Summary

Bi-Level Lighting with Occupancy Sensors in Parking Lots and Garages

Parking Lot & Garage Lighting Control: Occupancy Sensor Controlled Bi-level Lighting vs. Lights on at Full Power with or without Photocell

Parking lot and garage fixtures with bi-level controls typically combining bi-level LED, fluorescent, or induction lighting with occupancy sensors to set lighting to a low level when the space is unoccupied.

Synopsis:

Lighting in parking lots and garages is typically operated continuously at full light output. Because these spaces are often unoccupied, implementing bi-level occupancy-based controls can yield significant energy savings. With this strategy, lights are operated at full power whenever the occupancy sensors detect activity. The lights operate at a reduced level during periods of inactivity. Energy savings depend on use patterns by pedestrians and vehicles, but typically range from 20% to 80% of the energy used by lights with simple on/off operation. Photosensors on fixtures around the garage perimeter can increase savings by adjusting to daylight entering the structure.

Several lighting sources are very compatible with bi-level controls: fluorescent, induction and LED, all of which provide white light with good color quality. Bi-level ballasts are widely available, and modern controls make the strategy easy to implement. LED technology is well adapted to this strategy and continues to evolve as quality and features improve and costs go down.

Demonstrations have been done with all three lighting sources used with this technology (fluorescent, induction and LED). Some utilities are already providing incentives. Garage installations may be eligible for federal financial incentives as well.

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: 3.52

Details

Bi-Level Lighting with Occupancy Sensors in Parking Lots and Garages

Parking Lot & Garage Lighting Control: Occupancy Sensor Controlled Bi-level Lighting vs. Lights on at Full Power with or without Photocell

Item ID: 63

Sector: Commercial

Energy System: Lighting--Sensors & Controls

Technical Advisory Group: 2009 Lighting TAG (#1)

Synopsis:

Baseline Example:

Baseline Description: 131 W LED without Controls
Baseline Energy Use: 572 kWh per year per unit

Comments:

This technology includes bi-level controls only, independent of a fixture retrofit.

Baseline wattage is calculated for typical parking lot and parking garage situations, assuming retrofit to an efficient source has already been completed. A weighted average wattage is calculated using data from Navigant's 2011 report for U.S. DOE SSL Program (Navigant , 2011 Pg 35, 36).

Baseline Wattage	Installed Base ('000s) (1)	% of Total	Wattage of LED Replacement (2)	Weighted Avg Wattage
Parking Garages
Fluorescent	16600	54%	68	37
HPS	8500	28%	131	36
MH	5600	18%	91	17
	30700	100%		90
Parking Lots
HPS	5700	40%	245	98
MH	8600	60%	199	120
	14300			218

Combined baseline weighted average across parking garages and lots = {(30,700 * 90 W) + (14,300 * 218 W)} / (30,700 + 14,300) = 131 W

(1) (Navigant , 2011 Pg Table 3.6)

(2) (Navigant , 2011 Pg Table 3.7)

Baseline energy use is calculated assuming operation all night (4,380 hr/yr).

Baseline energy use = 131 W * 4,380 hr/yr / 1,000 W/kWh = 572 kWh/yr

Manufacturer's Energy Savings Claims:

"Typical" Savings: 40%
Savings Range: From 20% to 80%

Comments:

Savings range from 20-80% over the standard technology, depending on the traffic level in the garage and how much time is spent in the high- or low-output mode. Photocontrols can maximize energy savings after dark and along perimeters of parking garages that receive adequate daylight. Frequency of customer entry/exit and control zoning will impact energy savings. The more minutes over a 24-hour period the parking lot or garage is “occupied” by a pedestrian or a moving vehicle, the lower the savings. Smart zoning by individual fixture or groups of fixtures can enhance savings. The time must be taken to properly commission the controls, or savings can be impacted.

Conversion to a high efficiency light source, such as LED, in conjunction with installation of bi-level controls can increase overall energy savings.

Best Estimate of Energy Savings:

"Typical" Savings: 40%
Low and High Energy Savings: 19% to 76%
Energy Savings Reliability: 4 - Extensive Assessment

Comments:

Low and high energy savings estimates are from a 2012 DOE study (Kinzey, et. al., 2012 Pg pg vi). Frequency of customer entry / exit and control zoning will impact energy savings. The more time over a 24 hour period the parking lot or garage is “occupied” by a pedestrian or a moving vehicle, the less the savings. Smart zoning by individual fixture or groups of fixtures can enhance savings.

Numerous field assessments and case studies have been completed for this technology, documenting significant savings. These include DOE Gateway demonstrations (PG&E, 2009), ETAP Case Studies, and ETCC Assessments.

Energy Use of Emerging Technology:

343.2 kWh per unit 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: unit
Potential number of units replaced by this technology: 2,000,000
Comments:

Based on Navigant's 2011 report for U.S. DOE SSL Program (EERE, 2011 Pg 35). This report contains national data. Since the Northwest is about 4% of the population of the US, about 4% of the reported 50,000,000 parking lot and garage lighting on a national basis for 2010 is used.

