Induction Lamp Systems for Pedestrian, Low Level Pole and Lantern Lighting

Transcription

1 Design & Engineering Services Induction Lamp Systems for Pedestrian, Low Level Pole and Lantern Lighting ET Prepared by: Design and Engineering Services Customer Service Business Unit Southern California Edison September 24, 2007

2 Acknowledgements Southern California Edison s (SCE s) Design & Engineering Services (DES) group is responsible for this project. It was developed as part of Southern California Edison s Emerging Technology Program under internal project number ET DES project manager Doug Avery with the assistance of Integrated Lighting Concepts, Westlake Village, California conducted this technology evaluation with overall guidance and management from Tom Antonucci. This report was prepared by Integrated Lighting Concepts. For more information on this project, contact doug.avery@sce.com. Disclaimer This report was prepared by Southern California Edison (SCE) and funded by California utility customers under the auspices of the California Public Utilities Commission. Reproduction or distribution of the whole or any part of the contents of this document without the express written permission of SCE is prohibited. This work was performed with reasonable care and in accordance with professional standards. However, neither SCE nor any entity performing the work pursuant to SCE s authority make any warranty or representation, expressed or implied, with regard to this report, the merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose of the results of the work, or any analyses, or conclusions contained in this report. The results reflected in the work are generally representative of operating conditions; however, the results in any other situation may vary depending upon particular operating conditions. Southern California Edison Design & Engineering Services September 2007

3 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS AGI-32 BF CFL CRI FC GE GENURA HPS ICETRON IESNA K LD LDD LLD LUX MH OSI QL SCE V W WSF Lighting evaluation and calculation computer design program Ballast Factor Compact Fluorescent Lamp Color Rendering Index Foot-Candles; Domestic (USA)Illumination Measurement General Electric Co. General Electric R-lamp Induction High Pressure Sodium Osram/Sylvania Induction Lamp Illuminating Engineering Society of North America Kelvin Lamp Color Temperature measurement Lumen Depreciation Luminaire Dirt Depreciation Lamp Lumen Depreciation International Illumination Measurement Metal Halide Osram/Sylvania Inc. Philips Lighting Induction Lamp Southern California Edison Volts Watt Watts per Square Foot Southern California Edison Page i Design & Engineering Services September 2007

4 FIGURES FIGURE 1. ENERGY SAVINGS AND COST AVOIDANCE POTENTIAL FOR INDUCTION LIGHTING... 1 FIGURE 2 LAMP LIFE & LUMEN DEPRECIATION CURVES COMPARING MH, HPS & INDUCTION LAMPS... 3 FIGURE 3. EFFECT OF HIGH FIRST COST OF INDUCTION LIGHTING ON COST EFFECTIVENESS... 3 FIGURE 4. COMPARISON OF LAMP INDUCTION ENVELOPES... 4 FIGURE 5. MODEL A: LOCAL SHOPPING CENTER... 8 FIGURE 6. MODEL B: BUS TRANSFER FACILITY... 8 FIGURE 7. MODEL C: PART AND ACTIVITY CENTER 8 FIGURE 8. MODEL D: MULTI-FAMILY COMPLEX... 8 FIGURE 9. MODEL A: SHOPPING STRIP MALL ARIAL VIEW OF COMPOSITE MODEL FIGURE 11. MODEL B: TYPICAL COVERED PARKING STALLS AT APARTMENT COMPLEX FIGURE 12. MODEL B: MULTI-FAMILY APARTMENT COMPLEX EXAMPLE OF CALCULATION GRID ISOMETRIC VIEW FIGURE 13. MODEL C: BUS TRANSFER FACILITY COVERED CUSTOMER WAITING AREAS FIGURE 14. MODEL D: COMMUNITY PARK ARIAL VIEW OF COMPOSITE MODEL TABLES TABLE 1. CRI COMPARISON SELECTED INDUCTION LAMPS AND SIMILAR WATTAGE MH & HPS LAMPS... 5 TABLE 2. EXHIBIT A: ROADWAY SURFACE CLASSIFICATION BY TYPE OF PAVING MATERIALS TABLE 3. EXHIBIT B: IESNA RECOMMENDED EXTERIOR LIGHTING ILLUMINATION SELECTED APPLICATIONS TABLE 4. SHOPPING MALL AS BUILT LUMINAIRE SCHEDULE TABLE 5. SHOPPING MALL INDUCTION FLUORESCENT ALTERNATIVE LUMINAIRE SCHEDULE TABLE 6. MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AS BUILT LUMINAIRE SCHEDULE TABLE 7. MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT INDUCTION FLUORESCENT ALTERNATIVE LUMINAIRE SCHEDULE TABLE 8. SUBURBAN BUS TRANSFER FACILITY AS BUILT LUMINAIRE SCHEDULE TABLE 9. SUBURBAN BUS TRANSFER FACILITY INDUCTION FLUORESCENT ALTERNATIVE LUMINAIRE SCHEDULE TABLE 10. COMMUNITY PARK AS BUILT LUMINAIRE SCHEDULE TABLE 11. COMMUNITY PARK INDUCTION FLUORESCENT ALTERNATIVE LUMINAIRE SCHEDULE TABLE 12. LIGHT LEVEL COMPARISON FOR THE LOCAL SHOPPING CENTER-STRIP MALL AS BUILT VS. INDUCTION FLUORESCENT ALTERNATIVE TABLE 13. DETAILED STATISTICS BY ILLUMINANCE MEASUREMENT AREA FOR AS BUILT LIGHTING TABLE 14. DETAILED STATISTICS BY ILLUMINANCE MEASUREMENT AREA FOR INDUCTION FLUORESCENT ALTERNATIVES TABLE 15. DETAILED STATISTICS BY ILLUMINANCE MEASUREMENT AREA FOR INDUCTION FLUORESCENT ALTERNATIVES TABLE 16. LIGHT LEVEL COMPARISON FOR THE MULTI FAMILY HOUSING COMPLEX AS BUILT VS. INDUCTION FLUORESCENT ALTERNATIVE TABLE 17. DETAILED STATISTICS BY ILLUMINANCE MEASUREMENT AREA FOR AS BUILT LIGHTING TABLE 18. DETAILED STATISTICS BY ILLUMINANCE MEASUREMENT AREA FOR INDUCTION FLUORESCENT ALTERNATIVES TABLE 19. LIGHT LEVEL COMPARISON FOR THE SUBURBAN BUS TRANSFER FACILITY AS BUILT VS. INDUCTION FLUORESCENT ALTERNATIVE TABLE 20. DETAILED STATISTICS BY ILLUMINANCE MEASUREMENT AREA FOR AS BUILT LIGHTING TABLE 21. DETAILED STATISTICS BY ILLUMINANCE MEASUREMENT AREA FOR INDUCTION FLUORESCENT ALTERNATIVES TABLE 22. LIGHT LEVEL COMPARISON FOR THE COMMUNITY CENTER PARK AND GARDEN FACILITY AS BUILT VS. INDUCTION FLUORESCENT ALTERNATIVE Southern California Edison Page ii Design & Engineering Services September 2007

