US Federal Outdoor Lighting Legislation
May 18, 2009
Currently Congress and the Senate are reviewing new energy standards called US Federal Outdoor Lighting Legislation. This legislation would effectively eliminate nearly all lighting fixtures we now use in exterior lighting by 2015.
This type of legislation would certainly be a bonus to the lamp industry. Imagine owning and having the Federal government legislate that all consumers would have to switch to the new products you invented over the next 6 years regardless of application or their demonstrated quality or usefulness in purpose!
This legislation calls for high efficiency lighting sources that are evaluated in Lumens per Watt. What exterior lighting needs to be effective is well applied sources that cannot be considered separate from their application.
Please see the IALD position statement on this legislation which was released on May 15, 2009.
Please write your congressman and senator and tell them that this kind of legislation is not what we need.
Considering Public Health and the Human Impact of the Built Environment
July 31, 2008
The editors of this blog believe the public needs balanced voices in the discussion regarding local and national code development. Officials considering putting their weight behind legislation that restricts lighting should be sure to take a circumspect review and consider the total picture. Energy saving initiatives and dark sky photometry, in this blog’s opinion, don’t combine for a well rounded greater whole. Many appropriate considerations may not be met when the discussion is focused on these two directions.
The truly appropriate lighting solutions are not conveniently tracking energy trends or the political statements associated with them. For example, designing a project in Japan, I was told bright lighting meant wealth because it could be afforded. It represented abundance. So our client was not happy with a lighting scheme that did not produce and exceptionally high level of footcandles (relative to our U.S. projects) at each desk. 100FC at the desk was the target illuminance level.
Now, in the United States, the direction for office lighting is low ambient combined with task lighting. Conveniently it consumes less power. Hmm. Is this really the better lighting solution, or, are we convincing ourselves?
I was just a kid when high pressure sodium lighting was introduced as the street lighting source in New York City. Nobody liked it. We felt we couldn’t see well. We were told by the City of New York that there were more lumens per watt with this light so of course we could see better.
Years later in the early 90′s studies by Sam Berman at Lawrence Berkely Laboratories revealed, infact, that this was not true. Due to the physics of sight at night, an effect named the Purkinje Shift, we could actually see less with more lumens because they weren’t producing enough light in the blue portion of the lighting spectrum. Guess they should have just listened to my mom. She didn’t like it at all. Current research on this topic can be found on the Lighting Research Center’s website.
The public shouldn’t second guess their experiences of what they feel is supportive and effective lighting. Everyone should remember it’s not just the lighting level or the efficiency of sight, it’s the total effect. Somewhere, somehow it was apparently agreed by the public officials debating power consumption; if you can’t directly translate value to a number on a spread sheet it’s not a valid point.
Lighting has had a place in public and private celebration since man’s first use of fire. Anyone whose been at the side of a campfire can tell you there is a unique sense of place created by the quality of light as well as the heat. How many points is that worth?
At LightRightBlog we believe everyone needs to increase their awareness of lighting so they can make fully informed, responsible, effective, and hopefully personal choices about the balance between energy use and lighting use. It may be that we’d be better off giving up that wine chiller and riding our bikes to work once a week instead of trading the incandescent lamps in our living rooms for CFL’s. (Oops did we say that out loud…online!)
In this editor’s near 20 years of experience reviewing and working with energy codes across the nation I’ve seen wattage allowances extended for occupancy sensors and other such devises but never for creating a sense of well being or as a health aid.
Security, safety and effective energy use are likely key considerations in deploying any professional lighting scheme; however, the immeasurable values of public health and the impact of the built environment in their lives must also be considered in developing effective and balanced codes.
What about the role of architect as regulator?
July 21, 2008
In an Op-Ed on AIA Archiblog Henry A. Kosarzycko, AIA writes “Architects contribution to the building process is not only appreciated but sought after.”
LightRightBlog believes the public needs the strong voices of architects now more than ever. Life safety is assumed to be the base of building code development but the public’s health and the impact of the built environment in their lives must also be weighed in developing effective and balanced codes.
“It is very important for humankind that architecture should move by it’s beauty: if there are many equally valid technical solutions to a problem, the one which offers the user a message of beauty and emotion. That one is architecture.” Luis Barragan
While energy efficient solutions are growing, we should strive to be in a position with energy codes that there is more than one technically valid solution to a problem. That choice enables the creation of architecture as art.
Architects should not assume that the lighting design community alone has the legislative clout or force of numbers to guide a balanced and circumspect approach to lighting and energy codes that is needed.
