When people have the courage to measure energy savings, they often find that the actual performance does not match the design calculations. This can occur if systems are not installed or operated as assumed by the designer and engineer who made the pre-construction energy use estimates. This performance gap can be dramatic. Energy-efficient lighting improvements are particularly vulnerable to this problem. Actual and predicted lighting energy savings can differ significantly. One solution is commissioning--to check that the systems are installed and operated as intended.
The US Department of Energy (DOE) has recognized the opportunity to achieve energy, economic, and environmental benefits by promoting energy-efficient lighting through federal policies, including lighting standards, financial incentives, and information programs. To assist in this process, the Office of Conservation and Renewable Energy's Office of Codes and Standards invited Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory to assess prospective national impacts for a variety of policy options. Some progress has already been made in developing lighting policies at both the federal and state levels. The US DOE's Office of Building Technologies has evaluated lighting efficiency incentives as part of its analysis for the National Energy Strategy. Fluorescent and incandescent lamp standards are included in the national Energy Policy Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-486, October 24, 1992). A few states have analyzed or implemented lamp and luminaire standards. Many policy-related issues merit further investigation. For example, there is considerable debate over issues such as mandatory or voluntary standards versus component labeling and other education-oriented strategies. Several different technologies are involved that interact with each other-lamps (incandescent, compact fluorescent, and HID), ballasts (for fluorescent and HID lamps), and fixtures with reflectors and lenses. Control systems and operation patterns must also be considered (timers, automated dimming, or occupancy sensors). Lighting applications are diverse, ranging from offices, restaurants, hallways, hospital operating rooms, to exterior lights. Lighting energy use influences heating and cooling requirements in buildings. Successful lighting system design must also address interactions between architectural design elements and daylighting availability. Proper system installation and ongoing operation and maintenance are crucial. The economic aspects of the preceding points must also be considered for policy making.
this article describes fixtures designed explicitly for the compact fluorescent lamp. They offer an effective and permanent solution to energy efficient residential lighting. Topics include advantages of pin-based dedicated fixtures; CFL ups and downs orientation; taking advantage of technology; moving the market.
The US Department of Energy (DOE) has recognized the opportunity to achieve energy, economic, and environmental benefits by promoting energy-efficient lighting through federal policies, including lighting standards, financial incentives, and information programs. To assist in this process, the Office of Conservation and Renewable Energy`s Office of Codes and Standards invited Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory to assess prospective national impacts for a variety of policy options. Some progress has already been made in developing lighting policies at both the federal and state levels. The US DOE`s Office of Building Technologies has evaluated lighting efficiency incentives as part of its analysis for the National Energy Strategy. Fluorescent and incandescent lamp standards are included in the national Energy Policy Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-486, October 24, 1992). A few states have analyzed or implemented lamp and luminaire standards. Many policy-related issues merit further investigation. For example, there is considerable debate over issues such as mandatory or voluntary standards versus component labeling and other education-oriented strategies. Several different technologies are involved that interact with each other-lamps (incandescent, compact fluorescent, and HID), ballasts (for fluorescent and HID lamps), and fixtures with reflectors and lenses. Control systems and operation patterns must also be considered (timers, automated dimming, or occupancy sensors). Lighting applications are diverse, ranging from offices, restaurants, hallways, hospital operating rooms, to exterior lights. Lighting energy use influences heating and cooling requirements in buildings. Successful lighting system design must also address interactions between architectural design elements and daylighting availability. Proper system installation and ongoing operation and maintenance are crucial. The economic aspects of the preceding points must also be considered for policy making.
Large numbers of commercial buildings have sought to improve their energy and environmental performance, with half of all leasable U.S. offices now designated at some level of “green”. All proper/es fall somewhere on the green/high-performance spectrum (above and below average) whether or not they bear a formal label or ra/ng.1 Variations in the level of performance can either positively or negatively influence value. This component of value can be shaped by many factors, from utility costs to tenant/owner preferences that translate into income (rent levels, vacancy rates, lease-up /mes, etc.). Occupant perceptions of indoor environmental quality are another potential influence on value. While there has been little uptake of this thinking by practicing appraisers, the increased prevalence of green/HP practices combined with concerns about appraiser competency are compelling the industry to adapt their traditional techniques to this new driver of value. However, the overly narrow focus of policymakers on appraisal of labeled or rated exemplary buildings (e.g., LEED or ENERGY STAR Certified) represents a significant missed opportunity. Any level of green or energy performance can in fact influence value, including below-average performance (a.k.a. “brown discount”), irrespec/ve of whether or not the building has been formally rated. Another surmountable challenge is the limitations to non-appraisers’ understanding of the appraisal process (and constraints therein). A crucial byproduct of this is unrealistic expectations of what appraisers can and will do in the marketplace. This report identifies opportunities for catalyzing improvement of the green/HP appraisal process, which apply to all involved actors—from owner, report-ordering client, the appraiser, and the appraisal reviewer—and fostering more demand for appraisals that recognize green/HP property attributes. The intended audience is primarily the public policy community and other stakeholders outside the formal appraisal community who can contribute to the broader effort to advance professional practces. The discussion begins with a descripton of the appraisal process and the points at which green/HP consideratons can enter the analysis. A series of major barriers to better practces are identfied along with approaches to reducing them.
