Pacific Gas and Electric Company - ETCC ca

Pacific Gas and Electric Company

Emerging Technologies Program

Application Assessment Report #0805

Outdoor Lighting Symposium Report

Held at California Lighting Technology Center (CLTC)

Issued: November 2008 Project Manager: Mary Matteson Bryan, P.E. Pacific Gas and Electric Company Prepared By: Nancy Clanton, P.E. Clanton and Associates, Inc.

Legal Notice This report was prepared by Pacific Gas and Electric Company for exclusive use by its employees and agents. Neither Pacific Gas and Electric Company nor any of its employees and agents: (1) makes any written or oral warranty, expressed or implied, including, but not limited to those

concerning merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose; (2) assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of

any information, apparatus, product, process, method, or policy contained herein; or (3) represents that its use would not infringe any privately owned rights, including, but not

limited to, patents, trademarks, or copyrights.

Copyright, 2008, Pacific Gas and Electric Company. All rights reserved.

Page 1 of 22 November 2008

Contents 1. Executive Summary ................................................................................................... 2 2. Introduction .............................................................................................................. 2

2.1 Approach............................................................................................................... 2 2.2 Background ........................................................................................................... 3 2.3 Project Goals and Objectives.................................................................................... 3 2.4 Market Potential ..................................................................................................... 4

3. Symposium Structure and Process ............................................................................... 5 3.1 Attendees.............................................................................................................. 5 3.2 Agenda ................................................................................................................. 5 3.3 Symposium Results ................................................................................................ 6

4. Presentations ............................................................................................................ 6 4.1 Outdoor lighting and energy impact: California Energy Commission viewpoint................ 7 4.2 Outdoor lighting and energy impact: Utility viewpoint ................................................. 7 4.3 Current IESNA lighting standards ............................................................................. 7 4.4 Visibility needs....................................................................................................... 7 4.5 Glare: Disability and discomfort ............................................................................... 8 4.6 Lamp spectral distribution: Environmental viewpoint................................................... 8 4.7 Lamp spectral distribution: Visibility viewpoint ........................................................... 8 4.8 Adaptive standards / Visibility .................................................................................. 8

5. Update on Current Research ....................................................................................... 8 5.1 California Lighting Technology Center ....................................................................... 9 5.2 Lighting Research Center......................................................................................... 9 5.3 University of Nebraska ............................................................................................ 9 5.4 Pennsylvania State ................................................................................................. 9 5.5 University of Colorado Lighting Research Center......................................................... 9 5.6 Virginia Tech.......................................................................................................... 9

6. Stakeholders’ Presentations ...................................................................................... 10 6.1 Outdoor lighting and energy impact: Corporate viewpoint.......................................... 10 6.2 Outdoor lighting and energy impact: Cities’ viewpoint ............................................... 10 6.3 Outdoor lighting and energy impact: Global viewpoint............................................... 10

7. Breakout Sessions ................................................................................................... 11 7.1 Session 1: Glare / Spectral Distribution ................................................................... 11 7.2 Session 2: Adaptive Standards............................................................................... 11 7.3 Session 3: Glare................................................................................................... 12 7.4 Session 4: Adaptive Standards............................................................................... 12 7.5 Session 5: Spectral Distribution.............................................................................. 12 7.6 Reporting, Day 1 .................................................................................................. 13 7.7 Breakout Sessions, Day 2 ...................................................................................... 13

8. Assignments for Action Plans..................................................................................... 14 9. Conclusions............................................................................................................. 15

9.1 Key Issues Identified ............................................................................................ 15 9.2 Key Research Areas .............................................................................................. 16 9.3 Actions Planned.................................................................................................... 16

Appendix A – Attendees...................................................................................................... 18 Appendix B – Original Agenda ............................................................................................. 20 Appendix C – Abbreviations................................................................................................. 21


1. Executive Summary

The purpose of this Outdoor Lighting Symposium was to bring together researchers and stakeholders to identify and address key issues in efficient outdoor lighting, particularly in the arena of outdated lighting standards. One of the key goals was to begin the process of generating new lighting standards and recommended best practices that would allow the use of emerging outdoor lighting technologies that have the potential to save energy in outdoor lighting, while increasing or maintaining lighting quality. Participants suggested that with new or revised lighting standards, energy savings potential could be over 50% for outdoor lighting. This represents a significant savings, especially for municipalities and Departments of Transportations where energy and maintenance costs represent a major part of street and roadway lighting budgets. Energy savings on outdoor lighting is also very significant for private properties. Key issues identified for saving energy focused primarily on emerging efficient lighting sources and on using adaptive standards for reducing lighting levels and energy use during periods of low activity or seasonal effects such as snow cover. Visual quality issues concerned glare and exploring the effects of lamp spectral distribution and lighting levels on human vision and the nighttime environment. Since the current standards and recommended practices do not fully address the different attributes of various lighting sources, there is a compelling need to update the standards. This Symposium is the first step in that process. Attendees at this symposium concluded that they needed to support on-going research in developing best practices for use of various lighting sources, develop visibility metrics, and conduct demonstration projects that would test proof of concept for the visibility metrics and adaptive standards. These results will be given to the standards writing organizations such as the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA) and the International Commission on Illumination (CIE) for incorporation into standards and recommended practices. Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), Southern California Edison (SCE) and the California Energy Commission (CEC), through the California Lighting Technology Center (CLTC) sponsored the Symposium. The Symposium was organized by Clanton & Associates, Inc. with sub-consultants Heschong Mahone Group, Naomi Miller Lighting Design, Terry McGowan, Lighting Sciences, Inc., and Benya Lighting. Researchers, lighting professionals, and stakeholders were invited to explore the current research, identify future research needs, and to hear stakeholders’ immediate and future needs. The next round, in spring of 2009, will continue this process to support new energy-saving standards.