As a member and contributor to the IALD energy and sustainability committee and a member of the IES, this editor encourages architects to not only participate in code development but to also reach out individually and as a group to the lighting design community through these organizations in leading a collaborative discussion on what will be our code-allowed lighting options.
Rising Swell of Lighting Codes needs more Expert Input
July 17, 2008
The practice, art and experience of lighting design is being limited by an ever increasing list of code requirements. What’s frustrating to the design community is the amount of influence non-lighting experts are having over the work of seasoned professionals.
In his recent post on the development of lighting industry codes “Code Crazy”lighting designer and consultant Jim Benya described in detail a history of “bad code writing”.
According to Jim, the basis of any code change is supposed to meet the folowing critera.
• The proposal must have impact. It is a waste of time and money to regulate something that is too specialized to make any difference.
• The proposal must be technically feasible and available in the marketplace
• The proposal must be cost effective
One additional problem we see is that it does not say technically feasible and available through multiple design approaches and product options. Codes get written with an early adoption zeal. Sometimes there may only be one product solution or one design approach that can achieve the specified result. While it may meet all of the criteria listed above it limits design options that may be applied. Lighting designers become reverse engineers. Designing backwards to the one product solution/spacing that will achieve a needed lighting level in a particular functional area. As codes get increasingly restrictive, the resulting limitations on design options create predictable and ordinary results.
A few projects may shine in the process because they were able to implement a new energy saving technology as a component of their design before the code cinched the wattage belt down further. The successes of these projects are used to promote the next level of lighting limitations. I have personally seen many installations in California, a state that has long lead the charge for lighting energy reduction, that are dreary, or worse glarey because the code restrictions are too tight.
I have yet to see the general public, whose life experiences are directly impacted by these codes, make equivalent reductions in other areas of their lives. Instead lighting savings are though of as something that compensates for other excesses, like a new wine chiller. This is because the lighting industry has not yet effectively demonstrated to consumers the value of quality light.
Anti-American Non-Energy Bill
June 14, 2008
This 5 minute address to the House of Representatives by Rep. Ted Poe. has received more than 650,000 views and has received a rating of 5 stars from YouTube Viewers.
Ted Poe states that the law “Punishes Americans for using energy rather than finding new sources of affordable energy. It controls the type of light bulbs that all Americans must use throughout our fruited plains. And further states “No where in the U.S. constitution does it give the government the power to control the type of light bulbs used in Dime Box Texas or any other place in the United States. ”
A 3 page single space EPA document of requirements was submitted for reference and Ted Poe asked if we’ve gone too far with this nonsense.
Featured Video
IALD Position Statement / Macy’s and The Ban of the Incandescent Bulb
May 5, 2008
The International Association of Lighting Designers recently released their statement on the US ban of the incandescent bulb and the worldwide movements to strike this technology.
It’s important to note that the IALD emphasizes in their leading bullet point:
- “There is presently no lighting technology that can replace certain types and uses of incandescent lamps. ”
The IALD further notes replacement technologies still suffer from poor ability to render color, bad dimming performance and high costs.
The primary target market for this ban is the residential consumer. After years of trying various 15 watt fluorescent bulbs to replace the 60 watt screw in in their living rooms the consumer is justifiably skeptical.
The sad thing to watch is how their opinion and desire for the quality and characteristics of light of the incandescent is being shamed and legislated into oblivion.
Macy’s, in their recent Spring Home Sale advertisement, marginalized the qualities and character of light of the incandescent bulb when they hijacked the green movement to promote sales. The Macy’s ad says, “Go ahead, make the change” in reference to switching to the “green” compact fluorescent lamp. Perhaps the message is not that there isn’t a quality change but that you should do it anyway. And shame on you if you don’t. The circular then goes on to promote the latest seasons colors of appliances, plates and dishes.
Are the savings from the switch supposed to compensate for the ecologic damage of the consumerism promoted by the color of the season for pots? What is the message here? 
The consumer should feel confident in their reluctance as it has basis in fact. There is currently no lighting technology that can on par replace the incandescent lamp.
The complete text of the ban can be found on the IALD website. http://www.iald.org
Legislate this! please.
April 13, 2008
As a lighting designer I’m enticed by all the tools available to create great lighting experiences. All the light bulbs: I have thousands of dollars worth sitting in my garage so that any moment I can apply a full palette of options.
My confession is, despite this, I dread shopping the light bulb aisle at the big box retail stores: Lowes, Walmart, Home Depot, to name a few. Just yesterday I came home with the wrong bulb. Can you imagine? A near twenty year veteran of the lighting industry?