In recent years, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has strongly urged local public housing authorities (PHAs) to improve the energy efficiency of their building stock in an effort to reduce upward-spiraling energy costs. Local public housing authorities can fund conservation measures with: (1) :HUD Comprehensive Improvement Assistance Program (ClAP) funds, (2) general operating subsidies, (3) utility-sponsored conservation financing programs, and (4) third-party investments. In this study, we examine the relative financial impact on HUD and PHAs of these four funding strategies, based on case studies of actual retrofit efforts by two local housing authorities: San Francisco, California and Trenton, New Jersey. The selected retrofits 1 show significant energy savings. This is not, however, reflected in the financial benefits to each because current provisions of the Performance Funding System (PFS) for public housing energy subsidies that costs and savings associa.ted with energy conservation. retrofits be shared between and the local housing authorities, regardless of the financing mechanism used. Under the PFS HUD benefits substantially from all fOUf retrofit projects. The local PHA also receives positive economic benefits in two cases, a. solar domestic hot water system financed by third party investors and a high-efficiency boiler replacement financed with ClAP funds.. In· another case, the San Francisco weatherized 1827 apartments with a zero-interest loan from the local and to pay the loan over eight years out of general operating subsidies. The present value of loan ($124/apartment exceed the value of lifetime energy savings ($78/unit); thus the retrofit has an overall nega.tive financial on the In our last example, the Trenton ~Ulinc.rlt,y is affected because of ongoing maintenance costs associated with ne;atlne: control retrofit which are not reimbursed HUD. Our results indicate that the of the PFS often result in a net loss to the local housing while HUD substantial benefits. This occurs even for conservation measures with payDel~l()(ls less than three years; hence the present policy reduces the incentive for PHAs to invest in nrC)lP'lct,§ that are very cost effective from the societal perspective. * The work described in this report was funded by the Assista.nt Secretary for Conservation and Renewa.ble Energy, Office of Building and Community Systems, Buildings Systems Division of the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract No. DEeAC0376SFOOOOS. FINANCIAL Th1PACTS OF ENERGY CONSERVATION INVESTMENT IN PUBLIC HOUSrnG Evan :Mills, Ronald L. Ritschard, and Charles A. Goldman Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory University of California INTRODUCTION Since th.e U.S. Housing Act of the federal government has constructed some 1.2 minion housing apartments, which provide shelter for 3.4 minion low-income and elderly persons (Perkins and Will, lQ8O). Public housing management is under the auspices of the U.S. of Housing and Urban Development (:HUD), which provides 2,100 local public housing authorities (PHAs) with technical and assistance in planning, developing, and managing low-income housing. The annual operating for each PHA (including energy costs) is established by HOD a subsidy framebased on projected needs and availa.ble funds. Local PHAs began budgetary the late 1970's because of the rapid escalation of energy after the oil embargo of 1913. 'Other factors also contributed to woes: most were built between the la.te 19408 and the 19605 when energy and was not a consideration in As a these older struc~e]r1e!·au.Y use more energy than structures built the Brooke Amendment IIl-lIIn.ll'llc.'!ll'lnfi' and Urban Act of 1969 established that limited rental incom.e to De]rCent~~jle of the tenant's not to exceed the was raised to a new 'li)~.a..!l.U.VAV.u.O, which were to relieve the financial ha.rdres.ldE~nts! n1rO(jue~~(1 blUd~ret~~rv difficulties for local authorities as In HUD a Performance Funding 'In.1l''If''I.'''''lIrll£lo each PHA with subsidies needed for efficient management. In S1)()DSore:Q a of conservation and Will, 1980). that problem for local the study noted that nominal energy costs in had increased 400% since 1970, continue to inflation over the next few decadese The current administration, has taken that local en.ergy will not be reflected in future federal bud t allocations. As a bills will out of local maintenance and administrative adds to in turn may lead to increased energy ael[JlaJDQ. last several years, U:Ut18.tlD.g retrofit projects measures, housing authorities have a.ttempted to control rising energy et 1986). They have used various sources to pay for these :HUD Comprehensive Improvement Assistance Program (ClAP) conservation programs and (4) third-party from energy service companies). In this study, we examine the impact of these various nnan lelD,g Sl~r8:tee~les on the distribution of retrofit savings and costs between HUD and local PHAse We discuss deterrents to energy conservation that result from the current regulatory framework, and report results from four retrofit projects undertaken by two local housing authorities, San Francisco and Trenton. DEseR OF RETROFIT PROJECTS I provides background information on the four projects. In San Francisco, the Housing took advanta.ge of a utility-sponsored, zero-interest loan program to install attic insulation,
In an effort to reduce rising energy costs, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has strongly urged local public housing authorities (PHAs) to improve the energy efficiency of their building stock. In this study, the authors examine the relative impact on HUD and PHAs of four retrofit financing strategies used by two local housing authorities. They find that the existing Performance Funding System (PFS) regulations tend to discourage PHAs from actively pursuing cost-effective investments that improve the energy efficiency of their housing projects. The authors' results indicate that HUD policies distribute the dollar savings from conservation retrofits in such a way that HUD receives substantial benefits, while local public housing authorities get few benefits. In fact, PHAs can lose money, even in cases where there are significant energy savings and payback periods of less than three years. The authors tested several alternatives to the current regulations and found that the best way to encourage PHAs to conserve is for HUD to reimburse them for new maintenance and capital costs of the conservation retrofits.
This volume of the ''Analysis of Michigan's Demand-Side Electricity Resources in the Residential Sector'' contains end-use studies on various household appliances including: refrigerators, freezers, lighting systems, water heaters, air conditioners, space heaters, and heat pumps. (JEF)