2. Introduction

Current outdoor lighting recommendations and standards are partly based on research, but mostly are a result of technical committee consensus. In order to update these recommendations and standards, targeted research and demonstration projects are needed to provide technical rigor to justify change. The Outdoor Lighting Symposium was held at CLTC to accelerate this process. Invited stakeholders and researchers spent two days identifying issues and developing a research and demonstration road map for these changes.

2.1 Approach

The Symposium invited researchers, stake holders, interested Federal Agencies, and lighting consultants. This knowledgeable and influential group was well qualified to develop research and next-steps action plans.


The Symposium results will be the basis for ongoing research and demonstration projects that will provide the required technical support for updating IESNA and CIE recommended practices and standards.

2.2 Background

In a number of residential street lighting demonstration projects, including one in Anchorage, Alaska and one in Oakland, California, preliminary results strongly show the effects of lamp spectral distribution and perceived lighting levels. For example, in the Anchorage demonstration, the control case (HPS) was perceived as “darker” compared to the LED and induction lamp systems, even though the HPS system produced double the measured photopic light level as the white light alternative. This is supported by the study done in Oakland California as a collaborative effort between PG&E and the DOE. In this study, users preferred the LED lighting, citing perceptions of improved visibility, overall appearance, and nighttime safety. The effect of snow in the yards was also related to increased light level perception. The questions raised by the findings in these demonstrations prompted the need for this Symposium. Current IESNA recommendations do not reflect current knowledge or technology. If further research confirms the validity of these findings, then revisions to the technical recommendations have the potential to save significant amounts of energy worldwide. IESNA produces several types of documents that address outdoor lighting: Recommended Practices (RP), Design Guides (DG), Technical Memorandums (TM), General (G), and the Lighting Handbook 9th Edition. These documents are the basis of the power density standards in Title 24, and are intended to be updated at least every five years. Since the documents are produced by volunteer committees, the timeliness of updates could be improved. Below is a partial list of applicable documents that address exterior lighting: RP-6-01 Sports and Recreational Area Lighting (this will not be addressed in the Symposium) RP-8-00 Roadway Lighting RP-20-98 Lighting for Parking Facilities RP-33-99 Lighting for Exterior Environments (scheduled for update in 2008) DG-5-94 Recommended Lighting for Walkways and Class 1 Bikeways G-1-03 Guideline on Security Lighting for People, Property, and Public Spaces The most widely used design criteria in these documents are illuminance values and uniformity. RP-8-00 also addresses two other design methods (luminance and small target visibility). RP-8-00 also has limits on veiling luminance (glare). RP-33-99 begins to distinguish between lighted ambient environments (E1 low to E4 high) as it applies to light trespass tolerances. None of these documents account for value adjustment for lamp spectral distribution. DG-5-94 and RP-33-99 are the most complete in addressing low and high pedestrian volumes. There are inconsistencies in addressing uniformity criteria (maximum to minimum; and average to minimum). There is only one document, TM-12-07 Spectral Effects, that addresses the effect of lamp spectral distribution in any depth, though recommendations on how to adjust values are not included in the document.

2.3 Project Goals and Objectives

Communities around the country and world are looking for ways to reduce energy use. Street lighting offers a significant opportunity for energy savings, since it represents a large amount of municipal energy consumption. Other outdoor lighting applications, such as parking lot and parking garage lighting, also offer opportunities for significant energy savings. With the increasing


popularity of long life lamp sources such as LED and induction lamps, maintenance can also be reduced. Huge investments will be made in the next few years as communities and other entities start replacing all or some of their street and area lighting with these lower energy alternatives. In order to not overlight, the effects of lamp spectral distribution and mesopic vision must be addressed in the IESNA recommendations. Also, reducing lighting levels during periods of low activity use such as curfew hours and for seasonal effects when snow is on the ground offer more energy saving opportunities. Applying task/ambient lighting design techniques create additional opportunities to reduce the lighting and energy consumption levels. This Symposium brought together the leading experts in this field, along with university researchers and stakeholders to discuss, recommend, and develop plans of action to finish research and propose demonstration projects to provide recommendations to the IESNA and CIE documents. Continuing support to the volunteer committees in helping with necessary research and demonstration projects will also be needed.

