Standard Measurement and Verification Plan for Lighting Retrofit Projects for Buildings and Building Sites

This document provides a framework for standard measurement and verification (M&V) of lighting retrofit and replacement projects. It was developed to provide site owners, contractors, and other involved organizations with the essential elements of a robust M&V plan for lighting projects. It includes details on all aspects of effectively measuring light levels of existing and post-retrofit projects, conducting power measurement, and developing cost-effectiveness analysis. This framework M&V plan also enables consistent comparison among similar lighting projects, and may be used to develop M&V plans for non--lighting-technology retrofits and new installations

Michigan State Code Adoption Analysis: Cost-Effectiveness of Lighting Requirements - ASHRAE/IESNA 90.1-2004

This report documents PNNL's analysis of the potential energy effect and cost-effectiveness of the lighting requirements in ASHRAE/IESNA 90.1-2004 if this energy code is adopted in the state of Michigan, instead of the current standard

Comparison of the Energy Efficiency Prescribed by ASHRAE/ANSI/IESNA Standard 90.1-1999 and ASHRAE/ANSI/IESNA Standard 90.1-2004

This document presents the qualitative comparison of DOE’s formal determination of energy savings of ANSI/ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-2004. The term “qualitative” is used in the sense of identifying whether or not changes have a positive, negative, or neutral impact on energy efficiency of the standard, with no attempt made to quantify that impact. A companion document will present the quantitative comparison of DOE’s determination. The quantitative comparison will be based on whole building simulation of selected building prototypes in selected climates. This document presents a comparison of the energy efficiency requirements in ANSI/ASHRAE/IESNA 90.1-1999 (herein referred to as Standard 90.1-1999) and ANSI/ASHRAE/IESNA 90.1-2004 (herein referred to as Standard 90.1-2004). The comparison was done through a thorough review of all addenda to Standard 90.1-1999 that were included in the published ANSI/ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-2001 (herein referred to as Standard 90.1-2001) and also all addenda to Standard 90.1-2001 that were included in the published Standard 90.1-2004. A summary table showing the impact of each addendum is provided. Each addendum to both Standards 90.1-1999 and 90.1-2001 was evaluated as to its impact on the energy efficiency requirements of the standard (greater efficiency, lesser efficiency) and as to significance. The final section of this document summarizes the impacts of the various addenda and proposes which addenda should be included in the companion quantitative portion of DOE’s determination. Addenda are referred to with the nomenclature addendum 90.1-xxz, where “xx” is either “99” for 1999 or “01” for 2001, and z is the ASHRAE letter designation for the addendum. Addenda names are shown in bold face in text. DOE has chosen not to prepare a separate evaluation of Standard 90.1-2001 as that standard does not appear to improve energy efficiency in commercial buildings. What this means for the determination of energy savings for Standard 90.1-2004 is that the baseline standard for comparison is Standard 90.1-1999 and all addenda to both Standards 90.1-1999 and 90.1-2001 must be considered to determine the overall change in efficiency between Standard 90.1-1999 and Standard 90.1-2004

ANSI/ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-2010 Preliminary Qualitative Determination

A preliminary qualitative analysis of all addenda to American National Standards Institute (ANSI)/American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE)/Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA) Standard 90.1-2007 (Standard 90.1-2007 or 2007 edition) that were included in ANSI/ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-2010 (Standard 90.1-2010 or 2010 edition) was conducted. All 109 addenda processed by ASHRAE in the creation of Standard 90.1-2010 from Standard 90.1-2007 were evaluated by DOE for their impact on energy efficiency. DOE preliminarily determined whether that addenda would have a positive, neutral, or negative impact on overall building efficiency

Analysis of Energy Saving Impacts of New Commercial Energy Codes for the Gulf Coast

Report on an analysis of the energy savings and cost impacts associated with the use of newer and more efficiently commercial building energy codes in the states of Louisiana and Mississippi

Demonstration Assessment of Light Emitting Diode (LED) Residential Downlights and Undercabinet Lights in the Lane County Tour of Homes, Eugene, Oregon