5 TABLE 23. DETAILED STATISTICS BY ILLUMINANCE MEASUREMENT AREA FOR AS BUILT LIGHTING TABLE 24. DETAILED STATISTICS BY ILLUMINANCE MEASUREMENT AREA FOR INDUCTION FLUORESCENT ALTERNATIVES Southern California Edison Page iii Design & Engineering Services September 2007

6 CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 INTRODUCTION 4 SUBURBAN RETAIL STRIP MALL... 6 SUBURBAN REGIONAL BUS TRANSFER TRANSPORTATION... 6 COMMUNITY PARK WITH GARDEN PEDESTRIAN WAYS... 7 MULTI FAMILY TOWNHOUSE APARTMENT COMPLEX... 7 TECHNICAL APPROACH 11 STANDARDS FOR TARGET ILLUMINATION - THE FOUR MODELS INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW IESNA EXTERIOR LIGHTING STANDARDS OVERALL LIGHTING DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS AREA CLASSIFICATIONS PAVEMENT CLASSIFICATIONS DESCRIPTIONS AND CLASSIFICATIONS OF TYPES OF EXTERIOR LIGHTING AREAS Lighting Design Considerations by Specific Area, Zone or Function SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS SITES/APPLICATIONS SUITED TO INDUCTION TECHNOLOGIES 16 INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW SITES/APPLICATIONS INDUCTION LIGHTING MODELS MODEL A MODEL B MODEL C MODEL D RESULTS 21 MODEL A: LOCAL SHOPPING CENTER STRIP MALL MODEL B: MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING COMPLEX MODEL C: SUBURBAN BUS TRANSFER FACILITY MODEL D: COMMUNITY CENTER PARK AND GARDEN 26 DISCUSSION 28 CONCLUSION 29 APPENDIX A LIGHT METER GRIDS FOR ALL MODELS 30 Southern California Edison Page iv Design & Engineering Services September 2007

7 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Current induction lamp lighting systems offer significant opportunities for both energy reduction and operational savings when applied to pedestrian level and low-mast lighting applications. Current lamp wattages and sizes are ideal for these applications. However, current lamp limits of approximately 250 Watt (W) (high end) and 20W (low end), exclude induction lighting from high mast lighting usually lamped with 400W-1,000W lamps and way-finding low level lighting where 20W-75W halogen and 7W-18W compact fluorescent lamps (CFL) are most often employed. FIGURE 1. ENERGY SAVINGS AND COST AVOIDANCE POTENTIAL FOR INDUCTION LIGHTING This report examines the potentials for induction lighting utilization on four specific sites with applications suited to pedestrian level and low-mast lighting. The four sites and specific applications examined through use of AGI-32 computer modeling are: Suburban retail strip mall with lantern style post lamps and wall bracket lanterns Regional bus transfer transportation and park-n-ride facility Community park with garden pedestrian walkways and recreational-meeting facilities Multi-family townhouse apartment complex with private street parking zones and pedestrian walkways Recommended illumination levels for lighting at each of the four specific types of sites are based on the Illumination Engineering Society of North America (IESNA) design and application standards for outdoor area and roadway lighting 11. All models presented in this document were required to demonstrate compliance with these standards. Designs not meeting these standards, even though they appeared to provide adequate and visually appealing illumination, were rejected. Rejection of designs is based on the premise that the lighting components of building and municipal codes as well as safety/security standards are based on the IESNA lighting design and application standards. Therefore legal precedence mandates that, at minimum to be acceptable, a design must meet or exceed IESNA standards. Observation and analysis of the four specific site/application models validated that induction lighting is in fact best suited to pedestrian level and low-mast lighting. Additional studies gained via the AGI-32 modeling helped to define both positive attributes and potential Southern California Edison Page 1 Design & Engineering Services September 2007

8 drawbacks for induction lighting. The complete details of these findings are published in the body of this report. The following bullet items provide an overview of the findings. They are as follows: Induction lighting exhibits pleasant soft illumination with good color rendition having an 80+ color-rendering index (CRI). (80+ CRI) Its color is inherently more pleasing in pedestrian stations than ether standard Metal Halide or High Pressure Sodium lighting. Lumen depreciation for induction lamps is significantly better (less light loss) than Metal Halide (MH) but no better than High Pressure Sodium (HPS). Lamp efficacy (lumens per watt) is competitive with MH but not as efficient as HPS. These performance factors suggest that lower wattage induction lighting can replace higher wattage MH lighting while maintaining near equal maintained light-output (foot-candle (fc) levels) with somewhat improved visual acuity due to the higher CRI of the induction lamps. However, because light loss and efficacy of Induction is at best equal to HPS, when induction lighting replaces HPS lighting there is little if any energy savings potential if equal foot-candle illumination must be maintained. Because visual acuity is superior to HPS (HPS has a CRI of only 20 versus the 80+ of induction lamps) lower light levels can be applied to the design as long as IESNA minimums are maintained. Under this scenario Induction lighting may offer energy savings with equal or better visual acuity. Lamp life of induction lighting is far superior to either MH or HPS lamping. Therefore, maintenance cycles can be extended reducing labor cost and lamp replacement costs. Induction lighting is an especially attractive option when maintenance is very difficult, or near impossible. The defuse nature of the light source and large lamp envelope of most induction lamps does not allow for precision optics as used in many roadway and area luminaire designs. Therefore induction lamps in luminaire designs provide broad distribution illumination with less directional beam patterns than typical MH and HPS full cut-off luminaires. Current induction lamp systems are best suited to post top lantern and wall lantern designs. They also work well in wide distribution downlights and area flood lighting. Current induction lamps do not work well with spot beam and similar focused beam optics. First cost of induction lighting luminaires is excessively exorbitant and there are only a few manufactures offering luminaires with this lamping option. The high first cost and limited equipment selection severely limits the cost effectiveness potential of the Induction lighting systems. First cost must become competitive and more induction lighting luminaire designs are needed if Induction lighting is to be mainstreamed. Southern California Edison Page 2 Design & Engineering Services September 2007