2.4 Market Potential

Market potential can be found in: • new emerging technologies, including advanced light sources such as LED and induction

lamps • advanced low glare luminaire designs • addressable control systems that can dim or turn off lighting during periods of low activity

and seasonal changes • occupancy based control systems that can dim or turn off lighting during periods of low

activity • new techniques in outdoor lighting that provide layers of light for different activities and

conditions The market sector includes all outdoor lighting, including the private sector and public areas with the Right of Way such as street and roadway lighting. In the private sector, Ralph Williams from Walmart said that using LEDs for signage resulted in 60% energy savings, and easier maintenance. Walmart’s goal is 20% energy reduction in existing stores by 2012. The preliminary demonstration project in Anchorage, Alaska led to an estimate that potential savings could be $350,000 per year, with a payback of about five years. This does not include reduced maintenance costs. A Navigant study done for DOE on the potential for energy savings by converting to LEDs showed that in the outdoor white-light market, 57.3 TWh per year of site electricity savings are available in the street and area light and outdoor step, porch, and walkway applications. If combined with electricity savings available in commercial advertising signs, traffic signals, holiday lights, exit signs and other applications that are grid-connected, and with the savings already captured to date, approximately 2039 TBtu of national energy consumption could be avoided. This represents 2.0 quadrillion Btus, “quads”, or approximately two percent of total national energy consumption in 2007. In the global market, the Clinton Climate Initiative showed potential for 35% to 70% energy savings and emissions reductions from improved public lighting. Potential barriers include having the data accepted by the technical organizations, and the timing for incorporation into their standards. Since this is a completely fresh view on existing standards, many current views and ownership of the way things have always been done need to be overcome.


Another potential barrier is providing enough resources to these efforts in order to accomplish these changes in a timely and thorough manner.

3. Symposium Structure and Process

Since this was intended to be an exploratory and creative investigation, the members, structure, and process of the Symposium were designed to facilitate these goals. The Symposium addressed three fundamental issues or questions concerning outdoor lighting visibility and energy use: spectral distribution, glare, and adaptive standards. The first day was dedicated to researchers presenting the issues on these topics, followed by breakout sessions for further discussion. The second day focused on hearing from the stakeholders, followed by breakout sessions that began to develop action plans for research and implementation.

3.1 Attendees

Attendees to the Symposium were carefully selected to get a balanced group of stakeholders, researchers, and lighting designers. To facilitate discussion and decisions, the group size was kept small. This often meant allowing only one person from each organization to attend, Because of the high interest in this symposium, there were many more people that wished to attend than there was room to accommodate. A “standby list” was created in the event one of the invited guests could not attend. It is of particular interest to note that most of the attendees stayed for the entire two full days of the Symposium. Funders and organizers included Southern California Edison, Pacific Gas and Electric Company Clanton & Associates, CLTC, and The Heschong Mahone Group. This report is derived from meeting notes taken by recorders from The Heschong Mahone Group and E Source. A complete list of attendees is in Appendix A.

3.2 Agenda

The original agenda is in Appendix B. As expected, this was modified to reflect the developing needs of the Symposium. Sections 4 and 5 present the actual sequence of sessions. The Symposium began with a welcome and introduction by Nancy Clanton and Dr. Michael Siminovitch. The six presentations before the break quickly gave an overview of energy, visibility, and standards baselines.

• Outdoor lighting and energy impact: California Energy Commission viewpoint; presented by Michael Seaman, California Energy Commission

• Outdoor lighting and energy impact: Utility viewpoint; presented by Mary Matteson Bryan, Pacific Gas & Electric

• Visibility needs: presented by Carl Anderson, Federal Highway Administration • Current IESNA lighting standards, presented by Nancy Clanton • Lamp spectral distribution: Visibility viewpoint; presented by Ian Lewin, Lighting Sciences,

Inc. • Adaptive standards / Visibility: presented by Paul Lutkevich, PB World

Following the break, researchers presented the current state of their efforts and what they wanted to see in future research.

• California Lighting Technology Center, presented by Michael Siminovitch • Lighting Research Center, presented by Kostos Papamichael from a paper sent by LRC • University of Nebraska, presented by Clarence Waters


• Pennsylvania State, presented by Kevin Hauser

• University of Colorado Lighting Research Center, presented by Brent Protzman

• Virginia Tech, presented by Carl Anderson, Federal Highway Administration

There was one afternoon breakout session on the first day. The glare and lamp spectral distribution groups met together to develop the top list of issues. Adaptive standards met as a breakout group to discuss the possibility of varying lighting levels depending on activity use, seasonal effects, demand response, and other unique circumstances. At the end of the breakout session, the Symposium came together to hear reports from each group. After adjournment, an informal evening reception was held at the CLTC. The second day, stakeholders gave their presentations in the morning:

• Outdoor lighting and energy impact: Corporate viewpoint; presented by Ralph Williams, Walmart

• Outdoor lighting and energy impact: Cities’ viewpoint; presented by Tom Cartier, San Diego, and Michael Barber, Anchorage

• Outdoor lighting and energy impact: Global viewpoint; presented by Robert Koenig, Clinton Climate Initiative

This was followed by three concurrent breakout groups which addressed required research and action plans for glare, spectral distribution, and adaptive standards. Each group had a facilitator and a recorder. All groups reported results back to the larger group. Details of the presentations and breakout groups are given in the following sections. The Symposium finished by setting action plans and assignments for the committees to follow through on those plans. Nancy Clanton and Dr. Michael Siminovitch gave the closing remarks.

3.3 Symposium Results

This Symposium Proceedings highlights the presentation summaries, identifies the important outdoor lighting issues, and presents the action plan for implementation and further research. It is important to note that this Symposium was identified as the first step in achieving energy savings, evaluating emerging technologies, and producing visibility-based metrics for outdoor lighting solutions. Ongoing committees were formed to continue the work outlined in this Symposium. Participants agreed to reconvene in the Spring of 2009 to report results and continue the process.