Note: A report prepared by the California Lighting Technology Center for the BPA, Pacific Gas and Electric, and Southern California Edison "Western Exterior Occupancy Survey for Exterior Adaptive Lighting Applications (Phase 2)" dated August 6, 2014 notes that a large sector of exterior commercial lighting illuminates parking lots and above ground parking garages. This report shows commercial parking lots as being lit by a quantity of 15,800,000 lamps while parking garages utilize an additional 34,700,000 lamps.

Regional Technical Potential:
0.46 TWh per year
52 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: unit

Comments:

Since this technology includes bi-level controls only, independent of a fixture retrofit, the installed first cost is the incremental cost of the occupancy sensor control. Typically, bi-level control in parking lots and parking garages will be implemented as part of a retrofit to a more efficient source and fixture with an integrated occupancy sensor will be used. The incremental cost of the fixture with the integrated occupancy sensor above the cost for the new fixture without an integrated occupancy sensor is estimated at $75.

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:

Actual savings for occupancy sensor control will depend on electric rates and traffic volumes/occupancy, which determine how long the lights operate at high output. Projects likely to show the fastest payback are new installations or major retrofits where all fixtures are scheduled to be replaced and occupancy control can be included as an integrated optional feature.

Detailed Description:

Bi-level lighting, also called adaptive lighting, employs occupancy sensors that are sometimes used with time-clocks to reduce light levels when no activity is detected, or when it is not detected during certain hours. Modern bi-level ballasts and lamps capable of dimming have made this possible. Energy savings are realized because lights operate for fewer hours, dimming reduces power use, and lamps and ballasts are more efficient. Lamp life may also be extended. Many products are available that utilize induction, high-performance fluorescent and LED technologies for parking garage lighting, canopy lighting, and area lighting.

Product Information:
Deco Lighting, D511ib Bi-Level Induction Parking Luminaire

Standard Practice:

Traditional parking garages are often lighted 24/7 at a fixed light level, and parking lots are often fully lit from dusk to dawn, whether occupied or not. High-pressure sodium (HPS), standard T12 or T8 fluorescent, and in some cases metal halide systems have traditionally been used.

Development Status:

Bi-level lighting with occupancy sensors is a strategy that has become popular due to the arrival of bi-level ballasts and control systems that use photocells, passive infrared, and ultrasonic occupancy sensors. These control systems are paired with lamps that can respond instantly to their signals. The proposed technology is most suitable for use with linear or induction fluorescent lamps and LEDs. Demonstrated in numerous parking lots and parking garages, this technology shows significant savings in energy use; in parking garages, this technology results in demand reduction as well.

Depending on the lighting technology, light levels, and traffic conditions, savings from using the proposed technology range from 20% to 80%. It is reasonable to expect that the lights can operate at the reduced light level for a significant number of hours. New products continue to appear on the market. LED products are expected to continue to drop in price and improve in performance. More control options for LEDs are also expected to be developed.

The 2014 California Building Energy Code, Title 24 requires bi-level controls for most outdoor luminaires, including parking lots and wall-mounted area lighting. In parking garages, daylighting control is required for perimeter lighting and bi-level occupancy-based control is required for interior lighting.

The Better Buildings Alliance, a program of the U.S. Department of Energy (USDOE), developed specifications for high-efficiency parking lot and parking garage lighting that include recommendations for bi-level control (EERE, 2013).

End User Drawbacks:

• Controls must be commissioned to ensure proper operation.

Operations and Maintenance Costs:

No information available.

Effective Life:

Comments:

The California utilities use an EUL of 8 years for occupancy sensors.

Reference and Citations:

DOE, 08/14/2014. LED Lighting Facts
U.S. Department of Energy

Navigant , 01/01/2011. Energy Savings Estimates of Light Emitting Diodes in Niche Lighting Applications
U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Program

PG&E, 03/18/2009. Application Assessment of Bi-Level LED Parking Lot Lighting
Pacific Gas & Electric Company

EERE, 08/12/2013. Outdoor Lighting Resources
Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy

EERE, 10/16/2013. Better Business Alliance Specifications for Bi-level Parking Lot and Bi-level Parking Garage lighting
Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy

CBEA, 02/15/2012. CBEA High-Efficiency Parking Structure Lighting Specification
Commercial Building Energy Alliance

BTO, 10/17/2013. Metal Halide Lamp Fixtures
Building Technologies Office

BTO, 10/17/2013. High-Intensity Discharge Lamps
Building Technologies Office

BTO, 10/17/2013. Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts
Building Technologies Office

Forest Kaser, 06/08/2011. Bi-Level Lighting Controls
Energy Technology Assistance Program

EERE, 08/04/2010. Overview of Outdoor Area Lighting
Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy

CLTC, 2015. California Lighting Technology Center
California Lighting Technology Center, UC Davis

AESC AESC, 07/16/2013. Appendix B Table of Standard Fixture Wattages and Sample Lighting Table
California IOUs

Energy Solutions, 1/1/1901. Contra Costa County Parking Lot Case Study
Energy Solutions

Energy Solutions, 2012. Case Study: Dramatic Energy Savings for Sacramento with Bi-level LED Parking Garage Retrofits
California Energy Commission

CLTC, 1/1/1901. UC Davis Bi-level Smart LED Parking Garage Luminaire Demonstration
CLTC

Emerging Technology Associates, 10/30/2011. Bi-Level LED Parking Structure Demonstration Showcase
SDG&E

Bruce Kinzey, et. al., 10/01/2012. Use of Occupancy Sensors in LED Parking Lot and Garage Applications: Early Experiences
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy

Everlast, 05/19/2011. EverLast Induction Lighting Introduces New ARRA Compliant Bi-Level Parking Garage Fixture
Everlast

Rank & Scores

Bi-Level Lighting with Occupancy Sensors in Parking Lots and Garages

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: 3.5 out of 5

How significant and reliable are the energy savings?
Energy Savings Score: 3.8 Comments:
Nov 2009 Comments: 1. 30% savings seems supportable. 2. Savings are off peak. Some potentiall for DR, but that is not really this technology. 3. There is no guarantee of demand savings. However, most garages are unoccupied during typical peak hours of early afternoon. Therefore, some demand reduction is possible. 4. Unknown. How great are the non-energy advantages for adopting this technology?
Non-Energy Benefits Score: 4.4
Comments:
Nov 2009 Comments: 1. This rating assumes controls are combined with new, and better fixtures and light sources. How ready are product and provider to scale up for widespread use in the Pacific Northwest?
Technology Readiness Score: 4.1
Comments:
Nov 2009 Comments: 1. I think this will take off in tandem with LED retrofits. 2. Fixtures are commercially available with a short lead time. How easy is it to change to the proposed technology?
Ease of Adoption Score: 3.6
Comments:
Nov 2009 Comments: 1. Occupancy sensors are easy to understand and use. They are pretty automatic. Considering all costs and all benefits, how good a purchase is this technology for the owner?
Value Score: 1.7
Comments:
Nov 2009 Comments: 1. Don't know. 2. Assumes combined with new fixtures. 3. Should be less than 5 years in most cases. 4. In retrofit mode.

Completed:
6/25/2010 1:46:42 PM
Last Edited:
10/26/2010 4:06:36 PM

Market Potential

Bi-Level Lighting with Occupancy Sensors in Parking Lots and Garages

Last Edited:

10/26/2010 12:42:32 PM by AngelaP

Market Segment:

For both stairwell fixtures and parking lot / garage fixtures and controls: commercial offices, hospitality, institutional, government, and multi-family residential.

Regional Fit:

This is a good fit for the Northwest, given the number of multi-story buildings, parking lots and garages in the region, along with the low market penetration of these technologies to date. Otherwise, it is not really a region-specific technology.

Zones:

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

Performance Trajectory:

Stairwell fixtures are already a mature technology combining two well-known applications – bi-level ballasts and ultrasonic occupancy sensors.

Parking lot and garage fixtures and controls combine bi-level LED drivers, or fluorescent or induction bi-level ballasts and infrared occupancy sensors. These technologies are not as mature in the market and more at risk in the market due to competing technologies as described below under Product Risk.

Product Supply and Installation Risk:

There is no shortage of product or components, except possibly temporarily for LEDs if there is an unexpectedly large uptick in orders. There is no likely competitor technology to dominate the market for the stairwell systems.

The parking lot and garage systems have a more complex technology trajectory given the opportunity for wireless mesh or powerline carrier communication between fixtures to provide large area control and integral security monitoring options in future product generations.

Technical Dominance:

Very good. These products are likely to become standard practice.

Market Channels:

Aside from marketing directly to facility owners and operators, the other channels are via electrical contractors and electricians, and via energy efficiency programs for government and private sector facility owners/operators.

Regulatory Issues:

Nothing negative. These technologies are likely to get strong regulatory, governmental, and institutional support.

Other risks and barriers:

Premature sensor failure (or concern about failure) could be a barrier for parking lot and garage owners, who are unfamiliar with occupancy sensor-type products. This can be addressed with education. In addition, the non-energy benefits of security benefits and reduced maintenance costs from these systems should be compelling selling points. Another barrier is the very limited time and money available for garage facility enhancements. Education and access to “green” branding can help overcome this.

Basis of Savings:

All of these fixtures and controls can be addressed with deemed savings or possibly a deemed calculator. The primary independent variable is the wattage of the fixture being replaced (e.g., LED or fluorescent replacing HPS), and this can probably be addressed with a series of deemed alternatives.

Completed:

4/19/2010 11:41:14 AM by Emily Salzberg