Summary

Integrated Classroom Lighting System

Class & Conference Room Lighting Control: Advanced Task-based vs. Manual On/Off

A combination of efficient light fixtures, high-efficiency fluorescent light sources and user-friendly controls that allows pleasant, indirect lighting during normal use and dimming for audiovisual presentations that is coupled with low-level direct lighting for student tasks during the presentations.

Synopsis:

The Integrated Classroom Lighting System (ICLS) offers energy savings and improved learning environments. ICLSs let the instructor control classroom lighting to facilitate teaching and provide better light for students to see whiteboard and audiovisual presentations and to perform other activities. These simple control systems can be understood quickly by substitute teachers, increasing their effectiveness and saving time. While high-quality lighting can be provided in various ways, having a complete integrated system gives the user one point of contact when adjustments are needed. Basic ICLS systems can cost less than incumbent technologies.

Increasingly, energy codes are requiring daylight harvesting and stronger control systems when even smaller lighting system upgrades (lamp/ballast) are installed. ICLSs can help facility managers meet many of the requirements while providing a simple-to-use, high-quality lighting system that teachers and students love.

Numerous case studies have verified that energy savings from the ICLS systems vary from 30% to 50% over standard classroom lighting. Electricians have found installation and maintenance to be easy, and the payback period is short. ICLS was developed between 2003-05 by Finelite, Inc., in cooperation with the Collaborative for High Performance Schools (CHPS) using a combination of best practices and new technologies.

Energy Savings: 40%

Energy Savings Rating: Extensive Assessment What's this?

Level	Status	Description
1	Concept not validated	Claims of energy savings may not be credible due to lack of documentation or validation by unbiased experts.
2	Concept validated:	An unbiased expert has validated efficiency concepts through technical review and calculations based on engineering principles.
3	Limited assessment	An unbiased expert has measured technology characteristics and factors of energy use through one or more tests in typical applications with a clear baseline.
4	Extensive assessment	Additional testing in relevant applications and environments has increased knowledge of performance across a broad range of products, applications, and system conditions.
5	Comprehensive analysis	Results of lab and field tests have been used to develop methods for reliable prediction of performance across the range of intended applications.
6	Approved measure	Protocols for technology application are established and approved.

TAG Technical Score: 3.72

Details

Integrated Classroom Lighting System

Class & Conference Room Lighting Control: Advanced Task-based vs. Manual On/Off

Item ID: 133

Sector: Commercial

Energy System: Lighting--Sensors & Controls

Technical Advisory Group: 2009 Lighting TAG (#1)

Synopsis:

Baseline Example:

Baseline Description: Standard classroom lighting
Baseline Energy Use: 1.4 kWh per year per square foot

Comments:

Based on Washington State Energy Code lighting power density (LPD) allowance of one W/sf, and operating 1,440 hours per year (180 days of instruction times 8 hours per day).

Manufacturer's Energy Savings Claims:

Savings Range: From 35% to 64%

Comments:

This technology has been on the market and continues to evolve plus enough studies have been done that manufacturer's refer to those for savings, typically comparing to ASHRAE 90.10 2004/2007 standards. A percentage of the savings comes from using more efficient lamps and ballasts than existing equipment, or exceeding the minimum efficiency permitted by code in new construction and is not indicated in most manufacturers' data. The rest of the savings will depend on the type and usage of the classroom and how much time it is vacant or at a lower use setting.

Best Estimate of Energy Savings:

"Typical" Savings: 40%
Energy Savings Reliability: 4 - Extensive Assessment

Comments:

Range: 30-50% savings. This will depend on what features are included in the particular package being measured, and what it is compared to, as well as how the teacher uses the system. More time spent in audiovisual mode, for instance, will save even more energy. Savings will vary greatly from classroom to classroom depending on each individual teacher as well as the class type. Most savings will occur in a classroom where a teacher frequently uses audiovisual resources and is knowledgeable on how to use the lighting system. Good user training is essential since without the teacher’s understanding, savings and lighting quality benefits are not optimized.

Energy Use of Emerging Technology:

.8 kWh per square foot per year What's this?

Energy Use of an Emerging Technology is based upon the following algorithm.

Baseline Energy Use - (Baseline Energy Use * Best Estimate of Energy Savings (either Typical savings OR the high range of savings.))