4. Presentations

After the welcome and introduction by Dr. Michael Siminovitch and Nancy Clanton, presentations were given to provide background for the decision making sessions. Each presentation was a short synopsis (10 minutes) on the topic, given by the leading experts in each field.


After that, the attendees worked in breakout groups, which later reported to the Symposium as a whole. The following notes cover the highlights of each session. The presentations on the first day focused on identifying the issues concerning energy impacts, lighting recommendation baselines, visibility needs, glare (disability and discomfort), environmental impacts of lamp spectral distribution, visual impacts of lamp spectral distribution and adaptive standards. The second day, presentations from stakeholders provided input into existing and planned demonstrations and energy goals. Stakeholders presented the corporate, municipality, and global views. These presentations provided real-life issues with urgent timeline requests. They also highlighted energy savings possibilities. The lighting research universities presented their current and past research activities so the group could be briefed on existing and current research.

4.1 Outdoor lighting and energy impact: California Energy Commission viewpoint

Presented by Michael Seaman, California Energy Commission America is overlighted. Although outdoor lighting is only about 3% of electricity use, it matters. With climate change, overall energy consumption going up, and peak hours going into darkness, we need to do everything we can. The PIER program spends $62 million a year on R&D, and their research is used by utilities to evaluate their programs and policies. It is critical to include industry in the conversation.

4.2 Outdoor lighting and energy impact: Utility viewpoint

Presented by Mary Matteson Bryan, Pacific Gas & Electric Utilities are interested in emerging outdoor lighting technologies to meet their customers’ needs, reduce energy consumption, and address climate change. We are mandated to reduce outdoor lighting by 25% by 2018, in addition to other demand reduction goals. The emerging technologies group teamed with DOE on a study of LED street lights in Oakland, and other utilities (PG&E, SCE, SDG&E, SMUD) are also engaged in outdoor lighting research.

4.3 Current IESNA lighting standards

Presented by Nancy Clanton, Clanton and Associates, LLC, Inc. This Symposium is the result of my frustration after a highly successful demonstration in Anchorage. With long winter nights, they need more lighting, but also need to save energy, preserve the night sky, and minimize light trespass. We set up six test streets, and found that the busloads of people who reviewed them strongly preferred white light over HPS, and lower light levels for residential streets. The 85 watt induction luminaire was the clear favorite. What we don’t have is clear evidence of the effects of spectral distribution on area lighting, clear adaptive standards, or correct glare metrics. We also need to evaluate the importance of community feedback.

4.4 Visibility needs

Presented by Carl Anderson, Federal Highway Administration The good news is that motor vehicle fatalities are down 9% this year, but the bad news is we don’t know why. We need to establish federal highway lighting baseline, and bring more research to bear on how lighting design affects safety. There is a lot of data on traffic injuries and fatalities, but very


little on lighting quality parameters. There are fewer volunteers to work on this (CIE) – we need more research and standards groups and associations to participate. Agencies have tort liability concerns, so we must update the standards. New tools are available, for example, Virginia’s smart roadway, CCD photometry.

4.5 Glare: Disability and discomfort

Presented by Terry McGowan, American Lighting Association Reducing glare would reduce wasted lighting and light pollution, and improve efficiency. However, glare is highly subjective, we can’t measure it, and we have no standards for it. It is always the result of too much light, and therefore links to energy use. For disability glare, we have a model and can calculate it, but can’t measure it. Discomfort glare is most pervasive, but has no consistent parameters. Nuisance glare is annoying and distracting, but again, there are no standards or units of measurement.

4.6 Lamp spectral distribution: Environmental viewpoint

Presented by Travis Longcore, USC Center for Sustainable Cities, Urban Wildlands Group (via webcast) We can mitigate the effects of light on wildlife by looking at the duration, direction, intensity, and spectrum of the light. Full spectrum light is the worst, and there is no single wildlife-friendly wavelength, but there are many site- and species-specific ways to minimize harm. Some examples are avoiding UV light (attracts insects), avoiding blue light, using flashing lights rather than constant lights on towers (for birds), and turning off lights that aren’t needed.

4.7 Lamp spectral distribution: Visibility viewpoint

Presented by Ian Lewin, Lighting Sciences Inc. Not only is it important to reduce light levels, but it’s also important to use the right spectral distribution. Most nighttime driving takes place under mesopic conditions, when yellow sources (such as high pressure sodium) have reduced effectiveness for viewing. LED street lights offer the possibility of producing white light, which may improve visibility, and thus reaction time.

4.8 Adaptive standards / Visibility

Presented by Paul Lutkevich, PB World Finland already has dynamic management of nighttime roadway lighting, and sample projects are underway in Canada and the UK. If conditions change, you can change the lighting. For example, when traffic or pedestrian volumes decrease, you can go to lower lighting levels. RP-8-05 classifies roads by type and also by amount of pedestrians. It also makes recommendations for pedestrian areas near roads. However, it does not address when not to light at all, when headlamps are enough. Even tree types have an effect. Vertical lighting levels were reduced by leaves on trees by up to 65%. Clearly, additional research is needed.

5. Update on Current Research


Six research institutions presented updates on their current projects.

