SCE Design and Engineering Services · Commercial Tubular Daylighting System ET11SCE1050 Southern...
Transcript of SCE Design and Engineering Services · Commercial Tubular Daylighting System ET11SCE1050 Southern...
Design & Engineering Services
COMMERCIAL TUBULAR DAYLIGHTING SYSTEM
ET11SCE1050 Report
Prepared by:
Design & Engineering Services
Customer Service Business Unit
Southern California Edison
August 2012
Commercial Tubular Daylighting System ET11SCE1050
Southern California Edison
Design & Engineering Services August 2012
Acknowledgements
Southern California Edison’s (SCE’s) Design & Engineering Services (DES) group is
responsible for this project in collaboration with the Tariff Program & Services (TP&S) group.
It was developed as part of SCE’s Demand Response, Emerging Markets and Technology
program under internal project number ET11SCE1050. DES project manager Doug Avery
conducted this project with overall guidance and management from Paul Delaney, Emerging
Technology Program Manager. For more information on this project, contact
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.
Commercial Tubular Daylighting System ET11SCE1050
Southern California Edison Page i Design & Engineering Services August 2012
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report evaluates the daylighting design and implementation at the Trane Southern
California headquarters located in City of Industry, California. The study is managed by
Southern California Edison’s (SCE) Design and Engineering Group.
The primary goals of this project are the following: 1) determine the baseline lighting loads
in the selected areas, 2) determine the post retrofit lighting load profiles, and 3) determine
how much lighting energy and demand savings can be achieved by the new daylighting and
control system.
The project site is a warehouse office building with individual offices, open office space, a
retail area, and warehouse. The demonstration area consists of six individual office spaces
and common office areas at Trane’s headquarters. The pilot area of the building covers
1,780 square feet (sf) and has a 10-foot drop ceiling.
The project design replaced standard T8 fluorescent lighting with a new lighting system that
included Light Emitting Diode (LED) fixtures, high output T5 fluorescent fixtures, and
daylighting through Solatubes®. Advanced lighting controls were installed to operate the
new lighting system. The new lighting control system also used occupancy sensors for
on/off control and incorporated daylight sensors for dimming control of the new lighting
Lighting circuits were monitored before and after the installation of the lighting solution.
Lighting power was recorded for three baseline months and seven months after completion
to capture the seasonal effects of daylighting contributions.
The rated lighting power density (LPD) for the demonstration area was reduced from 1.40 to
1.10 Watts/square foot (W/sf), which results in a LPD design savings of 0.30 W/sf, or 22%.
The average operating LPD during SCE’s peak period (noon to 6:00 p.m.) was reduced from
0.83 to 0.13 W/sf, which results in an average peak period demand savings of 0.71 W/sf, or
85%. This is a significant reduction in demand. Table 1 presents the average peak period
demand and savings in kilowatts (kW), and normalizes to square footage, W/sf. The
estimated average demand savings attributed to the daylighting controls is 0.49 W/sf, or
59%. The monitored lighting energy projected to annual use was reduced from 5,490 to
1,800 kWh per year. The estimated energy savings attributed to the daylighting system is
2,260 kWh/yr, which is a savings of 56%, and the combined total energy savings for the
project is 3,680 kWh/yr, which is 67%.
TABLE 1. PEAK DEMAND USE AND SAVINGS BY PERIOD TYPE AND PER SQUARE FOOT
NOON TO 6 PM PEAK PERIOD AVERAGE DEMAND
PERIOD AND SAVINGS TYPE KW W/SF
Pre Retrofit 1.48 0.83
Post Retrofit 0.22 0.13
Daylight Savings 0.87 0.49
Total Savings 1.26 0.71
Error! Reference source not found. illustrates the lighting demand for pre and post retrofit
conditions and the savings attributed to the daylighting controls and the total retrofit. Two
vertical axis are provided to show kWh/yr and kWh/sf/yr values.
Commercial Tubular Daylighting System ET11SCE1050
Southern California Edison Page ii Design & Engineering Services August 2012
FIGURE 1. AVERAGE LIGHTING DEMAND IN DEMONSTRATION AREA: PRE, POST, DAYLIGHT SAVINGS, AND TOTAL SAVINGS
The total material and labor costs for the test site was $91,040. The cost may be lower if
utility program incentives are received. A simple payback period calculation used an average
electric rate of $0.15/kWh. Payback period for the site is 165 years without utility
incentives. The calculated Return on Investments is 0.1 based on life expectancies of the
products.
The results of this field evaluation show that significant lighting energy savings are possible
with commercial tubular daylighting and lighting control system technologies. These
technologies can be adapted to other business types beyond the office tested in this study.
Further study of daylighting with dimming controls could be considered for facilities that do
not have existing occupancy controls. Additional savings may be documented with such a
study. Any additional studies should monitor the post-installation period for at least a winter
and summer period.