9 FIGURE 2 LAMP LIFE & LUMEN DEPRECIATION CURVES COMPARING MH, HPS & INDUCTION LAMPS AGI-32 modeling substantiates that current Induction Lamp lighting systems can offer significant opportunities for both energy reduction and operational savings when applied to pedestrian level and low-mast lighting applications. Further study is recommended for recreating these four (4) AGI-32 models under real world field installed conditions. It is also recommended that incentive programs be utilized to assist in the funding of Induction Lighting installations. This is required until such time that the industry restructure first cost pricing which will allow for mainstreaming of the product. The graphs below show the effect of a $6000 Southern California Edison (SCE) funded incentive for this project. FIGURE 3. COST OF INDUCTION LIGHTING AFTER APPLYING INCENTIVES TO COST EFFECTIVENESS CALCULATIONS Southern California Edison Page 3 Design & Engineering Services September 2007

10 INTRODUCTION Induction lamps have been on the market for 15 years. Philips Lighting first introduced the QL lamp in the United States in General Electric (GE) followed with GE Genura (a low wattage induction R lamp envelope) in 1994 and Osram introduced Icetron TM, under the Sylvania name in In addition to the Big Three in the lamp industry, several other manufacturers have and continue to offer some induction lamping systems. Current options for induction lighting are severely limited and there is little in the way of lamp standardization or lamp cross-referencing. For example, while each of the Big Three offers an induction lamp, their product selection is limited and there is no compatibility with respect to wattages, sockets, or lamp envelopes between them. Listed are current induction lamp offerings from the three major lamp manufacturers: General Electric (GE) GENURA; 23W R envelope medium base socket reflector flood OSRAM/SYLVANIA (OSI) ICETRON; T17 envelope, proprietary base - three wattage offerings (70W, 100W, 150W) Philips Lighting QL Lamp; proprietary spherical envelope and base - three wattages (55W, 85W, 165W) GE Genura Osram/Sylvania - Icetron Phillips - QL Lamp R Envelope T-17 Envelope Proprietary Spherical 23W 70W 100W 150W Envelope (55W 85W 165W) FIGURE 4. COMPARISON OF LAMP INDUCTION ENVELOPES Offerings from the Big Three Lamp Manufacturers Induction lighting does exhibit some superior attributes compared to Metal Halide (MH) and High Pressure Sodium (HPS) lighting. The most notable attribute is an extremely long lamp life, upward to 100,000 hours as compared to similar wattage MH and HPS lamps with 10,000 and 20,000-hour lamp life. In addition, color rendering which can be an indication of the light sources contribution to visual acuity is better than MH and significantly superior to HPS. The color-rendering index (CRI) of induction lamps compared to standard MH and HPS lamps of similar wattages is shown in Table 1. Southern California Edison Page 4 Design & Engineering Services September 2007

11 TABLE 1. CRI COMPARISON SELECTED INDUCTION LAMPS AND SIMILAR WATTAGE MH & HPS LAMPS INDUCTION LAMP CRI HPS AND MH LAMPS CRI OSI Icetron 70W 80-CRI [3.5K 4.1K 5.0K] 70W HPS 22-CRI [1.9K] OSI Icetron 70W 80-CRI [3.5K 4.1K 5.0K] 70W MH 70-CRI [3.2K] 75-CRI [4.0K] OSI Icetron 100W 80-CRI [3.5K 4.1K 5.0K] 100W HPS 22-CRI [2.0K] OSI Icetron 100W 80-CRI [3.5K 4.1K 5.0K] 100W MH 70-CRI [3.2K] 75-CRI [4.0K] OSI Icetron 150W 80-CRI [3.5K 4.1K 5.0K] 150W HPS 22-CRI [2.0K] OSI Icetron 150W 80-CRI [3.5K 4.1K 5.0K] 150W MH 60-CRI [3.1K] 65-CRI [4.3K] Philips QL 55W 80-CRI [3.0K 4.0K] 50W HPS 21-CRI [2.1K] Philips QL 55W 80-CRI [3.0K 4.0K] 50W MH 60-CRI [3.7K] 65-CRI [3.4K] Philips QL 85W 80-CRI [3.0K 4.0K] 70W HPS 22-CRI [1.9K] Philips QL 85W 80-CRI [3.0K 4.0K] 70W MH 70-CRI [3.2K] 75-CRI [4.0K] Philips QL 165W 80-CRI [3.0K 4.0K] 150W HPS 22-CRI [2.0K] Philips QL 165W 80-CRI [3.0K 4.0K] 175W MH 65-CRI [4.0K] 70-CRI [3.0K] Limited options for induction light and lack of lamp standardization, or lamp crossreferencing, while major drawbacks, are not induction lighting s most critical drawback. Currently, excessively high first cost of induction lamp installations sets up a scenario where cost effectiveness of the installation is marginal at best. Without cost reductions, only those installations where the existing lighting uses very old technology or current illumination is excessively high will induction lighting scenarios be considered. The other exception is an installation where ongoing maintenance is either very difficult or extremely costly. Induction lighting s 100,000-hour lamp life can pay off under such circumstances. The intent of this study, with respect to induction lighting applications, is to demonstrate through use of AGI-32 (Lighting Analysts, Inc., Littleton, CO) lighting analysis computer modeling the effectiveness of induction lighting when applied to appropriate design scenarios. The study will also identify those scenarios where because of: current conditions, lack of product, high first cost, etc., induction lighting is currently not suited to an application and/or not cost effective. At present induction lighting applications are best used as replacement for standard MH and HPS light sources of low to medium wattage. There are a few induction lamps under 50W and several over 200W, however the current majority of induction lamps are between 50W and 175W output power. This is the lamp power range (lamp wattage) most suited to lowmast area and roadway lighting, pedestrian lighting and canopy lighting. Furthermore, the diffuse nature of induction lamps suggests that they will perform best when used in luminaires with wide distribution uniform light patterns such as lantern-style post lights, bollards, and lensed down-lights Based on the current range of available induction lamps with source characteristics and attributes defined within this report, potentials were examined for induction lighting utilization at four sites with applications suited to pedestrian level and low-mast lighting. The four sites and specific applications examined using AGI-32 computer modeling are: Southern California Edison Page 5 Design & Engineering Services September 2007