5.1 California Lighting Technology Center

Presented by Michael Siminovitch The PIER Smart Energy Initiative for exterior lighting estimates a potential for savings up to 50%. A lot of exterior lighting (parking lots, pathways, etc.) is overlighted when there are few or no people around. In partnership with UC Davis, the CLTC is testing bi-level LED bollards and incorporating simple occupancy sensors in parking garages. Dimming the lights to 50% is an initial step. Reliability and safety are the big concerns.

5.2 Lighting Research Center

Presented by Kostos Papamichael from a paper sent by LRC The LRC is studying the impacts of spectral distribution at mesopic light levels, and have developed a metric for light pollution (sky glow, light trespass, glare). They are working on a predictive model for disability and discomfort glare.

5.3 University of Nebraska

Presented by Clarence Waters Most of the work at the University of Nebraska is focused on discomfort glare, and Dale Tiller is also working on occupancy detection. Based on CIE’s new rating for indoor lighting, the University is looking at the impact of spectral distribution on the perception of discomfort from non-uniform light sources. This methodology should be expandable to outdoor situations.

5.4 Pennsylvania State

Presented by Kevin Hauser Most of the research at Penn State is on interior lighting, looking at the lamp SPD effects on the perception of interior space, but this can be extended to outdoor spaces. Penn State is collaborating with the University of Sheffield in the UK on roadway lighting reduction. The main missions at Penn State are teaching, research, and outreach, making sure that the next generation of professionals are well qualified.

5.5 University of Colorado Lighting Research Center

Presented by Brent Protzman Lighting research is a new area for this school. Areas of interest are spectral optimization, lighting software, daylight optimization, efficient ways to create white light, and the relation between exterior conditions and interior lighting spectrum.

5.6 Virginia Tech

Presented by Carl Anderson, Federal Highway Administration Virginia’s Smart Road is a test facility with interstate-quality roadbed, variable-position luminaries, and all-


weather simulation capability. The research is looking at cognitive loads under different lighting conditions, how such factors as contrast, distraction, road surface, etc. affect a driver’s ability to drive safely. A 100-car study of naturalistic driving put sensors and cameras on all views and the drivers’ face to study crash causation. Their model currently predicts about 80% of collected data.

6. Stakeholders’ Presentations

Key stakeholders presented their perspectives on the issues of outdoor nighttime lighting.

6.1 Outdoor lighting and energy impact: Corporate viewpoint

Ralph Williams, Walmart Walmart is part of the Retail Energy Alliance, which has developed an LED lighting specification. It’s almost a competition to see who can reduce the most. Walmart has converted to LEDs for signage and in parking lots, and increased daylighting, with an overall total wattage reduction of at least 50%. Walmart’s carbon footprint is huge – Walmart is the largest private purchaser of electricity in the U.S., second only to the federal government. The drive to reduce energy use comes from the top.

6.2 Outdoor lighting and energy impact: Cities’ viewpoint

Tom Cartier, San Diego; Michael Barber, Anchorage San Diego started with a CEC loan for retrofitting buildings, which cut consumption in half with no complaints. Now San Diego wants to apply this outside. However, there’s a problem for the Mt. Palomar observatory. The city is hoping to be able to modify the SPD to accommodate them. The problem is not having adequate metrics or standards. Alaska has very high energy costs, and outdoor lighting is 24-38% of total energy use in local governments. So energy efficiency must be first in the list. The City of Anchorage conducted a residential survey in March 2008, and found that people greatly preferred the white light over HPS. Anchorage uses HPS, but is testing LED sources; people are begging for them. Anchorage tried shielding on the tall poles, but it just made the glare worse.

6.3 Outdoor lighting and energy impact: Global viewpoint

Robert Koenig, Clinton Climate Initiative The CCI isn’t a grant making foundation; CCI works with projects on the ground, usually big systems like solid waste management, clean energy, etc. Outdoor lighting is a small piece, but important – it has centralized ownership, potential for 35-70% energy reductions, and can make a difference very quickly both in reduced energy use and reduced maintenance. CCI can provide technical assistance to cities, advisory services, and project assistance, besides sharing experience


between cities around the world. Common obstacles are concerns about new technology, misaligned incentives to retrofit, limited budget for large projects, and standards that don’t reflect new technology.

7. Breakout Sessions

The first round of breakout sessions on Tuesday morning focused on identifying the critical issues. The three concurrent afternoon sessions continued this focus. For the breakout sessions on Wednesday, the attendees were separated into three groups, with each group including both researchers and stakeholders. They focused on research and outcomes. The final two sessions with all attendees developed action plans based on the identified issues and established follow-up assignments. As might be expected with the high caliber of people participating, these brainstorming sessions were lively, creative, and wide-ranging. These notes only give a few of the highlights from these very intense sessions.

7.1 Session 1: Glare / Spectral Distribution

Day 1, AM Group leader: Naomi Miller Members: Naomi Miller, Bill Hughes, Kostas Papamichael, Gonzalo Gomez, Michael Barber, Ed Ebrahimian, Robert Koenig, Lisa Heschong, Pete Strasser, Jim Benya, Ian Lewin, Charlie Grist, Marc Ledbetter, Bruce Kinzey, Kevin Houser, Teren Abear, Virek Ly, Terry McGowan, Chuck Fuller, Bent Protzman, Clarence Waters The main issues identified concerning glare were glare control vs. uniformity vs. power issues, the need for standardized test procedures, and the need for adequate metrics. The discussion brought up the need for adequate definitions and metrics for different kinds of glare, institutional issues of convincing people that more light (glare) is not always better, and whether or not glare is really an issue. There was also discussion about including both driver and pedestrian perspectives. Liability is also an issue. There was general agreement on the need for better and more communication and sharing of information. The conclusions related to glare issues include the need for more research and also the importance of developing a clearer idea of what actually needs to be researched. They suggested that there should be one large research project to establish a glare metric, study glare from non-uniform sources, and quantify how glare affects nighttime visibility.