Not only that, I was shopping with a friend of mine who happens to be an experienced electrical contractor and I asked him – why do these boxes look different? At this point we were already standing at the check out and flipping between the boxes and their Spanish English text neither of us noticed the little L for long neck. Nor did we see the small font describing the neck amongst the flashy graphics of one of the boxes.
Shuffling amongst other items in our shopping cart we also didn’t note the slightly different box sizes. The boxes simply looked like different generations of packaging. The most prominent information on both was Halogen 50 watt. The actual bulb type PAR30 and PAR30 long neck was printed very very small. The wattage / lumen /hour summary at the bottom were identical.
When I got home I realized that one of the two blubs was a long neck. Upon further review of the actual lamp I realized that one had been stamped with the description wide flood. Both simply said flood on the box, one was a wide flood and the other a narrow flood. Where was this important differentiating information about this bulb type? The only place this information was displayed was printed on side of the bulb. I was actually wanting a WIDE flood. So this was good. But now I only had one. And to get back to the store to buy the second was about eight (8) dollars in gasoline round trip. Nice way to save energy. I would have especially loved to tell this story if I had been purchasing a compact fluorescent bulb.
The most prominent information on both of the boxes was in the form of two words – Two Year Bulb! Two year bulb? How is this measured? And why is it necessary to tout this when the hours are prominently displayed on the box? And what if the bulb is dimmed? What is the projected life then? Are the words Two Year Bulb an important piece of information that is valuable to the consumer in making the right lighting choice? Or is this something the marketing department determined would move this box off the shelf? Isn’t the clear display of rated life more valuable? How about the voltage of the bulb? This wasn’t displayed anywhere on the box.
What you see in the following photos is the impact of not having the best lamp for the job. The wide flood covers the entire work area. A little less bright but produces even illumination across the paper. The narrow flood concentrates the light in one spot, creating a harsh contrast between the lit and unlit paper.
Let’s not kid ourselves about our energy saving efforts when we leave issues like this unaddressed. How many consumers would go back and get a 75 watt lamp to fix this instead of the wide flood? Especially when the distribution of the bulb, which is the solution here, is not even displayed on the box?
I believe as we move forward in lighting we need to help the consumer make an educated choice. As lighting becomes more expensive to buy and run lighting decisions are becoming more important and we need to enable the consumer to make the best choice for them. This is quite a different approach than narrowing the choices of the consumer; which is the only legislation that I’m seeing. The lighting industry, consumer advocates and legislatures should look for opportunities to bring clarity, knowledge and product differentiation to the consumer.
Our Human Energy
March 11, 2008
Our human energy is sustained and transformed by the light we live in.
Our moods, our interactions, our work, our environment, even our health, can be dramatically changed by the alteration of light. This is the true power of light. We can use it to create more energy than it consumes.
It’s documented evidence in design reports, health studies, building post occupancy evaluations and even the unacknowledged consumer’s opinion on a compact fluorescent bulb brings us candid proof.
Why then are none of our increasingly restrictive energy codes weighing the value of light in our lives against the carbon credits?
The consumer has no idea what compromises are being made to their lit environments. At a rabid speed choice and quality are being traded for political gain and face saving alliance with the green movement.
Should a consumer be told that beginning 2012 they can’t use an inexpensive, simple, incandescent bulb to light their homes? Is this really wise or appropriate?
Human celebration with light dates back to one of the first uses of fire by mankind to warm a dark cold night and possibly even before. What is the impact when a midwinter retreat to a snowy Aspen lodge can only produce a LED fireplace? One cannot ask what is the value of that light without asking what is the value of our experiences? On one had we ask that our experiences and world be more organic, and on the other we require it to be more synthetic.
Light has the power to transform and refuel our human energy.
That value of light needs to be part of our discussions and conscious choices about our consumption of resources or we risk wasting whatever energy we do spend regardless of the efficacy of the light source, the efficiency of the fixture or the stringency of the code based design decisions.
-
Recent Posts
- The CREE LRP-38
- Don’t want a headache from your LED task lighting? …
- Benya Wins! The GE Edison Award
- Panic-buying of 100 watt bulbs in UK
- US Federal Outdoor Lighting Legislation
- Wanted – Stand-alone Wallbox Dimmer with Astronomical Timer
- SSL Label – Good news for Consumers of SSL Product
- Lightfair 2009 Overview
Lighting Facts Label
Light Up The World Foundation
 |
 |