In August 2008 the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) conducted a light emitting diode (LED) residential lighting demonstration project for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Building Technologies, as part of DOE’s Solid State Lighting (SSL) Technology Demonstration Gateway Program. Two lighting technologies, an LED replacement for downlight lamps (bulbs) and an LED undercabinet lighting fixture, were tested in the demonstration which was conducted in two homes built for the 2008 Tour of Homes in Eugene, Oregon. The homes were built by the Lane County Home Builders Association (HBA), and Future B Homes. The Energy Trust of Oregon (ETO) also participated in the demonstration project. The LED downlight product, the LR6, made by Cree LED Lighting Solutions acts as a screw-in replacement for incandescent and halogen bulbs in recessed can downlights. The second product tested is Phillips/Color Kinetics’ eW® Profile Powercore undercabinet fixture designed to mount under kitchen cabinets to illuminate the countertop and backsplash surfaces. Quantitative and qualitative measurements of light performance and electrical power usage were taken at each site before and after initially installed halogen and incandescent lamps were replaced with the LED products. Energy savings and simple paybacks were also calculated and builders who toured the homes were surveyed for their responses to the LED products. The LED downlight product drew 12 Watts of power, cutting energy use by 82% compared to the 65W incandescent lamp and by 84% compared to the 75W halogen lamp. The LED undercabinet fixture drew 10 watts, cutting energy use by 83% to 90% compared to the halogen product, which was tested at two power settings: a low power 60W setting and a high power 105W setting. The LED downlight consistently provided more light than the halogen and incandescent lamps in horizontal measurements at counter height and floor level. It also outperformed in vertical illuminance measurements taken on the walls, indicating better lateral dispersion of the light. The undercabinet fixture’s light output was midway between the low and high power halogen undercabinet fixture light outputs (35.8 foot candle versus 13.4 fc and 53.4 fc) but it produced a more uniform light (max/min ratio of 7.0 versus 10.8). The color correlated temperature (CCT, the blue or yellowness) of the LED light correlated well with the halogen and incandescent lights (2675 K vs 2700 K). The color rendering of the LED downlight also correlated well at 92 CRI compared to 100 CRI for the halogen and incandescent lamps. The LED undercabinet fixture had measures of 2880 K CCT and 71 CRI compared to the 2700 K and 100 CRI scores for the halogen undercabinet fixture. Builders who toured the homes were surveyed; they gave the LED downlight high marks for brightness, said the undercabinet improved shadows and glare and said both products improved overall visibility, home appearance, and home value. Paybacks on the LED downlight ranged from 7.6 years (assuming electricity cost of 11 c/kWh) to 13.5 years (at 5C/kWh). Paybacks on the LED undercabinet fixture in a new home ranged from 4.4 years (11c/kWh electricity) to 7.6 years (5c/kWh) based on product costs of $95 per LED downlight and$140 per LED undercabinet fixture at 3 hrs per day of usage for the downlight and 2 hrs per day for the undercabinet lighting

ANSI/ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-2007 Final Qualitative Determination

A final qualitative analysis of all addenda to American National Standards Institute (ANSI)/American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE)/Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA) Standard 90.1-2004 that were included in ANSI/ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-2007 was conducted. All 44 addenda processed by ASHRAE in the creation of Standard 90.1-2007 from Standard 90.1-2004 were evaluated by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) for their impact on energy efficiency. DOE preliminarily determined whether that addenda would have a positive, neutral, or negative impact on overall building efficiency. Table S.1 shows the number of positive and negative changes for each section of Standard 90.1

ANSI/ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-2007 Final Determination Quantitative Analysis

The United States (U.S.) Department of Energy (DOE) conducted a final quantitative analysis to assess whether buildings constructed according to the requirements of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI)/American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE)/Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA) Standard 90.1-2007 would result in energy savings compared with buildings constructed to ANSI/ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-2004. The final analysis considered each of the 44 addenda to ANSI/ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-2004 that were included in ANSI/ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-2007. All 44 addenda processed by ASHRAE in the creation of Standard 90.1-2007 from Standard 90.1-2004 were reviewed by DOE, and their combined impact on a suite of 15 building prototype models in 15 ASHRAE climate zones was considered. Most addenda were deemed to have little quantifiable impact on building efficiency for the purpose of DOE’s final determination. However, out of the 44 addenda, 9 were preliminarily determined to have measureable and quantifiable impact

Analysis of Potential Benefits and Costs of Adopting a Commercial Building Energy Standard in South Dakota

The state of South Dakota is considering adopting a commercial building energy standard. This report evaluates the potential costs and benefits to South Dakota residents from requiring compliance with the most recent edition of the ANSI/ASHRAE/IESNA 90.1-2001 Energy Standard for Buildings except Low-Rise Residential Buildings. These standards were developed in an effort to set minimum requirements for the energy efficient design and construction of new commercial buildings. The quantitative benefits and costs of adopting a commercial building energy code are modeled by comparing the characteristics of assumed current building practices with the most recent edition of the ASHRAE Standard, 90.1-2001. Both qualitative and quantitative benefits and costs are assessed in this analysis. Energy and economic impacts are estimated using results from a detailed building simulation tool (Building Loads Analysis and System Thermodynamics [BLAST] model) combined with a Life-Cycle Cost (LCC) approach to assess corresponding economic costs and benefits

Analysis of Potential Benefits and Costs of Updating the Commercial Building Energy Code in Iowa

The state of Iowa is considering adpoting ASHRAE 90.1-1999 as its commercial building energy code. In an effort to evaluate whether or not this is an appropraite code for the state, the potential benefits and costs of adopting this standard are considered. Both qualitative and quantitative benefits are assessed. The energy simulation and economic results suggest that adopting ASHRAE 90.1-1999 would provide postitive net benefits to the state relative to the building and design requirements currently in place