7.2 Session 2: Adaptive Standards

Day 1, AM Group leader: Nancy Clanton


Members: Nancy Clanton, Tim Tutt, Steve Prey, Aaron Klemm, Tom Cartier, Heather A. Yee, Carl Andersen, Pricilla Richards, Charlie Grist, Steve Dannecker, Randall Higa, Connie Samla, Christopher Cioni, Richard Coffer, Ralph Williams, Gary Flamm, Michael Barber The main issues identified were the need for new defensible standards that include options for controls for adaptive lighting, various other issues on controls, and liability. Any new standards should start simply, with computer models. Both long- and short-term goals should be defined. During the discussion the need to check out new technologies was mentioned, including factors of cost-effectiveness, reliability, and security. Liability is also an issue. Without reliable and accurate firld measurements, it is impossible to enforce any standards or requirements. The group concluded that it is critical to save energy, provide safety, and address liability issues. Any new standards must be science-based and defensible, and should include the use of controls for adaptive lighting. Proposed projects include using the Lighting Portal as a clearinghouse, luminaire evaluation, creating a user-friendly guide for cities, and studying reliable control systems.

7.3 Session 3: Glare

Day 1, PM Group leader: Naomi Miller Members: researchers and stakeholders Questions were raised about what kinds of glare are a problem, the perception of glare vs. spectral distribution, and the psycho-social aspects of glare (perception of safety), among others. While more questions than answers occurred, members agreed that Recommended Practices need to include maximums, not just minimums, and that there is a real need for measurement and assessment metrics for glare.

7.4 Session 4: Adaptive Standards

Day 1, PM Group leader: Nancy Clanton Members: researchers and stakeholders A number of issues came up during this session, including the need for consistent standards, a centralized sanctioning authority, and the need to change the standards to allow for known best practice. Changing the myths about safety and security would help a lot, but it may be easier to approach the issue from the standpoint of saving energy. Other obstacles include lack of interest in lighting on the part of some authorities and agencies, lack of funding, fewer trained lighting engineers, and accounting practices that don’t allow for the options offered by modern technology.

7.5 Session 5: Spectral Distribution

Day 1, PM Group leader: Ian Lewin Members: researchers and stakeholders


Some of the questions raised concerned the lack of real data on the perception of brightness and perception of glare based on spectral distribution. There are many variables in producing a mesopic (or photopic) response, and they have not been well studied. We need a good definition of adaptation luminance for a non-uniform and dynamic field. The non-human environmental impacts also need more study. While there is some data on reaction time, color perception, circadian rhythms, etc., we don’t know which responses we should be concerned about, or which responses are relevant to which application. Factors such as adaptation level, SPD, and color temperature must become accepted as part of the calculations for outdoor lighting.

7.6 Reporting, Day 1

Glare: Naomi Miller We need one large research project that addresses glare metric, glare from non-uniform sources, and how glare affects nighttime visibility. We don’t know how to define adaptation level. We should also do a literature search to find out what is and isn’t known. We need to write an RFP for the work, determine the funding needed, get funding, and assign an oversight committee. Adaptive Standards: Nancy Clanton What do the stakeholders want from controls? An open protocol, plug-and-play, reliability, and inter-communication with their systems. It also has to be very secure. The IESNA RPs need to accept controls. Spectral Distribution: Ian Lewin We need more time to come up with a plan that will stand up to scrutiny. We already know a lot about brightness; probably have about 80% of the information we need. But how does this translate into the types of lamps that would be useful? And we don’t know much about glare and SPD. More work needs to be done on the criteria for performance, and it needs to be translated for practitioners. There needs to be more publicity on biological impacts, and more study on the possible conflicts for different animals. We have to be able to calculate the adaptation level and understand the dynamic response, especially for non-uniform fields. Lastly, we need to organize field studies on lighting as a function of adaptation level, SPD, and CCT.

7.7 Breakout Sessions, Day 2

These three concurrent sessions combined both researchers and stakeholders. Group leader: Terry McGowan The Lighting Portal is in place, but we need much freer information flow than we’ve seen so far. Some way to answer questions, get updates, etc. On glare – we don’t know when glare is a problem. The idea of a perfect luminaire came up, that would have a user-friendly guide for outdoor lighting, with both practical and technical information. Using controls is a hot issue. No one has much experience with it, the technology may not be put together right, but the potential for energy savings is there, so we need to start doing it. If we’re not using foot-candles then what do we use, and how do we measure it? Group leader: Naomi Miller We need better communication and dissemination, so if you’re doing a demonstration, you can see what others have done and what worked. We need a clearinghouse of all the demonstration projects. The Australians seem to have their act together; we should learn from them. There are funding opportunities from UTC, DOE and utilities. Short term we need to develop a set of specifications, and some NEMA standards for LEDs (performance, component changeability, thermal output). Long term we need better lighting metrics, test protocols for demonstration projects, a better rate structure for dimmed LEDs, and add human factors to the research agenda. Liability is a huge issue. Perhaps DOE or CEC could set up an insurance program to cover utilities willing to risk experimenting. The military might be open to test projects, but they can be very fussy about access and sharing information afterwards.