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
Average Peak Period (Noon - 6:00 p.m.) Demand
De
man
d, W
/sf
De
man
d, k
W
Pre RetrofitPost RetrofitAverage Daylight SavingsAverage Total Savings
Commercial Tubular Daylighting System ET11SCE1050
Southern California Edison Page iii Design & Engineering Services August 2012
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
ALCS Advanced Lighting Controls Systems
fc Foot-candles
GWh Gigawatt-hours
kW Kilowatt
kWh Kilowatt-hours
LED Light Emitting Diode
LPD Lighting Power Density
M&V Measurement and Verification
ROI Return on Investment
SCE Southern California Edison
sf Square Feet
W Watts
W/sf Watts per Square Foot
Commercial Tubular Daylighting System ET11SCE1050
Southern California Edison Page iv
Design & Engineering Services August 2012
CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ________________________________________________ I
INTRODUCTION ____________________________________________________ 1
Background ............................................................................ 1
Goal of the Pilot Project ........................................................... 1
Potential Market Impact ........................................................... 2
DEMONSTRATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION ________________________________ 3
Site Description ...................................................................... 3
Existing Lighting ..................................................................... 3
LIGHTING SOLUTION ________________________________________________ 4
Tubular Daylighting ................................................................. 4
Lighting Fixtures ..................................................................... 5
Lighting Controls ..................................................................... 7
TECHNICAL APPROACH/TEST METHODOLOGY ____________________________ 9
Metering Equipment and Data Acquisition ................................... 9
DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS ________________________________________ 10
Data Analysis ........................................................................ 10
Results ................................................................................ 13
Light Levels .......................................................................... 14
Economics ............................................................................ 15
Discussions .......................................................................... 15
CONCLUSION ____________________________________________________ 17
RECOMMENDATIONS ______________________________________________ 18
REFERENCES _____________________________________________________ 19
APPENDIX A _____________________________________________________ 20
Commercial Tubular Daylighting System ET11SCE1050
Southern California Edison Page v
Design & Engineering Services August 2012
FIGURES Figure 1. Average Lighting Demand in Demonstration Area: Pre,
Post, Daylight Savings, and Total Savings ....................... ii
Figure 2. Demonstration Area Post Retrofit Lighting Layout ............. 3
Figure 3. Solatube® 750DS Dome ................................................ 4
Figure 4. Solatube in Attic on Right Side of Picture ......................... 4
Figure 5. View of OptiView® Diffuser from Directly Below and
Looking Up .................................................................. 4
Figure 6. 2’ x 2’ Diffusers Providing Daylighting in Break Room. ...... 5
Figure 7. Recessed Can Fixture with LED Lamp Next to 2x2
Daylighting Diffuser ...................................................... 6
Figure 8. Fluorescent 1x4 Fixture Next to 2x2 Daylighting Diffuser ... 6
Figure 9. Fluorescent 1x4 Fixture Above Cabinets .......................... 6
Figure 10. Fluorescent 1x4 Fixture Above Cabinets .......................... 6
Figure 11. Exergy Controls and Laptop Used for Controlling LED
and Fluorescent Lights .................................................. 7
Figure 12. An Occupancy Sensor (Top) and Daylight Sensor
(Bottom Center) ........................................................... 7
Figure 13. Power Recorder in Lower Right Corner of Picture
Mounted Near Lighting Panel ......................................... 9
Figure 14. Average Weekday Lighting Profiles for Pre retrofit and
Average Annual Post Retrofit Periods and Estimated
Post Retrofit with Only Occupancy Control ..................... 10
Figure 15. Average Weekend day and Holiday Lighting Profiles for
Pre retrofit and Average Annual Post Retrofit Periods
and Estimated Post Retrofit Weekends with Only
Occupancy Controls .................................................... 11
Figure 16. Post Retrofit Lighting Load Profiles for Two Months in
Opposite Seasons and the Annual Average Profile .......... 12
Figure 17. Monthly and Average Daily Lighting Energy Use from
January to June for the Daylight Controlled Period. ......... 12
Figure 18. Annual Lighting Retrofit & Occupancy Control Energy
Use and Savings Estimate for Daylighting ...................... 14
Figure 19. Lighting Demand and Estimated Summer Demand
Savings Due to Daylighting.......................................... 14
Figure 20. Annual Lighting Energy Use and Total Savings ............... 14
Figure 21. Lighting Demand and Estimated Total Summer
Demand Savings ........................................................ 14
Commercial Tubular Daylighting System ET11SCE1050
Southern California Edison Page vi Design & Engineering Services August 2012
TABLES Table 1. Peak Demand Use and Savings by Period Type and per
Square Foot .................................................................. i
Table 2. Summary of Post Retrofit Lighting Fixtures and
Locations .................................................................... 6
Table 3. Energy and Peak Demand Use and Savings by Period
Type Annually and per Square Foot .............................. 13
Table 4. Post Retrofit Light Level Measurement Summary ............ 15
Commercial Tubular Daylighting System ET11SCE1050
Southern California Edison Page 1
Design & Engineering Services August 2012
INTRODUCTION This study evaluates commercial tubular daylighting and integration with an Advanced
Lighting Control System (ALCS) developed by Exergy Solutions. This ALCS was installed in
office areas of the single-story Trane Southern California headquarters building in Industry,
California. This real-world pilot study permitted analysis of data collected on the operation
of the lighting system.