12 SUBURBAN RETAIL STRIP MALL with lantern style post lamps and wall bracket lanterns. In this scenario the base lighting system consists of 175W MH post lamps and wall lanterns with uniform, diffuse non-cutoff luminaires. In the induction lighting model: 100W (110W with radio frequency (RF) transmitter) induction lighting replaces 175W standard MH lighting (210W with ballast) for an energy saving of 100W (52%) per luminaire. Maintained light levels for the induction lamp design are near equal to the base MH design (90% of base design) and well within IESNA recommended illumination for this area type. Visual acuity is improved since the induction lamp color quality is 80-CRI versus only 65-CRI for the MH system. This design model will need an incentive from the utility companies to overcome the high first cost hurdle and reduce operating costs substantially. SUBURBAN REGIONAL BUS TRANSFER TRANSPORTATION AND PARK-N-RIDE FACILITY. The base design for this area consists of a number of diverse lighting systems with different light sources. The parking lot base design used 150W HPS low-mast cut-off shoebox luminaires while the bus shelter has 70W MH down lights. In addition there are compact fluorescent wall sconces at restroom exterior entrances. In the induction lighting model: At the parking lot 100W (110W with RF transmitter) induction lighting replaces 150W HPS lighting (175W with ballast) for an energy saving of 50W (28%) per luminaire. Maintained light levels for the parking lot induction lamp design are considerably less than the base HPS design (60% of base design) but still within IESNA recommended illumination for the area. Visual acuity is superior and vastly improved since the Induction lamp color quality is 80-CRI versus a very poor 22- CRI for the HPS system. Under bus shelter canopies three (3) 100W (110W with RF transmitter) Induction light down-lights replace six (6) 70W MH down-lights (90W with ballast) for a total (per shelter) energy saving of 240W (57%) per shelter canopy. Maintained light levels under the bus shelter canopies and surrounding zone with Induction lighting are near equal to the base MH design and well within IESNA recommended illumination levels. Visual acuity is somewhat improved since the Induction lamp color quality is 80-CRI versus a 70-CRI for the MH system. Restroom exterior sconces are lamped with 55W (60W with transmitter) induction lamps replacing the 2-26W CFLs (60W with ballast) in the base design no energy savings. Significantly increased lamp life however, 100,000 hours versus the 10,000 hours for the CFL base lamping. The cost effectiveness of this model is marginal. The canopy lighting solution is highly cost effective, unfortunately; the design solution is suited to new construction not retrofits. Alternate induction lamp parking lot designs are marginally cost effective and only work when/if lower illumination levels are allowable. Lower light levels must still meet IESNA minimum standards and the space must obtain owner/user acceptance. The sconce lighting is not cost effective but does offer extremely long lamp life, which may be of interest when frequency of maintenance is an issue. Southern California Edison Page 6 Design & Engineering Services September 2007

13 COMMUNITY PARK WITH GARDEN PEDESTRIAN WALKWAYS AND RECREATIONAL/MEETING FACILITIES. This model also consists of a number of diverse lighting systems with different light sources. In the base (reference) design, low-mast poles illuminate pedestrian walkways. The luminaires used are 100W MH post lamps with uniform, diffuse noncutoff luminaires. Low wattage (50W) MH lamped light bollards supplement the pathway pole lights. Site lighting attached to the recreational/meeting facility building consists of architectural wall sconces with 2-26W CFLs and canopy down lights with 1-26W compact fluorescent lamping. In addition, stairs and ramps adjacent to the building use step lights with 50W miniature halogen lamps. In the induction lighting model: Pedestrian walkway low-mast pole lamps use 85W (90W with RF transmitter) Induction lighting, replacing 100W MH lighting (125W with ballast) for an energy saving of 35W (28%) per luminaire. Pedestrian walkway bollards use 55W (60W with RF transmitter) Induction lighting, replacing 50W MH lighting (65W with ballast) for an energy saving of 5W (8%) per luminaire. Building architectural wall sconces use 1-55W (60W with RF transmitter) Induction lamp, replacing the 2-26W CFLs (60W with ballast) no energy savings. Canopy down lights use 1-23W (Genura R lamp, 23W including RF transmitter) versus the 1-26W compact fluorescent lamping (30W with ballast) for an energy saving of 7W (23%) per down light. Pedestrian step lights in the Induction model use 10W LED lamping (induction lamping is not suited to this application) versus 50W miniature halogen lamps in the base design. Energy savings of 40W (80%) are achieved. Current high first cost hurtles degrade the cost effectiveness potential of this model. Under current conditions, it is not cost effective and for the most part energy savings are minimal. However, though sconce lighting and down lighting are not cost effective, the Induction lamp solutions offer longer lamp life which may be of interest when frequency or difficulty of maintenance is an issue. LED lighting used in the step lights is cost effective, but is technically not part of the Induction model. MULTI FAMILY TOWNHOUSE APARTMENT COMPLEX with private streets parking zones and pedestrian walkways. This model consist of double (2) head lantern style 150W HPS post lamp luminaires on 16-foot poles for open parking and residential streets within the complex. Lower 12-foot poles with single lantern 100W HPS post lamp luminaires are used for pedestrian walkways. Sconces with 2-26W CFL lamps in each luminaire light porches and entrances to the apartment dwellings. All the base luminaire in this model use uniform, diffuse non-cutoff luminaires. In the Induction lighting model: At the roadways and open parking 100W (110W with RF transmitter) Induction lighting replaces 150W HPS lighting (175W with ballast) for an energy saving of 50W (28%) per luminaire (there are two heads per pole which equals 220W per pole) Pedestrian walkways lamped with 85W (90W with RF transmitter) Induction lighting replaces 100W HPS lighting (125W with ballast) for energy savings of 35W (28%) per luminaire. Maintained light levels for the roadway, parking and pedestrian walkway zones with the Induction lamp model are considerably less than the base HPS design (60% of base design) but still within IESNA recommended illumination levels. Southern California Edison Page 7 Design & Engineering Services September 2007

14 Visual acuity is superior and vastly improved since the Induction lamp color quality is 80-CRI versus a very poor 22-CRI for the HPS system. Porches and entrances wall sconces use 1-55W (60W with RF transmitter) Induction lamp, replacing the 2-26W CFLs (60W with ballast) no energy savings. The sconce lighting is not cost effective but does offer extremely long lamp life which may be of interest when frequency of maintenance is an issue. The cost effectiveness of this model is marginal. High first cost hurtles as well as minimal efficacy differences between the base HPS lighting on the model and the Induction lamp alternates are the primary issues effecting cost effectiveness. Induction lamp design alternates to HPS lighting, in addition to being marginally cost effective, usually work when/if lower illumination levels are allowable. Lower light levels must still meet IESNA minimum standards and the space must obtain owner/user acceptance. FIGURE 5. MODEL A: LOCAL SHOPPING CENTER FIGURE 7. MODEL C: PARK WITH ACTIVITY CENTER FIGURE 6. MODEL B: BUS TRANSFER FACILITY FIGURE 8. MODEL D: MULTI-FAMILY COMPLEX Southern California Edison Page 8 Design & Engineering Services September 2007

