. So, one of the things I like about having a standard package spec like the CBEA spec is, look at all the money I saved on design fees just to put the thing out to bid, as well as design time.

Let's see, there's a question on total system wattage. The six packages ranged from, let's see, 63 kilowatts to 87 kilowatts, at a total system wattage, so that was the full range. This particular one was 64 kilowatts, this Philip Stonco solution. Let's see.

Michael Myer:
John, can - - let me - -

John D'Angelo:
You go. I'm - -

Michael Myer:
Great. Give you, I think [sic] - -

John D'Angelo:
I'm worn.

Michael Myer:
Your thoughts - - yeah, exactly. There's a couple of really recent questions I want to step back into real fast. The person asks, specifically says: What are the issues Michael has with induction lighting? I want to separate those two points out. John mentioned that he was the one who had concerns with induction lighting and that's why he removed them from the specification. The specification, as it stands, encourages lighting sources that uses - - that can be worked with controls, induction, then your fluorescent and LED. I personally don't have a problem with induction lighting. I personally think that - - I don't have a problem with most light sources, actually. It really comes down to I don't think there's a panacea. Each light source has a great application. There's some really bad applications for light sources as, well, and so I always try to think about it from what are the needs of the inhabitants and what am I trying to accomplish with the design, but I think every source has a great potential for something.

There's a question that came in that - - and, by the way, that's not a speech. I learned that from working for a number of lighting designers where their sources just make total sense and I would never have thought it, and they really educated me on the values of different sources.

The financial incentive slide that I wanted to step in - - I'm sorry, not financial incentive slide, the general distribution slide here. The question was: Do you think that the specification should mandate zonal lumen requirements in the application? While this has some bearing on glare, there's no accepted standard for metric for glare evaluation. On the surface, mandating zonal lumen distribution limits the manufacturer's ability to design for time issue [sic] and explore alternative solutions. It's a great question; it's a great issue. We've wrestled with it before. Originally, the specification actually had some zonal lumen requirements of the luminaires. You run into a number of problems, one being with the zonal lumen distribution from a - - oh, sorry, the slide moved away from me on a second. I'll bring it back, sorry - - so, while zonal lumens work on a fixture level, they may not work for all technologies. The reason being is that linear fluorescent tends to have a different luminaire profile than other sources, so that complicates how you write your specification on that.

The glare metric is a great question, how you set it for that? Originally, I had helped develop zonal lumen metrics. When you're looking at only a fixture level, I do think they make some sense. For instance, another person asked about up lighting. You know, if you start thinking about the different things in a parking structure, this slide is a great picture of it. There's a lot of overhead signage, and rarely do you get a light source actually lighting your signage, and so it's great to have a little up light. And so, when you start getting into zonal lumen requirements on fixtures, from a performance specification, it's somewhat hard, but on a fixture level specification, it's actually somewhat easier, you can actually box it in much more specifically, and as a designer, it allows me the flexibility to use different fixtures where I need it, so whether or not the fixture - - I wanted an asymmetric distribution or a symmetric distribution, you can have that flexibility. So, from a performance specification, we didn't go with zonal lumen requirements, but if I was writing a fixture or widget-based specification, I think some level, as long as they're not too arduous and do not tie the manufacturer or designer's hands, it actually is good. You know, it's always about striking a balance.

And people that write specifications, whether they be energy efficiency programs or something like John, it's a lot harder than I thought it was the first couple of times, and when you start getting into zonal lumens, wow, there's a learning curve and you think you've covered it and then someone shows you a great product, and you're like, well, that blows me out of the water. And so, it's really hard to figure out how to write them sometimes. So, the only hesitation I say is just be careful so it's not overly stringent.

Taxes, so let me step through a couple of the tax slides. Yes, the downside of how the tax incentive was created is that it leaves a lot of people in the dark who can't realize it. If you don't have a tax liability, if you're not-for-profit, if you're a government agency, if you're a real estate investment trust, none of those people can take advantage of the tax- - the way the current tax incentive is set up because they're essentially not paying - - they have no tax liability. I encourage you to, you know, the democratic process and actually contact your legislature. Senators Bingaman and Snowe actually have proposed legislation modifying it already. The Treasury Department has proposed something. I believe the Department of Energy has proposed something, as well. So, really, you know, if you get enough people and if you're a large entity, contact your local representative or senator and say, "Hey, you know, we're interested in this tax incentive, but the way it's written, it leaves us out," and, you know, and modification can be done. I can't say, you know, I don't know how they can be done, and definitely it's one of these things, it's not going to work for everybody, I understand that, but there are people listening and they are trying to change, because it definitely seems an avenue of helping people, but they're just trying to get it to work.

The other question was somebody wanted to see this example. So, because this is a deduction, it's applicable to your tax bracket. So, depending on your agency's tax bracket, they're going to have different amounts. So, if you're in a 35% tax bracket, you take the square footage - - so you take 41,000 and you multiply it by $0.60 per square foot, and you get a large number, and then you multiply that $0.60 a square foot times each of these tax bracket numbers and that will tell you your total number that would be eligible to you at that organization. I hope that explains, the person who asked that question, of how the slide works a little more, but that's it.

Again, the current way it's written, there might actually be some recommendations of modifying even the tax deduction side and making it some other type of tax vehicle, but I'm not a tax attorney or an accountant, so I can't really say what those are well, but I just want to mention that there has definitely been a number of proposals out there. People are very interested in this and they are also being very responsive. I can't say that enough.