Group leader: Nancy Clanton We need some guidelines for new design and retrofit. Issues are warranty usability for municipalities, and the need for demonstration projects with community support and researcher input. Make sure maintenance claims are accurate. A long term goal is to debunk the myths about light level, uniformity, and security. We should develop lighting guidelines that look at the reasons for outdoor lighting. Too many studies are done by volunteers and are vulnerable. We need better funding, and we need to do compelling cases to change the economic model. Opportunities exist to develop standards and specifications; save energy and reduce maintenance; improve networking; increase energy efficiency; develop equipment specifications in progress with PIER and DOE; invest in community colleges and universities to educate the engineers.

8. Assignments for Action Plans

During the final sessions, five general areas were determined to be the focus for the next phase, developing specific action plans:

• Administration – develop committees, communications, and procedures to maintain the group.

• List the most significant research projects, both long and short term.

• List the most significant demonstration projects • Find funding sources – public, private, utility • Engage research organizations by putting out RFPs

The following committees will finalize the action plans and prepare for the next meeting. Working/Steering Committee Nancy Clanton – co-director Michael Siminovitch – co-director Kevin Houser – research Michael Seaman – state representative Michael Barber – city representative Mary Matteson Bryan – utility Aaron Klemm – city representative Information Transfer Committee Ira Krepchin – co-chair Melissa Blevins – co-chair Carl Johnson - FHWA Bruce Kinsey – DOE (TRB newsletter webmaster) Vireak Ly – SCE Barb Hamilton – New Buildings Institute Research Committee Ian Lewin – chair Francis Rubenstein – LBL Alan Lewis – LRO


Michael Seaman – CEC Michael Mutmansky – Clanton & Associates Chuck Fuller Kevin Houser – Penn State Clarence Waters – University of Nebraska Brent Protzman – University of Colorado Ron Gibbons – Virginia Tech John Bulloch – LRC Kostas Papamichael – CLTC Funding Committee Marc Ledbetter – DOE Richard Coffer – DOD Connie Samla – SMUD Steve Prey – CalTrans Robert Koenig – CCI Rick Pain Teren Abear – SCE Ralph Williams - Walmart CEC – TBD NEMA – TBD Federal Highway Admin. – TBD Stakeholder Committee Robert Koenig – chair Tom Cartier – City of San Diego Virek Ly – CEC Gonzales Gomez Steve Prey – CalTrans Russ Childers Steve Denecker Aaron Klemm – Huntington Beach Connie Samla – SMUD Jerine Ahmed – Sempra Scott Wentworth – Oakland (to be invited)

9. Conclusions

The Symposium was a success. The process worked well, participants felt satisfied with both the process and results, and are looking forward to continuing. Most important, it achieved the primary goals:

• Identify critical issues in outdoor lighting that will lead to energy savings • Identify research to be done on those issues that will lead to useful results in terms of

updating standards • Put in place an ongoing organization that will get funding, coordinate and communicate the

results, and advocate for improving the standards.

9.1 Key Issues Identified

In both the presentations and the breakout groups, several of the many issues raised were clearly the key issues to address:

• There is an urgent need for improved specifications, metrics, and standards. They should be based on defensible research/science, universally accepted, not overlapping, able to change


over time, and lead to reduced energy use. They should include such factors as when not to light, human factors, and lamp spectral distribution.

• Since it is no longer possible to rely on volunteers for long-term projects, establishing

reliable funding is critical.

• Improved communication is needed to speed up progress, eliminate duplication of effort, and facilitate multi-party cooperative projects. A clearinghouse or consortium of critical partners would be a good start. For example, such a group could develop ways to document municipal lighting projects, coordinate with other municipalities, and develop protocols for such projects that would allow valid cross-project analysis.

9.2 Key Research Areas

The research needs associated with the key issues included:

• Update lumen effectiveness multipliers (LEM) to back up new standards and specifications (SMUD is funding LEM research by Dr. Ian Lewin).

• Organize and coordinate more municipal lighting projects, and disseminate their results.

• Generate better specifications and metrics for LEDs and drivers that are based on research.

Determine if there are specific research needs to obtain these, and plan for that research.

• Develop guidelines for both new design and retrofit.

9.3 Actions Planned

As noted in Section 8, committees were formed to address the key issues and begin work on the proposed research. Short term:

• Reconvene this Symposium in the Spring of 2009. (Working/Steering Committee)

• Convene a group of lighting experts (Clanton, Ian Lewin, DOE, etc) to develop a “Best Practices Guide for Outdoor Lighting” using information that is available now. This guide should address the use of a variety of light sources, and include using controls and adaptive lighting. (Information Transfer Committee, Funding Committee)

• Create a consortium to develop better lighting metrics. (Research Committee, Funding

Committee) Long Term:

• Develop open source protocols for controls. (Research Committee)

• Develop long-term funding for research and demonstration projects. (Funding Committee)

• Work with universities and colleges to develop better training for electrical engineers. Develop training programs for electrical contractors. (Information Transfer Committee)

• Create a working group to focus on developing protocols for municipal lighting projects,

coordinating multi-city projects, and documenting and disseminating the results. (Information Transfer Committee)


• Develop a program to address light level and security myths that are hindering the adoption of best practices. (Information Transfer Committee)

We look forward to reporting on continued progress at the next meeting.