Southern California Edison (SCE) is studying such concepts to advance the implementation
of energy saving technologies and is considering providing incentives for installation of
similar equipment.
BACKGROUND Lighting in commercial buildings represents approximately 29% of the electrical
energy use by this sector.1 Some of this energy use can be substituted by using
daylight. Schools and office buildings with windows and warehouses with skylights
provide the opportunity to reduce the lighting load during daylight hours. Single-
story buildings can be modified by piping daylight from rooftop collectors to interior
zones without natural daylight. This approach provides light to building areas not
accessible by conventional skylights or windows.
The substitution of daylight for artificial light reduces energy use and demand. The
amount of energy or demand that can be saved is dependent on the time of year,
latitude, and availability of sunlight (prevailing weather).
Some studies have shown that schoolchildren learn better in natural daylighting than
from artificial light.2
This technology requires minimal maintenance provided there are no leaks in the
roof penetrations.
GOAL OF THE PILOT PROJECT SCE is testing the implementation of daylighting in a single-story warehouse office
building, representing 1,780 square feet (sf) of office space. The ALCS controls the
level of light output based on daylight sensors installed as part of this project.
1 Itron, 2010, California End Use Survey Results March 2006 prepared for the California Energy Commission retrieved 7/10/12 at http://capabilities.itron.com/CeusWeb/Chart.aspx.
2 Heschong Mahone Group, October 2003, Technical Report for the California Energy Commission, “Windows and Classrooms: A Study of Student Performance and the Indoor Environment”, Publication # P500-03-082-A-07.
Commercial Tubular Daylighting System ET11SCE1050
Southern California Edison Page 2
Design & Engineering Services August 2012
The primary goals of this project are to determine:
1) what are the baseline lighting loads in the selected areas,
2) what are the post retrofit lighting load profiles in the selected areas,
3) does the new daylighting control system perform as expected, and
4) how much lighting energy and demand savings can be achieved by the new
daylighting control system?
POTENTIAL MARKET IMPACT According to the California Commercial Energy Use Survey (CEUS), commercial
interior lighting space covers 4,915 million sf in California. In the SCE service
territory, commercial space covers 2,142 million sf and has an interior lighting connected load of 1.06 W/sf.3 It follows that the connected interior lighting load is
2,270 megawatts (MW). If 5% of the lighting was supplemented with daylighting,
and achieved an 80% demand reduction in the summer, it could reduce the peak
loads by approximately 90MW.
The annual commercial interior lighting energy use in SCE service territory is 8,504
Gigawatts per hour (GWh). If 5% of the lighting was supplemented with daylighting,
and achieved a 56% annual energy reduction, it could reduce the energy use by
approximately 238 GWh.
The market impact of daylighting improvements in existing buildings is a discrete
analysis and not a part of this study.
3 Itron, 2010, California End Use Survey Results March 2006 prepared for the California Energy Commission retrieved 3/5/10 at http://capabilities.itron.com/CeusWeb/Chart.aspx.
Commercial Tubular Daylighting System ET11SCE1050
Southern California Edison Page 3
Design & Engineering Services August 2012
DEMONSTRATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION The ALCS was installed in a single story warehouse office building used as the Southern
California headquarters of the Trane Corporation. A lighting system was designed for this
demonstration that reduces energy use and demand by using daylight and a multifunction
lighting control system. The light fixtures are dimmed according to available daylight and
turned on/off based on occupancy. Lighting use was monitored to quantify the energy and
demand savings. The project is representative of retrofit projects in typical single story
commercial office space.
SITE DESCRIPTION This project consists of six individual offices, a common copy room, and break room.
They are built inside a warehouse style building with drop ceilings and a tall attic
space. The roof has built-in skylights but they only illuminate the attic space above
the drop ceiling. The ceilings in the demonstration area are 10 feet tall. There are no
wall switches for lighting in the demonstration area, only occupancy sensors. The
demonstration area is 1,780 sf. The layout of the test areas displays in Figure 2.
FIGURE 2. DEMONSTRATION AREA POST RETROFIT LIGHTING LAYOUT
EXISTING LIGHTING The existing lighting system used 4-foot T8 fluorescent lamps rated at 32W. They
were operated in standard recessed three-lamp fixtures. Five of the offices had two
fixtures each, one office had four fixtures, and the copy room and break room each
had six fixtures. There were no wall switches in any of the rooms, but they all had
occupancy sensors to turn lights on/off. The existing occupancy sensors for the
lighting system will provide a conservative baseline of energy use for the analysis
when projecting typical energy savings.