15 As stated earlier, limited options, lack of lamp standardization and especially excessive first cost of Induction lamp installations sets up a scenario where cost effectiveness is marginal. However, when these detractors are overcome, Induction lighting may prove cost effective. Installations where ongoing maintenance is either very difficult or extremely costly, Induction lighting may be utilized due to the 100,000-hour lamp life. Overall, knowledge gained from the AGI-32 Induction Lighting model applications A through D proves the design performance and validity of Induction lighting when applied to appropriate design scenarios. Results gained from the computer modeling (AGI-32) also supports further examination and testing. The next phase of this examination should involve duplicating the four model designs within real word site conditions. On site monitoring and evaluation of actual prototype designs will contribute to better defined visual acuity issues as well as determine customer acceptance of Induction lighting for these installations. Even with strong customer acceptance, currently Induction lighting applications will require incentive by the utilities to offset excessive first cost for these projects. Southern California Edison Page 10 Design & Engineering Services September 2007

16 TECHNICAL APPROACH Define and model four (4) distinct space types using IES recommended illumination for residential streetscape and area lighting. Create evaluative lighting models comparing base lighting (typical mainstream light sources and equipment) with energy efficient induction lighting (using AGI-32 lighting software v1.94) to model base lighting standards as well as advanced induction lighting designs The initial step in the approach was to distill the IESNA recommended practices for outdoor lighting associated with residential streetscape and area lighting. STANDARDS FOR TARGET ILLUMINATION - THE FOUR MODELS INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW IESNA EXTERIOR LIGHTING STANDARDS The IESNA Roadway, Pathway and Pedestrian 1 lighting standards as defined within this document pertain to lighting typically produced by use of low-mast pole luminaires, post lamps, wall mounted luminaires, bollards and pathway lighting types. These standards represent IESNA recommended practice for illumination of light commercial and residential zoned lighting. Multi family housing sites, bike paths walkways local shopping area parking, private roadways (streets) sidewalks, transportation transfer points (kiss & ride, bus connectors) and community parks are typical if the sire types where these lighting standards will apply IESNA standards for high traffic commercial roadways, highways, expressways and large commercial sites (regional mall parking, etc.) were excluded in this analysis as these areas usually employ high mast luminaires with 400W and 1000W lamp packages which significantly greater in output than the current range of induction lamp packages available. When, if higher output induction lamps become available these areas may also become candidates for induction lamp alternate designs. OVERALL LIGHTING DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS Lighting roadways pedestrian ways and site areas must accommodate visual needs of night traffic both vehicular and pedestrian. Visual needs can be quantified in terms of pavement illuminance, luminance, uniformity, and direct glare produced by the system light sources. The visual needs along the roadway can be further refined by considering the differences in roadway reflectance characteristics. Basic lighting requirements tend to be similar for most types of land uses. Typical or average security needs are equally as great in a parking lot serving an apartment building, a regional shopping center, or a sports complex. Exits, entrances, gate access, internal connecting roadways or ring roads, and crossaisles should be given special consideration to permit ready identification and to enhance safety. Generally, higher illuminance should be placed along these routes by using appropriate locations of luminaires, larger light sources, and additional luminaires. Illuminance of the driveway access to streets should at least match any local public lighting. For high-volume driveways, such as those at community or regional shopping centers, an increase of 50% in the average public road lighting level is desirable; however, this value should be compatible with local conditions. If the street has no lighting, the basic values in Exhibit B can be used and are applicable to the curb line. For good visibility of objects such as curbs, poles, fire hydrants, and pedestrians, vertical illuminance is important. The shadow effects of trees and fixed objects Southern California Edison Page 11 Design & Engineering Services September 2007

17 such as large signs or building walls also should be examined. It is sometimes practical to adjust luminaire locations to minimize or even eliminate such shadows. Lighting for parking lots should provide not only the recommended minimum illuminance levels but also good color rendition, uniformity, and minimal glare AREA CLASSIFICATIONS (Abutting Land Uses) Certain land uses, such as office and industrial parks, may fit into any of the classifications below. The classification selected should be consistent with the expected night pedestrian activity Commercial. Areas where ordinarily there are many pedestrians during night hours. This definition applies to densely developed business areas outside, as well as within, the central part of a municipality. Commercial areas frequently attract a heavy volume of nighttime vehicular and pedestrian traffic. Intermediate. Areas with frequent moderately heavy nighttime pedestrian activity, as in blocks having libraries, community recreation centers, large apartment buildings, industrial buildings, or neighborhood retail stores. Residential. Residential development or a mixture of residential and small commercial establishments, with few pedestrians at night. This definition includes single-family homes, town houses, and small apartment buildings. PAVEMENT CLASSIFICATIONS The calculation of pavement luminance requires information about the surface reflectance characteristics of the pavement. Studies have shown that most common pavements can be grouped into a limited number of standard road surfaces having specified reflectances. The pavement class is shown in Exhibit A. TABLE 2. EXHIBIT A: ROADWAY SURFACE CLASSIFICATION BY TYPE OF PAVING MATERIALS CLASS/TYPE DESCRIPTION MODE OF REFLECTANCE R1 R2 R3 Cement/concrete road surface or Asphalt road surface with 15% or more artificial brightener and aggregates Asphalt road surface with 60% gravel aggregate (size greater than 10 millimeters) Asphalt road surface with 10% to 15% artificial brightener and aggregate mix (normally used in North America) Asphalt road surface (regular and carpet seal) [Rough texture after months of use typical highway] Mostly diffuse Mixed (diffuse and specular) Slightly specular R4 Asphalt road surface with very smooth texture Mostly specular DESCRIPTIONS AND CLASSIFICATIONS OF TYPES OF EXTERIOR LIGHTING AREAS Collector. The roadways serving traffic between major and local roadways. These are roadways used mainly for traffic movements within residential, commercial, and industrial areas. Local. Roadways used primarily for direct access to residential, commercial, industrial, or other abutting property. They do not include roadways carrying through traffic. Long local roadways are generally divided into short sections by a system of collector roadway systems Alley. Narrow public ways within a block, generally used for vehicular access to the rear of abutting properties. Southern California Edison Page 12 Design & Engineering Services September 2007