I'm going to answer one or two, then I'm going to turn it over to John, and we'll probably wrap it out from there. One last question: Where should we look for solicitations of parking or federal/state lighting replacements? Well, that's a hard question to answer. The website here I showed you, DSIRE, is only on the incentive side, but the federal lighting replacements are listed, you know, by the agency, sometimes by GS - - you know, GSA, General Services Administration, they list some specifically; then sometimes specific to the entity, whether it be the Veterans Administration or the FBI or the FAA. State and local, you know, of course, that comes down to those agencies. I don't know of any one repository where people post stuff. I know that ARRA, which is the American Renewal & Reinvestment Act, they had a repository for certain RFPs under their energy and efficiency building block grant program, but I think almost all of them have been awarded because there were some legislative requirements for it. So, there's really no good place, I think, that warehouses hold all those data values.

Going to another question - - I'm going to answer two more; this is one of them. Someone asked why one sensor per fixture. It's a great question. It's something we struggled with. Something I should mention is that the specification is - - we tried to make it a living document. We are going to revise it in response to a couple of comments we've received, as well as we're going to try to take John's information from his lessons learned and maybe modify it, as needed, and we might have to revise the occupancy sensor one as, well. Why did we go with one sensor per fixture? Yes, it does increase your cost and does increase materials, but we couldn't figure out how to make it an either/or situation, in that because, if you look down here in the picture, you know, there's a column, and if you look in - - let me see if I can find another picture - - you know, here's another column, and then if you go and look at like the Department of Labor fixtures, there's just layout issues, and, you know, when you've got sprinklers and columns and other elements, how do you zone it properly so that you're controlling the right number of fixtures for the right coverage pattern so that someone's not being, you know, left in the dark?

It's definitely something that we're wrestling with. I'm pretty sure that manufacturers and designers and architects are all running into that same problem with coverage. I don't think there's an easy answer. I don't think there's the technology that says, oh, we'll just do this, and you're good. It's not all - - mine aside, you could do some with other technologies, but it's just really how do you provide enough coverage? I think we'll continue to look at that and look at that aspect of it.

I'm going to try to answer one question more and then hand it back to John. I apologize, I'm pulling up the questions as they come in. I think I've answered a majority of the questions that seem to be quickly, readily available.

John D'Angelo:
Okay. Michael, let me take it then.

Michael Myer:

John D'Angelo: Somebody asked to see the before picture again, and I accidentally changed it on you while you were speaking, so I apologize for that, Michael. That's the before picture of the garage and that's the overhead picture of it. We actually did one bay, already converted over, and so that's the before and the after look in that same garage.

And, let's see, I think I have time for one question before our allotted time is out. Somebody asked if maintenance cost savings were a factor in calculating payback periods, and the answer is no. I did it purely on energy, so that 4.2 , or 3.8 simple payback was based solely on energy, and I will tell you that I'm in an area where we're blessed with very inexpensive cost of energy.

Other than that, I think, Linda, one of the things that we wanted to do was cover the last slide again and talk about where you can download information and where you can get more information on the energy alliances. Specifically, there were several requests for contact information for Michael and for myself. I'm going to restrict my own contact information simply because I tend to get a little busy in my job. So, what I would allow is I'll take any calls or any emails from any Alliance member, and if you are an Alliance member, you can get my information from the PLON [sic] site that is dedicated for Alliance members. If you're not an Alliance member, join.

Linda Sandahl:
Okay. Thank you, John. Michael, any other questions that you want to answer before we wrap up?

Michael Myer:
Well, I…

Linda Sandahl:
We probably have time for one more.

Michael Myer:
Yeah. I don't have an email here, my email address is available, but if you go into pnnl.gov, you can contact me directly from there. I'll probably see people at LIGHTFAIR, and DOE [sic] has a number of booths that I'll be help staffing, so I'll be available there, and I'll try to address concerns in emails when I can.

Two questions came in about the financial incentives. There's many different mechanisms for - - there's a handful of mechanisms for passing them through. Who you pass them through to is specific in the document, so I can't answer that question.

And then there's some conversations about depreciation and end-of-life before LED and induction. Yeah, there are new LED fixtures coming out there all the time, and their claims of life are impressive, if you can fathom 150,000 hours or 200,000 hours. I think, you know, with LEDs, along with all sources, we just have to wait and see how long the LED sources last. Definitely, the forthcoming TN21 which will help solidify the industry and hopefully extrapolating LED life will help give us some solidity there. The specification will probably be revised to take advantage of TN21 so that there's a better life extrapolation methodology. In terms of all sources have a deprecation and, definitely, you have to factor in a lot of those things. And end-of-life, end-of-life is really one of the hardest things I deal with on a daily basis. You're going to have, essentially, outright failure fluorescent technology, and you're probably going to eventually have outright failure of induction technology, you're not going to have outright failure with end-of-life with LEDs. When you get past L70, that's the problem. How do you account for that? Well, hopefully, you have designed in for it either a variety of methodologies of verifying it on-site through maybe spot or luminance measurements. Hopefully, if you do a spot measurement – luminance, hopefully, you know, it's the same spot over a significant period. But, you know, if you did it once every three months or something over a certain grid, you can track it and then you'll know, or maybe you just have to build in some expectations that after a certain point of time you're just going to have to replace the technology, and, like your cell phone, there'll probably be a newer, better, cheaper device if you went that route. It's definitely on ongoing issue, and I don't have quick answers on that.

Linda Sandahl:
Great. Thank you. Well, thanks to both Michael and John for the questions they answered and also for the presentations today. I just want to let everyone know that next week you'll receive an email with a link to a request for feedback form on this webcast, so you can give us any of your thoughts, any comments on the specification, et cetera, and also you'll be able to provide your email address if you would like to get any future updates on the specification. As Michael mentioned, we do improve it and take input that we think is important to, you know, make it a better specification, so it is, in a sense, a living document. So, if you give us your email address, we can keep you posted on any updates.

And with that, I would just like to thank everyone for participating today and thank our speakers once again. You may now disconnect.