NSky Light TubeLED Can LightsT5 1x4' Lights
Office A Office B Office C Copy Room
Office D Office E Office F
Break RoomLegend
Commercial Tubular Daylighting System ET11SCE1050
Southern California Edison Page 4
Design & Engineering Services August 2012
LIGHTING SOLUTION
TUBULAR DAYLIGHTING Natural daylighting was provided to the spaces using commercial Solatubes®. Twenty
Solatubes were installed as diagramed in Figure 2. SolaMaster® series Solatube®
750DS domes (see Figure 3) were installed on the roof. The 750DS uses a Fresnel
lens technology, grooves molded into the dome, which collects all angles of the sun
as it rises over the horizon but deflects the high heat and glare of noonday. It
provides a solar heat gain coefficient of 0.21 and lumen output of 7500. Eight-inch
self-mounted flashings were used to seal the domes to the roof. The 21” diameter
domes channel sunlight into 21” diameter interior reflecting tubes (see Figure 4) that
connect to the drop ceiling. The reflecting tubes connected to 2’ x 2’ optical diffuser
for light dispersion into the rooms. The OptiView® diffuser (see Figure 5) delivers
natural daylight through a matrix of individual Fresnel lenses that offer a unique view
of the sky above.
FIGURE 3. SOLATUBE®
750DS DOME
FIGURE 4. SOLATUBE IN ATTIC ON RIGHT SIDE OF PICTURE
FIGURE 5. VIEW OF OPTIVIEW®
DIFFUSER FROM DIRECTLY BELOW AND LOOKING UP
Commercial Tubular Daylighting System ET11SCE1050
Southern California Edison Page 5
Design & Engineering Services August 2012
The picture in Figure 6 shows daylight coming through 2’ x 2’ diffusers that nicely
replace ceiling tiles.
FIGURE 6. 2’ X 2’ DIFFUSERS PROVIDING DAYLIGHTING IN BREAK ROOM.
LIGHTING FIXTURES There are three types of fixtures installed as part of this Emerging Technology
demonstration. They are each discussed in the following paragraphs.
Eleven ceiling-mounted 6-inch diameter recessed downlight fixtures with Light
Emitting Diodes lamps (LED) were installed in three rooms. A side view of one of the
fixtures is shown in Figure 7. The 6VLED1100 series fixture is manufactured by
Pathway Lighting Products. They are compatible with 0-10 Volt (V) dimming controls
and have a rated output of 1,100 lumens, 3,000K color temperature, and 50,000
hours. A Philips Advanced Xitanium 0-10V LED electronic dimming driver is used to
power the LED lamps.
Thirty ceiling-mounted wall-washing fluorescent fixtures with specialty reflectors
were installed throughout all eight rooms. A side view of the fixture is shown in
Figure 8. These are Style 210 fixtures manufactured by Elliptipar. The fixtures use a
single 4-foot T5 fluorescent 3,000K 54W high output lamp. The ballasts are
compatible with 0-10V dimming controls.
Three cabinet-top-mounted ceiling-washing fluorescent fixtures with specialty
reflectors were installed in the lunchroom. A view of the wall washing and the
fixtures can be seen in Figure 9 and Figure 10, respectively. These are Style 305
fixtures manufactured by Elliptipar. The fixtures use a single 4-foot T5 fluorescent
4,100K 50W high output lamp. The ballasts are compatible with 0-10V dimming
controls.
Commercial Tubular Daylighting System ET11SCE1050
Southern California Edison Page 6
Design & Engineering Services August 2012
FIGURE 7. RECESSED CAN FIXTURE WITH LED LAMP
NEXT TO 2X2 DAYLIGHTING DIFFUSER
FIGURE 8. FLUORESCENT 1X4 FIXTURE NEXT TO 2X2
DAYLIGHTING DIFFUSER
FIGURE 9. FLUORESCENT 1X4 FIXTURE ABOVE
CABINETS
FIGURE 10. FLUORESCENT 1X4 FIXTURE ABOVE CABINETS
Table 2 provides a summary of the post retrofit lighting fixtures.
TABLE 2. SUMMARY OF POST RETROFIT LIGHTING FIXTURES AND LOCATIONS
LOCATION NUMBER OF
FIXTURES
RATED WATTAGE
(W/FIXTURE)
FIXTURE TYPE
6 Offices 12 0 Solatube®
6 Offices 24 54 T5, elliptipar 210
1 Office 2 17 LED, Pathway
Copy Room 4 0 Solatube®
Copy Room 6 54 T5, elliptipar 210
Copy Room 3 17 LED, Pathway
Break Room 4 0 Solatube®
Break Room 3 50 T5, elliptipar 210
Break Room 6 17 LED, Pathway
Commercial Tubular Daylighting System ET11SCE1050
Southern California Edison Page 7
Design & Engineering Services August 2012
LIGHTING CONTROLS A new lighting control system was installed. An Exergy Controls (Figure 11) system
uses wireless signals to provided dimming control of the LED and fluorescent lamps.