18 Sidewalk. Paved or otherwise improved areas for pedestrian use, located within public street rights-of-way that also contain roadways for vehicular traffic Pedestrian Walkway. A public walk for pedestrian traffic, not necessarily within the right-of-way for a vehicular traffic roadway. Included are skywalks (pedestrian overpasses), subwalks (pedestrian tunnels), walkways giving access to parks or block interiors, and midblock street crossings Bikeway. Any road, street, path, or way that is specifically designated as being open to bicycle travel, regardless of whether such facilities are designed for the exclusive use of bicycles or are to be shared with other transportation modes. Type A: Designated bicycle lane. A portion of roadway or shoulder that has been designated for use by bicyclists. It is distinguished from the portion of the roadway for motor vehicle traffic by a paint stripe, curb, or other similar device Type B: Bicycle trail. A separate trail or path from which motor vehicles are prohibited and which is for the exclusive use of bicyclists or the shared use of bicyclists and pedestrians. Where such a trail or path forms a part of a highway, it is separated from the roadways for motor vehicle traffic by an open space or barrier. LIGHTING DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS BY SPECIFIC AREA, ZONE OR FUNCTION Walkway and Bikeway Lighting The procedure to determine the horizontal illuminance values on pedestrian ways for safe and comfortable use is similar to that followed for roadways. Because the design of roadway lighting places greater emphasis on achieving proper illuminance on the roadway, it is customary for the lighting system to be initially selected to suit the needs of the roadway. Then, the system is checked to determine if the sidewalk illuminance levels and uniformity are adequate. If not, the designer may modify the luminaire type or spacing, may provide supplemental lighting primarily for the sidewalk area, or may do both in order to achieve proper illuminance on both roadway and sidewalk. Parking Facility Lighting Objectives. Parking facility lighting is important for vehicular and especially pedestrian safety, for protection against assault, theft, and vandalism; for the convenience of the user; and in some cases for business attraction. Important lighting design criteria for parking areas are source/task/eye geometry, shadows, direct and reflected glare, peripheral detection, modeling of faces and objects, light pollution and trespass, and vertical illuminance. Types of Facilities. For lighting purposes, parking facilities can be classified as either a lot (open) or a garage (covered). Most facilities are one type or the other, but in a multilevel structure the roof is considered open while the lower levels are considered covered. Parking stalls with roofs only (open on all sides) may be treated as lots depending on the configuration of the space and the height of the spaces. The illuminance requirements for all parking facilities depend largely on pedestrian needs and perceived personal security issues. Parking Lots. Illuminance recommendations for active lots open to the public, customers, or employees are given in Exhibit B. The illuminance should be measured, or calculated, on a clear pavement, without any parked vehicles. The maximum and minimum values are maintained illuminances. This condition occurs just prior to lamp replacement and luminaire cleaning. Parking Garages. Illumination recommendations for parking garages are given in Exhibit B. These apply to covered and enclosed facilities intended for use by the general public, and those used by residents, customers, and employees of apartment buildings or commercial developments. They are not Southern California Edison Page 13 Design & Engineering Services September 2007

19 intended to apply to garages used exclusively for repair or storage of commercial vehicles, or where vehicles are parked by attendants. From a security standpoint, and to reduce personal apprehension, garages need higher illuminances than open parking facilities. Good lighting uniformity should be provided to enhance pedestrian safety since access aisles are used by pedestrians for walking between cars and stairways or elevators. While Exhibit B specifies that the minimum vertical illumination be at least 50% of the minimum the horizontal illuminance, a higher percentage is desirable in garages to enhance visibility and security Driving ramps can be contained entirely within the structure or mounted along the perimeter. The latter are usually open to the sky and may require little or no daytime lighting. Ramps with parking along one or both sides are called sloping floor designs and require basic garage illumination The entrance area is defined as the drive aisle and any adjacent parking stalls, from the portal or physical building line to 20 m (60 ft) inside the structure. Where parking is not provided next to the drive lane, the width of entrance area should be defined by the adjacent walls, if any, but should not exceed 15 m (50 ft). Elevated illuminances during the day are needed for the transition from full daylight to the relatively low interior illuminances. Ordinarily, entry to a garage involves a turn from a street or service road. Designs that involve a straight entry run of some distance (50 m [160 ft] or more) allow drivers to enter at higher speeds and may require correspondingly longer transition areas. In such cases, the illuminances can be stepped down in successive stages beyond the first 15 m (50 ft) SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS. Lighting of access roads to all types of parking facilities should match the local highway lighting as much as possible. The average maintained illuminance should be compatible with local conditions. The average-to-minimum illuminance uniformity ratio should not exceed 3:1. In all parking facilities, consideration should be given to color rendition. Users sometimes have trouble identifying their cars under light sources with poor color rendering characteristics. In many parking facilities, closed-circuit television is necessary. The illuminance, the light source, the photometric distribution, and the pattern of luminaires as well as the camera position must be considered to ensure effective results. Special Considerations for Open Facilities. In open parking facilities, exits, entrances, loading zones, pedestrian crossings, and collector lanes should be given special priority to ensure safety and security. Outdoor pedestrian stairways require luminaires to illuminate changes in step elevation. Parking facilities for rest or scenic areas adjacent to roadways generally employ lower illuminances. See the section on "Rest Areas" earlier in this chapter for more information. Special Consideration for Covered Facilities. In covered parking facilities, vertical illuminances of objects such as columns and walls should be equal to the horizontal values given in Exhibit B. These vertical values should be for a location 1.8 m (6 ft) above the pavement. In covered parking facilities the design should be arranged so that some lighting can be left on for security reasons. The low level from Exhibit B for open parking facilities can be used for this purpose. Southern California Edison Page 14 Design & Engineering Services September 2007

20 TABLE 3. EXHIBIT B: IESNA RECOMMENDED EXTERIOR LIGHTING ILLUMINATION SELECTED APPLICATIONS LOCATIONS AND TASKS Building Exteriors ILLUMINANCE (horizontal Lux) ILLUMINANCE (vertical Lux) Minimum Average Minimum Average Notes Entrances Active (pedestrian/conveyance) (not stated) 50 (not stated) 30 *3 Inactive (locked, infrequent use) (not stated) 30 (not stated) 30 *3 Prominent structures (not stated) 50 (not stated) 50 *3 Gardens and Parks General lighting (not stated) 2 *3 Paths, steps, ramps away from building (not stated) 3 *3 Gazebos, terraces, patios, decks, etc. (not stated) 30 *3 Roadways Collector (Intermediate) Collector (Residential) Local (Intermediate) Local (Residential) (not stated) (not stated) (not stated) (not stated) 6 (R1) 9 (R2 & R3) 8 (R4) (not stated) (not stated) 4 (R1) 6 (R2 & R3) 5 (R4) (not stated) (not stated) 5 (R1) 7 (R2 & R3) 6 (R4) (not stated) (not stated) 3 (R1) 4 (R2 & R3) 4 (R4) (not stated) (not stated) *1 *1 *2 *2 Pedestrian Ways Sidewalks (roadside) & Type A bikeways Intermediate (not stated) 6 (not stated) 11 *3 Residential (not stated) 2 (not stated) 5 *3 Walkway (not roadside) & Type B bikeway, as well as stairways (not stated) 5 (not stated) 5 *3 Pedestrian tunnels (not stated) 43 (not stated) 54 *3 Parking Lots Basic Illumination (not stated) *4 Enhanced Security (not stated) *5 Parking Garages (covered parking) Basic Illumination *6 Ramps (Day) *6 Ramps (Night) *6 Entrances (Day) *6 Entrances (Night) *6 Stairways *6 Southern California Edison Page 15 Design & Engineering Services September 2007

