Regional Technical Forum
Lighting Standard Protocol Subcommittee
3 July 2012, 9:00 -11:10
Attendees: Hadley, O’Neil, Keating, Baker, Reynolds, Kendall, Arneson, Thompson,
Peery, Hope, Wilson, Hartwell, Gui, Gidding, Winner
Reynolds reviewed the protocol development progress and key issues addressed by
this version. The PowerPoint is posted on the Subcommittee Web site. The majority
of the meeting time was spent reviewing language in the protocol itself and the
calculator.
The overarching outcomes of the discussion included the following advice:
 Keating identified that the baseline definitions do not follow the
guidelines definitions of pre-condition and current practice. That should
be consistent.
 Jones stated that second paragraph in Purpose could be clearer about the
eligible measures.
 Baker added that custom measure language that has been deliberated by
another subcommittee for selection of the baseline would add clarity as
well. That needs to be incorporated throughout to align with the current
practice, pre-conditions and efficient conditions. Specific language for
how to select which baseline and how to discern when a fixture is
determined “obsolete” will ass clarity and conformance.
 Wilson advised that the calculator should have a fixture default table. The
Subcommittee agreed that the BPA fixture table that is completely
sourced from manufacturers data is an acceptable standard one to use.
Hartwell concurred, although a small source of error, consistency there
was important,
 The group in general agreed that the Sixth Power Plan HVAC lighting
interaction factors need to be provided by building prototype, by climate
zone by fuel type to improve accuracy. RTF staff will verify if models
were run at that level of granularity.
Some concern was raised about not repeating in the protocol what is already spelled
out in the RTF guidelines (however, some repetitiveness is needed for clarity and
understanding). The following notes are by section of the protocol, commented on
by the Subcommittee. The subcommittee reviewed the protocol and calculator.
Definitions:
Refine definitions for existing and retrofit: use of RTF-defined pre-condition and
current practice. Current practice takes into account prevailing market conditions,
current standards, etc. (check custom protocol handling of this issue)
“Obsolete” terminology is raising questions, should be revised in line with market
conditions definition.
In definitions section, “retrofit” should perhaps be renamed “fixture retrofit”.
Systems may need to be defined.
Section 4:
Eligible Measures. More clarity is needed on what is covered, what fixture retrofit
means (includes lamp and ballast and delamping). Clarify lamps, fixtures/lamps
with integrated drivers are covered by the protocol.
Section 5:
Make sure it aligns with recent “practitioner” language discussed by RTF.
Section 6:
Baseline: Perhaps include option (in savings calculator) for Program admin to input
fixture wattage with an option to select from a default list of fixtures.


Default list for baseline fixture wattage would be sourced from BPA
calculator.
(Since the default list would be optional, maintaining and updating it is
less essential as new fixture types can be directly input into the
calculator)
Retrofit and Code-Impacted terminology needs to be pre-conditions and current
practice.
6.2 As-Built systems need to be defined as efficient condition:

Clarify fixture data is collected by space/use/control type
6.2.1, last paragraph: should state as-built and not baseline.
Operating hours. More definition on the methodology, so that it is repeatable, for
collecting data.



The last bullet clarifying who to interview should apply in all
circumstances.
Clarify how do obtain seasonal variations in schedules (without being
overly prescriptive or insulting to the program admin)
Clarify that documentation should be provided on the data collection.

“building operators” in lieu of “occupants”.
HVAC interactive effects: needed by climate zone, which is not available from the
BPA calculator. (need factors by climate zone data).
6.6-Provisional Data collection.


Tie monitoring durations to seasonality or scheduling variations
identified during operating hour interviews.
Monitoring duration – still appears to be no consensus. (Stick with 4
weeks, with exception for “variations”?)
Section 9:
Should be called Delivery Verification


Specific to verification of eligible measures. Example given for fixtures
that are operating. How do we determine that a three lamp, three level
switching fixture is operating a full capacity during the hours of
operation? Does that affect the capacity or is it an adjustment to hours of
operation? What are the instructions for adjusting hours of operation
when it is disproportional or variable capacity reduction due to dimming
or lamp by lamp switching.
Existing list is more QA/QC in nature – suggested they be moved to data
collection section.
Sampling



Clarify it does not cover program evaluation sampling.
Applies to measured data.
Is a paragraph needed to clarify sampling of fixture data (is this now
defining pre and post installation requirements for program admin?)
Typical Costs


Qualified electrical worker costs likely low, based on Program admin
experience.
Table 12-2: show install/removal of current loggers under qualified
electrical worker and add $.