Dimming control is based on the amount of available daylight as measured by
ceiling-mounted sensors in each room (see Figure 12). Occupancy sensors (see
Figure 12) turn lighting fixtures on/off based on occupancy in the room.
FIGURE 11. EXERGY CONTROLS AND LAPTOP USED FOR
CONTROLLING LED AND FLUORESCENT LIGHTS
FIGURE 12. AN OCCUPANCY SENSOR (TOP)
AND DAYLIGHT SENSOR (BOTTOM
CENTER)
An illumination system was developed by the lighting designer (in conjunction with
Trane and SCE) to deliver task-appropriate light levels using state-of-the-art
fluorescent and LED lighting instruments. The system’s cumulative energy
consumption (at full light output) was below Title 24 guidelines. The digital lighting
control system was commissioned to provide illumination only when a space was
occupied (using digitally enhanced occupancy sensors), and when in use, to maintain
35 footcandles (fc) at task surfaces using sophisticated digital daylight-harvesting
sensors. As natural daylight increased (from Solatube skylights installed in each test
space), each fixture’s lamp output was reduced (dimmed) to maintain target light
levels while minimizing power consumption.
As spaces become populated in the morning, lights are brought on and managed to
meet the established lighting requirements. As daylight through the Solatube
skylights is introduced into each space, fixture output is reduced accordingly. When
natural light levels meet or exceed the target illumination levels, light fixtures are
turned off. Toward the end of the day, as natural daylight wanes, fixtures are turned
on and lamp light levels automatically adjust to maintain the required work surface
illumination. Each area is independently managed by the digital lighting control
system to constantly monitor occupancy. When it is determined that a space
becomes unoccupied, its lights are extinguished.
Commercial Tubular Daylighting System ET11SCE1050
Southern California Edison Page 8
Design & Engineering Services August 2012
A maximum set point was established to prevent any fixture’s output (measured as a
percentage of light output, not power consumption) from exceeding 85% of its
illumination capacity; this only occurs when natural daylight from skylights is not
present. In operation, the spaces operated well below this maximum trim level:
Private offices typically operated at a maximum of 60% light output
Copy and break rooms operated at a maximum of 80% light output
This project is an excellent opportunity to demonstrate state-of-the-art daylighting
control practices in a normal, functional, office building.
Commercial Tubular Daylighting System ET11SCE1050
Southern California Edison Page 9
Design & Engineering Services August 2012
TECHNICAL APPROACH/TEST METHODOLOGY In order to characterize the energy and demand reductions resulting from this pilot project,
ADM Associates, Inc. devised a Measurement and Verification (M&V) protocol adapted to
this facility.
Power to all lighting fixtures in the study area were monitored. All lighting circuits were
traced to identify the circuits that exclusively serve the study area. Several breaker panel
circuits were identified to exclusively serve the study area while others also served areas
outside the study area. For those circuits that branched in the false ceiling area, current
transformers were placed in junction boxes above the false ceiling to capture the lighting
load exclusively for the study area. One branch circuit was monitored that served a fixture
outside the study area and was subtracted from the primary breaker circuit in the analysis.
The meter recorder was installed in the electrical room to monitor the lighting circuits.
METERING EQUIPMENT AND DATA ACQUISITION ADM installed an Enernet K-20 meter recorder (see Figure 13) to monitor the power
use of the lighting. Seven circuits were monitored using appropriately-sized 5 Amp
current transducers. Averaged data were recorded at 5-minute intervals. The K-20
was programmed to record kW and kilo Volt Amps. One-time power measurements
were made using an AEMC 3910 true RMS power meter to provide field calibration of
the installation. Power data were recorded from May 26, 2011 to June 30, 2012.
ADM’s monitoring equipment was manually downloaded for several months before
the post retrofit period was extended, at which time a telephone line was installed to
collect data remotely via the modem onboard the recorder. The logger was
synchronized to the NIST clock on Pacific Time, as obtained from the following web
link: http://nist.time.gov/timezone.cgi?Pacific/d/-8/java.
FIGURE 13. POWER RECORDER IN LOWER RIGHT CORNER OF PICTURE MOUNTED NEAR LIGHTING PANEL
For the post retrofit period, light levels were measured at various locations in the
test area using an Extech 407026 Light meter.
Commercial Tubular Daylighting System ET11SCE1050
Southern California Edison Page 10
Design & Engineering Services August 2012
DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS This section presents and discusses the data collected from monitoring of the lighting in the
study area. Charts and tables displaying the data are presented in this chapter.