21 LOCATIONS AND TASKS ILLUMINANCE (horizontal Lux) ILLUMINANCE (vertical Lux) Minimum Average Minimum Average Notes Bus Transfer Facility Canopied Waiting Area (exterior Spaces) (not stated) 200 (not stated) (not stated) Open Waiting Area (exterior Spaces) (not stated) 30 to 50 (not stated) (not stated) Roadway & Parking *7 NOTES: *1: Uniformity ratio of 4 to 1 (average to minimum) *2: Uniformity ratio of 6 to 1 (average to minimum) *3: Average vertical lux required when pedestrian security is an issue (measured 6-feet above walkway) *4: Uniformity ratio of 20 to 1 (maximum to minimum) *5: Uniformity ratio of 15 to 1 maximum to minimum) *6: Uniformity ratio of 10 to 1 maximum to minimum) *7: Refer to criteria for Roadways and Parking Lots found in this table SITES/APPLICATIONS SUITED TO INDUCTION TECHNOLOGIES Introduction and Overview Sites/Applications Induction Lighting Models Multi family housing sites, bike paths walkways local shopping area parking, private roadways (streets) sidewalks, transportation transfer points (kiss & ride, bus connectors) and community parks are the potential sites/applications for the induction lighting models. Use of induction Lamp alternates to MH and HPS lighting is most appropriate for these applications as lumen output of the induction lamps is similar to mid-range MH and HPS lamp systems used when designing this type of lighting. Luminaires used in the models are; post lamps (lanterns), wall sconces (lanterns) cut-off and directional luminaires on poles 20-feet or less as well as wall packs and bollards. Base designs are MH/HPS lighting. Induction lighting design alternates use the most efficient and comparable performing induction lamp variant of the base luminaires. IESNA minimum recommended lighting standards (maintained minimum and/or average Lux as well as uniformity ratios) are applied to base MH/HPS designs as well as the Induction lamp alternative designs. Other IESNA recommended practices appropriate to the models will also be employed. For each model the IESNA standards (1.7 - EXHIBIT A) applicable to that model type are used. MODEL A Neighborhood Shopping Parking Lot: Post Lamp (lantern) Luminaires under 20-foot mounting. This model is based on use of post light (lantern type) luminaires mounted on 16-foot high poles for the parking zones. There are two lantern luminaires mounted to each pole. Zones adjacent to entrances use single lanterns, wall mounted to building façade. Parameters of the design model are as follows: Parking lot Enhanced Security IESNA Horizontal Illumination Target: IESNA Vertical Illumination Target: 25 Lux (ave.) 5 Lux (min.) 2.5 Lux (min.) Southern California Edison Page 16

22 IESNA Uniformity Target: 15:1 (maximum to minimum) Base Lighting Luminaire: 175W MH 210W (with ballast) Induction Lighting Alternate Luminaire: 100W Icetron 106W (with RF mod) Adjacencies to Store Entrances Active (pedestrian conveyance) IESNA Horizontal Illumination Target: 50Lux (ave.) (min. not stated) IESNA Vertical Illumination Target: 30 Lux ave.) (min. not stated) IESNA Uniformity Target: (not stated) Base Lighting Luminaire: 175W MH 210W (with ballast) Induction Lighting Alternate Luminaire: 100W Icetron 106W (with RF mod) TABLE 4. SHOPPING MALL AS BUILT LUMINAIRE SCHEDULE TABLE 5. SHOPPING MALL INDUCTION FLUORESCENT ALTERNATIVE LUMINAIRE SCHEDULE MODEL B Multi Family Housing Development: Private Roadways and Walkways, foot pole heights Parameters of the design model are as follows: Roadway Local Residential (R2-R3) IESNA Horizontal Illumination Target: IESNA Vertical Illumination Target: IESNA Uniformity Target: Parking Lot IESNA Horizontal Illumination Target: IESNA Vertical Illumination Target: IESNA Uniformity Target: Walkway/Pathway IESNA Horizontal Illumination Target: IESNA Vertical Illumination Target: IESNA Uniformity Target: Gazebos/Structures & Terraces IESNA Horizontal Illumination Target: IESNA Vertical Illumination Target: IESNA Uniformity Target: 4 Lux (ave.) (min. not stated) (not stated) 6:1 (average to minimum) 10 Lux (ave.) 2 Lux (min.) 1 Lux (min.) 20:1 (maximum to minimum) 5 Lux (ave.) (min. not stated) 5 Lux ave.) (min. not stated) (not stated) 50Lux (ave.) (min. not stated) 30 Lux ave.) (min. not stated) (not stated) Southern California Edison Page 17

23 TABLE 6. MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AS BUILT LUMINAIRE SCHEDULE TABLE 7. MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT INDUCTION FLUORESCENT ALTERNATIVE LUMINAIRE SCHEDULE MODEL C Suburban Bus Transfer Facility; Kiss & Ride, Shelter and commuter parking foot poles Parameters of the design model are as follows: Roadway Local Intermediate (R2-R3) IESNA Horizontal Illumination Target: 7 Lux (ave.) (min. not stated) IESNA Vertical Illumination Target: (not stated) IESNA Uniformity Target: 6:1 (average to minimum) Parking Lot IESNA Horizontal Illumination Target: IESNA Vertical Illumination Target: IESNA Uniformity Target: Walkway/Pathway IESNA Horizontal Illumination Target: IESNA Vertical Illumination Target: IESNA Uniformity Target: Under Canopy Waiting Area IESNA Horizontal Illumination Target: IESNA Vertical Illumination Target: IESNA Uniformity Target: 10 Lux (ave.) 2 Lux (min.) 1 Lux (min.) 20:1 (maximum to minimum) 6 Lux (ave.) (min. not stated) 11 Lux ave.) (min. not stated) (not stated) 100Lux (ave.) (min. not stated) (not stated) (not stated) Open Waiting Area IESNA Horizontal Illumination Target: 30Lux (ave.) (min. not stated) IESNA Vertical Illumination Target: (not stated) IESNA Uniformity Target: (not stated) Gazebos/Structures & Terraces Southern California Edison Page 18