Technical Potential:
Units: square foot
Potential number of units replaced by this technology: 184,000,000
Comments:

The Northwest Commercial Building Stock Assessment (CBSA) indicates that about 10% of the region's commercial floor space of 2,704 million sf is allocated to schools (Figure 7). As shown on Table C-GB1, this amounts to 262.9 million square feet. It is assumed that 70% of the building square footage is allocated to classrooms (the remainder consists of lunchrooms, auditoriums, gyms, locker rooms, offices, teachers lounges, automotive shops, etc.) yielding a total of about 184 million sf of space that would benefit from lighting controls ( NEEA, 12/21/2009). No information is available regarding classrooms that are already controlled by daylighting (automatic dimming ballasts), this technology or similar technologies.

Regional Technical Potential:
0.10 TWh per year
12 aMW
What's this?

Regional Technical Potential of an Emerging Technology is calculated as follows:

Baseline Energy Use * Estimate of Energy Savings (either Typical savings OR the high range of savings) * Technical Potential (potential number of units replaced by the Emerging Technology)

First Cost:

Installed first cost per: square foot

Comments:

According to the tech-briefs of the same name, Integrated Classroom Lighting System: Light’s Great, Less Billing, 2008 (http://www.energy.ca.gov/2008publications/CEC-500-2008-033/CEC-500-2008-033-FS.PDF and http://www.archenergy.com/lrp/products/brochures/ICLS-Esource-techbrief.pdf), the base system at a price of $2,600 for a typical classroom is actually $145 less than a typical system it replaces. It will cost an additional $175 for daylight dimming, $500 for dimming and $110 for three rows of luminaires instead of the standard two rows.

Cost Effectiveness:

Simple payback, new construction (years): N/A

Simple payback, retrofit (years): N/A

What's this?

Cost Effectiveness is calculated using baseline energy use, best estimate of typical energy savings, and first cost. It does not account for factors such as impacts on O&M costs (which could be significant if product life is greatly extended) or savings of non-electric fuels such as natural gas. Actual overall cost effectiveness could be significantly different based on these other factors.

Comments:

Results from the California Energy Commission’s Public Interest Energy Research (PIER) study on ICLS found a payback for a basic system to be immediate (that is, it cost less than the alternative for new construction or major retrofits). A system that included daylight harvesting had a 3-6 month payback. A system that included dimming ballasts and controls paid back in 2-3 years. Adding the third row of fixtures moved the payback time to 7-10 years. These costs were calculated at California’s higher energy rates and compared to standard T8 parabolic fixtures (see Table 2 in http://www.archenergy.com/lrp/products/brochures/ICLS-Esource-techbrief.pdf).

Detailed Description:

The Integrated Classroom Lighting System (ICLS) is composed of efficient light fixtures, high-efficiency fluorescent light sources, and an innovative and user-friendly Teacher Control Center. The control center allows teachers to easily change the light level and distribution in a classroom (often from their desk). It provides pleasant and efficient indirect lighting during normal use along with controls to suit the needs of the activity, from audiovisual presentations, white board display, and reading or computer use by students. While Finelite was the first company to introduce the ICLS, and is now offering version 3, several other companies are now offering similar products (listed below).

The basic system includes indirect luminaires with energy efficient T-8 lamps and electronic ballast, 96% reflective material within the fixture, a teacher control center located at the front of the classroom, and plug-and-play components. The system provides school facility designers and specifiers with lighting that cuts energy use in half while providing light when and where it is needed.

Energy savings can be substantial through the use of an ICLS and initial costs can be even lower than standard strategies. Keep in mind that while additional features will add to the overall cost, ultimately they also enhance the energy savings. This is a great system for both new construction and retrofit projects. Indications are that the learning environment is improved with the use of integrated classroom lighting.

Finelite:
http://www.finelite.com/products/icls-overview.html

Class Pack Lighting Systems:
http://acuitybrands.com/Markets/Education/Learning_Education/Class_Pack_by_Acuity_Brands.aspx

Integrated Control Solutions:
http://www.peerless-lighting.com/info/?pg=controls

Litecontrol
Audio-Visual Switching: http://www.litecontrol.com/cs-av
School and University: http://www.litecontrol.com/school-lighting

New Product Flash: Class Pack Lighting Systems:
http://todaysfacilitymanager.com/facilityblog/2010/08/new-product-flash-class-pack-lighting-systems.html

(see Citations)

Standard Practice:

Standard practice in a classroom is similar to that in an office. Often the main goal is simply to meet building and energy code requirements with a relatively even distribution of lighting. This may still include simple two-to-four lamp in-ceiling troffers. Higher quality systems may employ indirect or direct-indirect pendant fixtures.