DATA ANALYSIS Pre retrofit baseline data collected from May 26 to September 30, 2011 were
averaged together to develop weekday, weekend, and holiday profiles for the
existing lighting loads. The retrofits occurred over a two-week period; however, the
commissioning process was very prolonged. The analysis used data from January 1
to June 30, 2012 for the post retrofit period. Post retrofit data collection was
extended longer than most pilot studies in order to capture the seasonal impact on
the daylight controls. Figure 14 shows the average weekday profiles for pre and post
periods and the estimated profile for the post period with only occupancy controls.
The post retrofit period is the average annual profile generated from the six months
of January through June data. The post profile shows a dip during the middle of the
day that is characteristic of savings contributed by daylighting controls. The peak in
the evening is from the cleaning crew after dark. There was not a designated period
after the retrofits when daylighting controls were not active to determine retrofit-
only profiles. An estimated profile for the retrofit and occupancy control-only
scenario was generated using the pre retrofit profile and a ratio of the January after
dark work hours to pre retrofit period for the same hours.
FIGURE 14. AVERAGE WEEKDAY LIGHTING PROFILES FOR PRE RETROFIT AND AVERAGE ANNUAL POST RETROFIT
PERIODS AND ESTIMATED POST RETROFIT WITH ONLY OCCUPANCY CONTROL
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
00
:00
02
:00
04
:00
06
:00
08
:00
10
:00
12
:00
14
:00
16
:00
18
:00
20
:00
22
:00
kW
Hour
Pre RetrofitPost (Estimated Occupancy Control Only)Post Retrofit
Commercial Tubular Daylighting System ET11SCE1050
Southern California Edison Page 11
Design & Engineering Services August 2012
Figure 15 shows the average weekend day and holiday profiles for pre and post
periods. In addition, the chart shows the estimated profile for the post weekend
period with only occupancy control. This chart is plotted on the same scale as the
weekday chart to show the relative impact weekend lighting has on lighting energy
use.
FIGURE 15. AVERAGE WEEKEND DAY AND HOLIDAY LIGHTING PROFILES FOR PRE RETROFIT AND AVERAGE ANNUAL
POST RETROFIT PERIODS AND ESTIMATED POST RETROFIT WEEKENDS WITH ONLY OCCUPANCY CONTROLS
Figure 16 shows the influence of daylight availability. The variability between winter
and summer is most evident in the late afternoon hours. These are also hours when
peak demand reduction is important. The hours of operation of a business can
influence the savings potential.
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
00
:00
02
:00
04
:00
06
:00
08
:00
10
:00
12
:00
14
:00
16
:00
18
:00
20
:00
22
:00
kW
Hour
Pre Retrofit Weekend
Post (Estimated Occupancy Control Only)
Post Retrofit Weekend
Pre Retrofit Holiday
Post Retrofit Holiday
Commercial Tubular Daylighting System ET11SCE1050
Southern California Edison Page 12
Design & Engineering Services August 2012
FIGURE 16. POST RETROFIT LIGHTING LOAD PROFILES FOR TWO MONTHS IN OPPOSITE SEASONS AND THE ANNUAL
AVERAGE PROFILE
The monthly progression of lighting energy use for the post retrofit period was
tabulated and then plotted in Figure 17. Both total monthly and average daily energy
use are shown in the chart. There is a very distinct reduction in energy use between
winter and summer. The lighting energy use in June is 38% lower than in January
due to the longer daylight hours. There is approximately a linear relationship in
lighting energy use between the winter and summer months.
FIGURE 17. MONTHLY AND AVERAGE DAILY LIGHTING ENERGY USE FROM JANUARY TO JUNE FOR THE DAYLIGHT
CONTROLLED PERIOD.
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
00
:00
02
:00
04
:00
06
:00
08
:00
10
:00
12
:00
14
:00
16
:00
18
:00
20
:00
22
:00
kW
Hour
Winter (January)
Summer (June)
Annual Average
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
kWh
/Day
kWh
/Mo
nth
kWh/Month
kWh/Day
Commercial Tubular Daylighting System ET11SCE1050
Southern California Edison Page 13
Design & Engineering Services August 2012
RESULTS Annual energy use was projected based on available pre and post data. Eight
holidays were incorporated into the annual calculation. Energy and demand were
also calculated per square foot for the study area. Average lighting demand during
the 12 Noon to 6:00 PM peak demand period was calculated. The energy use and
demand of the retrofit and occupancy-controls-only period was estimated as
described earlier. These estimates enable savings to be provided by the daylighting
controls. Demand for the post retrofit period with daylighting (and occupancy)
controls was calculated as the average for May and June to represent typical summer
period daylight hours. The results of these calculations are presented in Error!
Reference source not found..