Appendix A – Attendees

Stakeholders included California Energy Commission (CEC), California Department of Transportation (CAL Trans), municipalities, utility companies, and the Clinton Climate Initiative. Federal Governmental Agencies included the Department of Energy and the Federal Highway Administration. Researchers included representatives from universities with lighting research programs. Lighting consultants included individuals who are either involved with the IDA/IESNA Model Lighting Ordinance or members of the IESNA Roadway Lighting Committee and/or CIE.

Name Organization

Bill Hughes Bill Hughes Michael Seaman California Energy Commission

Gary Flamm California Energy Commission Maziar Shirakh California Energy Commission

David Hungerford California Energy Commission - Advisor to Commissioner Rosenfeld

Tim Tutt California Energy Commission - Advisor to. Chairperson Jackalyne Pfannenstiel

Michael Siminovitch California Lighting Technology Center

Kostas Papamichael California Lighting Technology Center Luis Fernandez California Lighting Technology Center

Steve Prey CalTrans Gonzalo Gomez CalTrans

Aaron Klemm City of Huntington Beach Michael Barber City of Anchorage

Ed Ebrahimian City of Los Angeles Scott Wentworth City of Oakland

Tom Cartier City of San Diego Marla Jurosek City of San Francisco Nancy Clanton Clanton & Associates, Inc.

Michael Mutmansky Clanton & Associates, Inc. Robert Koenig Clinton Climate Initiative

Heather A. Yee County of Sacramento, Department of Transportation Ira Krepchin E Source

Allan Lewis EPRI LRO Carl Andersen FHWA

Lisa Heschong Heschong Mahone Group Laura Krugh Heschong Mahone Group

Sophia Hartkopf Heschong Mahone Group Pete Strasser IDA

Rita Harrold IESNA Jim Benya James Benya Lighting Design Ian Lewin Lighting Sciences


Name Organization

John Bullough LRC – Presentation by Kostas Papamichael

Naomi Miller Naomi Miller Lighting Design Richard Coffer NAVFAC

Paul Lutkevich PB World Kevin Houser Penn State

Mary Matteson Bryan PG&E Marc Ledbetter PNL

Bruce Kinzey PNL Ahmed Abdullah SEMPRA

Connie Samla SMUD Virek Ly Southern California Edison Teren Abear Southern California Edison

Terry McGowan Terry McGowan Charles "Chuck" Fuller UC Davis - Neurobiology, Physiology & Behavior

Bent Protzman University of Colorado Lew Harvey University of Colorado

Clarence Waters University of Nebraska

Travis Longcore USC Center for Sustainable Cities, Urban Wildlands Group – via webcast

Ralph Williams Wal-Mart


Appendix B – Original Agenda

The following was the proposed agenda. However, some invited participants couldn’t come, and sessions were modified to reflect the evolving needs of the Symposium. Tuesday, September 9, 2008 TIME DESCRIPTION 9:00 AM Welcome and introductions 9:15 AM Outdoor lighting and energy impact: California Energy Commission viewpoint 9:30 AM Outdoor lighting and energy impact: Utility viewpoint 9:40 AM Visibility needs 10:00 AM Current IESNA lighting standards 10:10 AM Lamp spectral distribution: Visibility viewpoint 10:20 AM Lamp spectral distribution: Environmental viewpoint 10:30 AM BREAK 10:45 AM Glare: Disability and discomfort 11:00 AM Adaptive standards / Visibility 11:15 AM Ongoing research status 12:30 PM LUNCH 1:30 PM Glare / Spectral distribution breakout group

Adaptive standards breakout group 3:00 PM BREAK 3:00 PM Group reporting 3:30 PM Glare, spectral distribution, adaptive standards/visibility 4:30 PM Reporting 5:00 PM Adjourn to CLTC reception Wednesday, September 10, 2008 TIME DESCRIPTION 8:30 AM Start with review of previous day, set today’s goals 8:40 AM Outdoor lighting and energy impact: Corporate viewpoint 8:50 AM Outdoor lighting and energy impact: Department of Defense 9:00 AM Outdoor lighting and energy impact: Cities’ viewpoint 9:25 AM Outdoor lighting and energy impact: Global viewpoint 9:40 AM BREAK 10:00 AM Research breakout group 11:30 AM Outcome predictions breakout group 12:00 PM LUNCH 1:00 PM Finalize action plans 2:00 PM Assignments 2:30 PM Next steps 2:50 PM Closing remarks 3:00 PM SYMPOSIUM ADJOURNMENT


Appendix C – Abbreviations

CCI Clinton Climate Initiative CEC California Energy Commission CIE International Commission on Illumination - also known as the CIE from its French title, the

Commission Internationale de l´Eclairage CLTC California Lighting Technology Center DOE Department of Energy IESNA Illuminating Engineering Society of North America LRC Lighting Research Center NEMA National Electrical Manufacturers Association PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric Company PIER Public Interest Energy Research SCE Southern California Edison SMUD Sacramento Municipal Utility District SPD (lamp) spectral distribution UTC Utilities Telecom Council

Documents

Pacific Gas and Electric Company - ETCC ca