Typical classroom lighting does not meet the functional needs of teachers or students and is expensive to operate. The modern classroom requires a range of lighting scenarios, from full lighting for traditional classroom teaching to various levels of dimming and light distribution for audiovisual (A/V) presentations and other activities. Existing classroom lighting systems do not have enough flexibility to provide quality lighting for such an evolving environment. However, there are energy-efficient and cost-effective alternatives.

Development Status:

This system has been commercially available nationwide from Finelite Inc. since 2005. Additional companies are now offering similar systems. Since the products come as a system with wiring instructions, electricians in the case study projects have found the technology “easy to install.”

Finelite has systems installed at numerous locations in Oregon such as the Dufur Public Schools in Dufur, Concordia College in Portland and Floyd Light Middle School in Clackamas. Many other states have Finelite systems including Iowa, Texas, Wisconsin, New Jersey, Michigan, Massachusetts, Kansas and Colorado.

Non-Energy Benefits:

Non-energy benefits are numerous as documented in case studies and reports:

Teachers like the ability to control the lighting from the front of the classroom for real time adjustment as activity needs change.
Different settings direct lighting upwards and downwards which minimizes glare and creates a beneficial environment for students to study.
Dedicated lighting modes for audio-visual presentations and use of white boards direct students’ attention and aides in teacher instruction.
Fewer power feeds and mounting hardware than typical classroom lighting.
Plug-and-play wiring for ease of installation.
Ability to change how the lighting system is used as teaching patterns and curriculum changes throughout the year.

End User Drawbacks:

There are few obvious downsides to this technology. One is that it is an unfamiliar technology, so it will take some time and training for installers and consumers to get used to. Some people resist any change, so they may not accept this technology just because it is a little bit different. Education, training, incentives and possible code support may help overcome this resistance.

With some systems and options (not all), there is a first cost premium.

Commissioning the system and re-commissioning it on an ongoing basis is necessary to maintain the highest energy savings. Clear instructions need to be provided and made available to staff.

Operations and Maintenance Costs:

No information available.

Effective Life:

Comments:

The effective life of this technology should be about the same as the life of any other lighting system, or about 15-20 years. Periodic re-commissioning will help maintain initial savings performance. There may be some tendency to upgrade the controls before reaching the end of the system’s effective life, say in 10 years, due to the cutting-edge nature of the technology.

Competing Technologies:

An alternative that would compete with this system is a good custom-design system by a lighting designer.

In "Advanced Lighting Luminaires & Systems Element: Project 4.5 Integrated Classroom Lighting System - Goals and Objectives" (see Additional Resources), four steps should be taken to assure classroom lighting works better for the teacher and students and saves energy:

1. Put vertical foot-candles on the white board

2. Keep the teacher control simple and provide at least two modes: normal and A/V. Simple and/or well labeled control systems make it easier for substitute teachers to understand their operation and not waste time figuring it out or making do with an uncomfortable setting.

3. Have an override time setting for the occupancy sensor available during exams, when the lack of activity can cause the sensor to turn off the lights, which is very distracting.

4. Have one point of contact for the system and its operation; provide clear instructions on use and ongoing commissioning to maintain savings over time.

While the above measures may be met in a variety of ways, having one provider for the whole system can best assure that there is one point of contact to work with to resolve issues.

Reference and Citations:

PIER, 10/18/2002. Advanced Lighting Luminaires & Systems Element: Project 4.5 Integrated Classroom Lighting System - Goals and Objective
Public Interest Energy Research (PIER) Program

R Samuels, 01/01/2009. Light, Mood and Performance at School, Final Report
Light, Mood and Performance at School, Final Report

LRC, 01/23/2008. Field Test Snapshots, “Classroom Lighting.”
Lighting Research Center

PIER, 08/05/2008. Integrated Classroom Lighting System
Public Interest Energy Research Program

PIER, 01/18/2005. ICLS: Light’s Great, Less Billing
Public Interest Energy Research Program

PIER, 08/05/2008. Field Demonstration CSU Stanislaus and San Francisco State University
Public Interest Energy Research Program

Terry Clark, 09/30/2005. Project 4.5 Integrated Classroom Lighting System: Final Report
California Energy Commission

James Benya, 10/06/2007. LEED and Lighting for Schools
Benya Lighting Design

Today's Facility Manager, 08/17/2010. New Product Flash: Class Pack Lighting Systems
Today's Facility Manager , todaysfacilitymanager.com

Marsha Walton, 03/10/2008. Classroom Lighting System Demonstration Research Study
New York State Energy Research and Development Authority

CADMUS, 12/21/2009. Northwest Commercial Building Stock Assessment (CBSA): Final Report
Prepared by the CADMUS Group for the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance

Rank & Scores

Integrated Classroom Lighting System

2009 Lighting TAG (#1)

Technical Advisory Group: 2009 Lighting TAG (#1)
TAG Ranking:
Average TAG Rating:
TAG Ranking Date:
TAG Rating Commentary:

Technical Score Details

TAG Technical Score: 3.7 out of 5

How significant and reliable are the energy savings?
Energy Savings Score: 3.8 Comments:
Nov 2009 Comments: 1. Appears to be 30-50% savings, so give it a 4. 2. Base system gives wattage reduction, but controls are not really a demand savings measure. How great are the non-energy advantages for adopting this technology?
Non-Energy Benefits Score: 4.6
Comments:
Nov 2009 Comments: 1. Case studies describe very positive user and maintenace responses. How ready are product and provider to scale up for widespread use in the Pacific Northwest?
Technology Readiness Score: 4.8
Comments:
Nov 2009 Comments: 1. All is ready on provider side. How easy is it to change to the proposed technology?
Ease of Adoption Score: 3.3
Comments:
Nov 2009 Comments: 1. Need user feedback, can a substitute teacher walk in and use it? 2. Appears to be well thought out controls. easy installation - plug and play. Considering all costs and all benefits, how good a purchase is this technology for the owner?
Value Score: 2.1
Comments:
Nov 2009 Comments: 1. Faster for new construction 2. Payback is long. Probably over 10 years at NW power rates. 3. Depends on previous equipment and practice 4. PIER report lists 6 to 11 years at 0.11/kWh, so figure 10 to 20 years at PNW rates in retorfit. However, payback would rate a 5 for new construction.

Completed:
5/7/2010 3:07:17 PM
Last Edited:
10/26/2010 3:57:37 PM

Market Potential

Integrated Classroom Lighting System

Last Edited:

4/19/2010 11:39:33 AM by EmilyS

Market Segment:

Primarily classrooms at new K-12 schools, colleges and universities, but the system could also be used for any classroom – in a training center or office conference room, for instance.

Regional Fit:

This technology has not been implemented widely in this region and there are thousands of NW classrooms, so plenty of additional market penetration is available. So far, it has been adopted mostly in California, New York, and some in Texas. There is no special feature of the NW that makes it a technology particularly well suited for this region. Neither is there a downside of applying it here.

Zones:

Heating Zone 1, Heating Zone 2, Heating Zone 3, Cooling Zone 1, Cooling Zone 2, Cooling Zone 3

Performance Trajectory:

This technology is fully commercialized and is being installed aggressively in California and New York, and has been for a few years. It is just recently (2007-8) being considered in other regions. Because of the nature of electronic controls, it is reasonable to expect that the controls themselves will continue to evolve and improve over the next few years, but it is mature enough now to consider it a robust product.

Product Supply and Installation Risk:

The components for this system are readily available from major manufacturers and no shortage is anticipated.

This system is not highly technical. Though it includes some newly developed components such as the highly reflective plastic in the fixtures and the Teacher Control Center, the system would not be difficult to imitate. We understand Finelite does not have patents or other special rights to the system, so we are not confident that Finelite will maintain control of this technology. However, systems such as this will likely be a good solution for classrooms for the foreseeable future. Importantly, since the components are not out of the ordinary, serviceable parts should be available for replacement for the foreseeable future.

Technical Dominance:

Right now, this is the superior lighting solution for a classroom, especially where there is frequent use of audiovisual aids—and use of audiovisual aids is a trend expected to continue. The technology could evolve and improve in coming years.

Market Channels:

Since this technology was initiated by Finelite, much of the marketing will be done by them through their normal channels and methods. Related systems are now available through other manufacturers, which have similar channels

Regulatory Issues:

None known at this time.

Other risks and barriers:

The struggling economy has impacted school budgets, so fewer schools may currently have the capital needed to fund more advanced lighting controls without incentives, but with rising energy costs and utility incentives this barrier will hopefully be overcome. A smaller potential barrier is a lack of teachers’ willingness to learn the effective use of this technology and commit to use it regularly. Training programs are expected to overcome this.

Basis of Savings:

This technology has good potential to become a deemed measure. The savings should be fairly predictable given a definable baseline (e.g., no controls, simple occupancy sensors, etc.) and expressed as savings either per square foot of classroom or per kW of classroom lighting. Individual users will implement this technology differently, so there will be behavioral variations, but it should be consistent enough to provide a deemed savings value.

Completed:

4/19/2010 11:39:33 AM by Emily Salzberg