TABLE 3. ENERGY AND PEAK DEMAND USE AND SAVINGS BY PERIOD TYPE ANNUALLY AND PER SQUARE FOOT
ANNUAL ENERGY
NOON TO 6 PM PEAK
PERIOD AVERAGE DEMAND
PERIOD AND SAVINGS TYPE KWH/YR KWH/SF/YR KW W/SF
Pre Retrofit 5,490 3.09 1.48 0.83
Post Retrofit with Occupancy Controls 4,060 2.28 1.10 0.62
Post Retrofit Occupancy & Daylighting 1,800 1.01 0.22 0.13
Retrofit & Occupancy Savings 1,430 0.80 0.39 0.22
Daylight Savings 2,260 1.27 0.87 0.49
Total Savings 3,680 2.07 1.26 0.71
The estimated energy savings attributed to the daylighting system is the difference
between the post retrofit with occupancy controls and post retrofit with occupancy
and daylight controls. The daylighting system energy savings is 2,260 kWh/yr, which
is a savings of 56%. The combined total energy savings for the project are 3,680
kWh/yr, which is 67%. The estimated average demand savings attributed to the
daylighting components during the summer peak period is 0.87 kW, or 80%. The
combined total demand savings is 1.26 kW, or 85%.
Figure 18 and Figure 19 are bar charts respectively showing the energy and demand
use and savings for the daylighting system and controls. Figure 19 specifically
represents the average summer demand savings from daylighting.
Commercial Tubular Daylighting System ET11SCE1050
Southern California Edison Page 14
Design & Engineering Services August 2012
FIGURE 18. ANNUAL LIGHTING RETROFIT &
OCCUPANCY CONTROL ENERGY USE AND
SAVINGS ESTIMATE FOR DAYLIGHTING
FIGURE 19. LIGHTING DEMAND AND ESTIMATED SUMMER
DEMAND SAVINGS DUE TO DAYLIGHTING
Figure 20 and Figure 21 are bar charts respectively showing the energy and demand
use and savings for all retrofits and controls. Figure 21 specifically represents the
average total summer demand savings.
FIGURE 20. ANNUAL LIGHTING ENERGY USE AND
TOTAL SAVINGS
FIGURE 21. LIGHTING DEMAND AND ESTIMATED TOTAL
SUMMER DEMAND SAVINGS
LIGHT LEVELS Illumination measurements were made during three sets of conditions for the post
retrofit period. The first was a winter day (noon on January 25, 2012; a clear sunny
day). The second was after dark (6 PM on February 1, 2012). The third was a
summer day (noon on August 6, 2012; a clear sunny day). All measurements were
made at desktop height. Light levels in fc were recorded at four locations in each
room: 1) directly below a Solatube diffuser, 2) directly below a ceiling light fixture,
3) halfway between two ceiling light fixtures, and 4) halfway between a Solatube
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500
5,000
Lighting in Test Area
kWh
/sf/
Year
kWh
/Ye
ar
Post Retrofit with Occupancy ControlsPost Retrofit Occupancy & DaylightingDaylight Savings
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
Average Peak Period (Noon - 6:00 PM) Demand
De
man
d, W
/sf
De
man
d, k
W
Post Retrofit with Occupancy ControlsPost Retrofit Occupancy & DaylightingAverage Daylight Savings
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
Lighting in Test Area
kWh
/sf/
Year
kWh
/Ye
ar
Pre RetrofitPost Retrofit Occupancy & DaylightingTotal Savings
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
Average Peak Period (Noon - 6:00 PM) DemandD
em
and
, W/s
f
De
man
d, k
W
Pre RetrofitPost Retrofit Occupancy & DaylightingAverage Total Savings
Commercial Tubular Daylighting System ET11SCE1050
Southern California Edison Page 15
Design & Engineering Services August 2012
diffuser and a ceiling light fixture. This selection of points provides minimum,
maximum, and additional light level measurements within each room. A summary of
the light level measurements are provided in Table 4. The presented values for each
day type for the six offices is across 24 measurements. The presented values for
each day type for the common areas is across eight measurements. The average
office light level is 57 fc during a clear summer day, 46 fc during a clear winter day,
and 28 fc at night. This compares to the 35 fc target the control system was
intended to maintain. Note that during sunny days the lights are generally off.
TABLE 4. POST RETROFIT LIGHT LEVEL MEASUREMENT SUMMARY
CONDITIONS SIX OFFICES
(FC)
COMMON ROOMS
(FC)
Minimum – Mid Summer Day 45.2 36.7
Maximum – Mid Summer Day 70.2 72.8
Average – Mid Summer Day 57.6 62.3
Minimum – Mid Winter Day 30.9 35.0
Maximum – Mid Winter Day 58.2 55.1
Average – Mid Winter Day 46.0 48.7
Minimum – After Dark 18.6 16.0
Maximum – After Dark 36.3 32.3
Average – After Dark 28.1 23.1
ECONOMICS The material and labor costs for the test site daylight tubes was $35,850. The
material and labor costs for the test site lighting retrofit and controls was $55,190.