24 [Restroom Terrace Area] IESNA Horizontal Illumination Target: IESNA Vertical Illumination Target: IESNA Uniformity Target: 50Lux (ave.) (min. not stated) 30 Lux ave.) (min. not stated) (not stated) TABLE 8. SUBURBAN BUS TRANSFER FACILITY AS BUILT LUMINAIRE SCHEDULE TABLE 9. SUBURBAN BUS TRANSFER FACILITY INDUCTION FLUORESCENT ALTERNATIVE LUMINAIRE SCHEDULE MODEL D Community Park with Walkways and Recreational Zones Low level, Pedestrian Scale Luminaires Parameters of the design model are as follows: Roadway Local Residential (R2-R3) IESNA Horizontal Illumination Target: IESNA Vertical Illumination Target: IESNA Uniformity Target: Parking Lot IESNA Horizontal Illumination Target: IESNA Vertical Illumination Target: IESNA Uniformity Target: Walkway/Pathway IESNA Horizontal Illumination Target: IESNA Vertical Illumination Target: IESNA Uniformity Target: Gazebos/Structures & Terraces IESNA Horizontal Illumination Target: IESNA Vertical Illumination Target: IESNA Uniformity Target: 4 Lux (ave.) (min. not stated) (not stated) 6:1 (average to minimum) 10 Lux (ave.) 2 Lux (min.) 1 Lux (min.) 20:1 (maximum to minimum) 6 Lux (ave.) (min. not stated) 11 Lux ave.) (min. not stated) (not stated) 50Lux (ave.) (min. not stated) 30 Lux ave.) (min. not stated) (not stated) Southern California Edison Page 19

25 TABLE 10. COMMUNITY PARK AS BUILT LUMINAIRE SCHEDULE TABLE 11. COMMUNITY PARK INDUCTION FLUORESCENT ALTERNATIVE LUMINAIRE SCHEDULE Southern California Edison Page 20

26 RESULTS The four models studies were created with and analyzed using AGI-32 v1.95, from Lighting Analysts, Inc. Littleton, Colorado. AGI-32 is a software tool used to predict the photometric performance of selected luminaires in a simulated environment. The data contained in this section is the result of this analysis. Models were constructed that closely represented composites of the four sites chosen for this study. Appropriate luminaires (IES data files) were added to each model to reflect the current lighting at each location. These luminaires were then replaced with induction fluorescent luminaires (IES data files) when they were available from commercial sources. In some instances these data files had to be constructed using Photometric Toolbox, a software tool provided by Lighting Analysts, Inc. and placed into existing luminaire reflector envelopes because of the limited luminaire types available in the marketplace. The results are presented by model type A through D. MODEL A: LOCAL SHOPPING CENTER STRIP MALL FIGURE 9. MODEL A: SHOPPING STRIP MALL ARIAL VIEW OF COMPOSITE MODEL TABLE 12. LIGHT LEVEL COMPARISON FOR THE LOCAL SHOPPING CENTER-STRIP MALL AS BUILT VS. INDUCTION FLUORESCENT ALTERNATIVE Southern California Edison Page 21

27 TABLE 13. DETAILED STATISTICS BY ILLUMINANCE MEASUREMENT AREA FOR AS BUILT LIGHTING TABLE 14. DETAILED STATISTICS BY ILLUMINANCE MEASUREMENT AREA FOR INDUCTION FLUORESCENT ALTERNATIVES FIGURE 10. MODEL I: TYPICAL ILLUMINANCE CALCULATION GRID FROM SHOPPING MALL PARKING AREA Southern California Edison Page 22

28 TABLE 15. DETAILED STATISTICS BY ILLUMINANCE MEASUREMENT AREA FOR INDUCTION FLUORESCENT ALTERNATIVES This calculation matrix was provided by and used with permission of Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) MODEL B: MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING COMPLEX FIGURE 11. MODEL B: TYPICAL COVERED PARKING STALLS AT APARTMENT COMPLEX Southern California Edison Page 23

29 TABLE 16. LIGHT LEVEL COMPARISON FOR THE MULTI FAMILY HOUSING COMPLEX AS BUILT VS. INDUCTION FLUORESCENT ALTERNATIVE TABLE 17. DETAILED STATISTICS BY ILLUMINANCE MEASUREMENT AREA FOR AS BUILT LIGHTING TABLE 18. DETAILED STATISTICS BY ILLUMINANCE MEASUREMENT AREA FOR INDUCTION FLUORESCENT ALTERNATIVES Southern California Edison Page 24

30 FIGURE 12. MODEL B: MULTI-FAMILY APARTMENT COMPLEX EXAMPLE OF CALCULATION GRID ISOMETRIC VIEW MODEL C: SUBURBAN BUS TRANSFER FACILITY FIGURE 13. MODEL C: BUS TRANSFER FACILITY COVERED CUSTOMER WAITING AREAS Southern California Edison Page 25

31 TABLE 19. LIGHT LEVEL COMPARISON FOR THE SUBURBAN BUS TRANSFER FACILITY AS BUILT VS. INDUCTION FLUORESCENT ALTERNATIVE TABLE 20. DETAILED STATISTICS BY ILLUMINANCE MEASUREMENT AREA FOR AS BUILT LIGHTING TABLE 21. DETAILED STATISTICS BY ILLUMINANCE MEASUREMENT AREA FOR INDUCTION FLUORESCENT ALTERNATIVES MODEL D: COMMUNITY CENTER PARK AND GARDEN FIGURE 14. MODEL D: COMMUNITY PARK ARIAL VIEW OF COMPOSITE MODEL Southern California Edison Page 26

32 TABLE 22. LIGHT LEVEL COMPARISON FOR THE COMMUNITY CENTER PARK AND GARDEN FACILITY AS BUILT VS. INDUCTION FLUORESCENT ALTERNATIVE TABLE 23. DETAILED STATISTICS BY ILLUMINANCE MEASUREMENT AREA FOR AS BUILT LIGHTING TABLE 24. DETAILED STATISTICS BY ILLUMINANCE MEASUREMENT AREA FOR INDUCTION FLUORESCENT ALTERNATIVES Southern California Edison Page 27