Michael Lane LC

archived articles

Energy Codes as the Norm
May 1997

I remember the reaction from end users, contractors, energy services companies, and manufacturers the day the utilities announced the end of rebates. You would have thought that the world had ended. Energy efficiency was dead, they said. We can't afford to use energy efficient products if you (the utilities) don't pay us to use them, they said. All the energy savings you (the utilities) have worked for will disappear if you don't continue to subsidize them, they said. These utility rebate programs were like a drug --a very powerful drug --, to many companies. Going cold turkey was going to hurt, but it was the only way out for most utilities.

In the design community a silent cheer was heard that day. Many designers, myself included, felt that the utility subsidies were a detriment to lighting quality. The focus of most utility programs has always been just three things: SAVE EN ERGY, SAVE ENERGY, and SAVE ENERGY. Unfortunately, there are too many facilities across the country that now have terrible lighting quality because of a utility rebate program.

So, were the utility programs bad? No way! They transformed the market. T8 lamps, electronic ballasts, compact fluorescent lamps, halogen incandescent lamps are all now building standard for retrofit projects and new construction. Yes, they all existed before the utility incentive programs, but would we be using them in the quantity that we are today without utility incentive programs? I doubt it.

T8 lamps were introduced in the early 1980s, but didn't really take off until utility dollars virtually paid end users to use them in the 1990s. EPACT wasn't necessary because of the utility programs, at least for the 4-foot lamp. By October 1995 who was using T12 lamps for new construction? Very few of you. In existing building that had not been retrofitted to T8's by utility programs, end users now use "energy-saving" T12 lamps that cut the energy by 15%, cut the light level by 14%, and cost more. Sounds like a good deal to me!

Electronic ballasts were plagued with failures, and had a marginal market share before utilities pushed them. Utilities forced electronic ballast manufacturers to produce electronic ballasts with less than 20% THD (Total Harmonic Distortion) while the new standards for electronic ballasts (ANSI C82.11-1993) said that 33% THD was okay.

Compact fluorescent lamps were available in 5, 7, 9, & 13 watt twin tube versions before utility programs. And luminaires for the lamp were limited to a few wall sconces and downlights. Today, there are also 18, 26, 32 & 42 watt quad and triple tube, pin base, versions. Luminaires exist for downlights, wall sconces, pendants, flood lights, bollards, low-bays, exit signs and more. Compact fluorescent "screw-in" lamps, which were not always liked by utilities, are available in a variety of wattages and sizes. Actually this is one area that the utility programs did not fully transform the market. Manufacturers still make screw-in CFLs that have high THD (over 125%) and normal power factor (50% or less). Manufacturers claim that the end users of screw-in CFLs (residential customers) will not pay for high power quality products. Utility programs dried up about two years to early and now it will probably take 5 more years before this part of the market transforms itself.

Halogen incandescent lamps were seldom if ever pushed by the utilities, but still the virtues of halogen lamps were promoted and touted over the inefficient standard incandescent lamp.

The NCQLP (National Council on Qualifications for the Lighting Professions) has been formed and will start testing and certifying lighting professionals. The NCQLP was created in part to respond to utility incentive programs and the lack of knowledge shown by many of the participants. When the goal is to save energy and give away money, lighting quality can easily suffer. It is time to certified lighting professionals.

I won't get carried away and give utilities all of the credit for these market transformations. They did have a large impact on moving the lighting industry, but so have energy codes. In fact many of the utilities eliminated programs because energy codes forced designers to use energy efficient products to meet stringent watts per square foot requirements. These stringent energy codes didn't leave energy savings for the utilities to pay for, and the utilities weren't going to pay you to meet code. EPA's Green Lights Program has been a strong promoter of T8 lamps, electronic ballasts and compact fluorescent lamps. I do wonder how effective Green Lights would have been, however, if utilities were not funding many of the Green Lights retrofit projects?

So what's next for the utilities? That is a good question, deregulation scares the utilities. They like their monopolies and want to keep them. To this end, many utilities have tightened their belts on both people and assistance programs, so they can sell their customers the least expensive kilowatt as possible. This has happened in the Pacific Northwest in the last few years, but something else has happened. The utilities in Idaho, Montana, Oregon & Washington have banded together to form the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance. The goal of the alliance is to promote and fund market transformation of energy efficient products. I think that the utilities have finally found the right path: Fund programs that help transform the market from energy inefficient products to energy efficient products, and let the designers do the design work with these energy efficient products.