The total project cost was $91,040. The cost may be lower if utility program
incentives are received. The simple payback period was calculated based on an
average electric rate of $0.15/kWh. Payback period for the site was 165 years
without utility incentives.
Return on Investment (ROI) was calculated for the expected life of each product. The
expected life is approximately 20 years. The calculated ROI is 0.1.
DISCUSSIONS This project implemented new technology to provide energy and demand reductions.
Installation of tubular daylight in buildings by itself does not provide savings. Savings
are achieved by dimming or turning lights off. Predictable savings only occur if the
controls are automated and use daylight sensors. Savings from manual controls can
occur but are not reliable.
This test case achieved lower total savings than a typical building since the baseline
lighting already used occupancy sensors and controls. Daylighting control savings
can occur whether the retrofit lighting is LED, fluorescent, or other dimmable
lighting. Daylighting can provide sufficient illumination to completely turn off lights
during clear sunny days.
Commercial Tubular Daylighting System ET11SCE1050
Southern California Edison Page 16
Design & Engineering Services August 2012
Total daylight savings is maximized by businesses that operate during all available
daylight hours. Percent savings will be maximized by businesses that operate only
during hours with available daylight.
Secondary impacts on HVAC systems are not considered during the savings analysis
presented in this report.
Commercial Tubular Daylighting System ET11SCE1050
Southern California Edison Page 17
Design & Engineering Services August 2012
CONCLUSION The main objectives of the project were to answer the following questions:
1. What are the baseline lighting loads in the selected areas? The baseline annual lighting
energy use in the test area was 5,490 kWh, which translates to 3.09 kWh/sf/yr. The
baseline peak period lighting demand was 1.48 kW for the test area.
2. What are the post retrofit lighting load profiles in the selected areas? The retrofit annual
lighting energy use in the test area is 1,800 kWh, which translates to 1.01 kWh/sf/yr.
The post retrofit peak period lighting demand during the summer is 0.22 kW for the test
area.
3. Does the new daylighting control system perform as expected? The lighting profiles
during the daylight hours are significantly reduced with the new daylighting and
controls. The system is performing as expected.
4. How much lighting energy and demand savings can be achieved by the new daylighting
control system? The estimated energy savings attributed to the daylighting system is
2,260 kWh/yr, which is a savings of 56%. The combined total energy savings for the
project are 3,680 kWh/yr, which is 67%. The estimated average demand savings
attributed to the daylighting components during the summer peak period is 0.87 kW, or
80%. The combined total demand savings is 1.26 kW, or 85%.
Since this was a case study, savings for other sites may be higher if lights are generally on
during business hours and there are no existing occupancy controls.
This report can provide measured and technical data to SCE’s emerging technology
evaluation process. The results of this study illustrate the effectiveness of tubular
daylighting systems and controls.
Commercial Tubular Daylighting System ET11SCE1050
Southern California Edison Page 18
Design & Engineering Services August 2012
RECOMMENDATIONS The results of this demonstration project show that significant energy savings are possible
with commercial tubular daylighting and lighting control systems technologies. These
technologies can be adapted to other business types beyond the office tested in this study.
As more of these daylighting solutions are installed, installers should learn how to properly
install and commission them in order to provide an effective product to the customer.
Based on this study, tubular daylighting in combination with daylight controls is not cost
effective. If it is to be considered for adoption into a portfolio of energy efficiency incentive
programs, cost analysis should be conducted to determine whether the total resource cost
(TRC) testing result justifies its inclusion. For a marginal additional cost the lighting and
controls could be designed to also provide demand reduction that may help justify costs.
Further study of daylighting with dimming controls could be considered for facilities that do
not have existing occupancy controls; additional savings may be documented with such a
study. Any additional studies should monitor the post installation period for at least a winter
and summer period.
Commercial Tubular Daylighting System ET11SCE1050
Southern California Edison Page 19
Design & Engineering Services August 2012
REFERENCES [CEUS] Itron, 2010, California End Use Survey Results, March 2006, prepared for the
California Energy Commission retrieved 3/5/10 at
http://capabilities.itron.com/CeusWeb/Chart.aspx.
[DEER] Database for Energy Efficient Resources, 2004-2005 version 2.01, California Utilities
Commission at http://www.deeresources.com/
Heschong Mahone Group, October 2003, Technical Report for the California Energy
Commission, “Windows and Classrooms: A Study of Student Performance and the Indoor
Environment”, Publication # P500-03-082-A-07.
Commercial Tubular Daylighting System ET11SCE1050
Southern California Edison Page 20
Design & Engineering Services August 2012
APPENDIX A Raw and processed data collected for the evaluation of this project can be found in the
embedded Excel file. In addition, information on equipment calibration is provided in one of
the worksheets in the same file.
Appendix A Trane Data 8-8.xlsx