St
Street
t Lighting
Li hti
Review
R i
City of Virginia Beach, Virginia
PACE Collaborative
Mechanical and Electrical Engineers
Introduction
PACE Collaborative,, P.C. was commissioned in November of 2012 to provide
p
a street lighting review within the context of the following engineering services:

Evaluate replacement street lighting fixtures and technology with the goal
of reducing energy and reducing cost of operations and maintenance.

Measure power input and light output for a sample of lighting fixtures.

Research the lighting marketplace to determine other sources that may
contribute to reaching the above stated goals.

g output
p ((lumens),
), light
g level ((footcandles),
), color
Evaluate light
temperature (degrees Kelvin), input power (amps, volts, watts), initial cost,
maintenance costs.

Interview City personnel and address issues
issues, concerns
concerns, and desires
desires.

Create a summary report to address findings.

Prepare a brief PowerPoint presentation and present the findings.
St
Street
t Lighting
Li hti
Review
R i
City of Virginia Beach, Virginia
A few Facts …




48,277 Street Lighting Fixtures
3600 Lane Miles Managed by City
$5.4 Million Per Year to DVP (ltg)
$9 32 per fixture per month
$9.32
 LED’s Changing the Rules
METHODOLOGY

Evaluate current procedures

Evaluate current costs and alternates

Interview other Cities

Interview the stakeholders; City
City, DVP
DVP, Mfrs,
Mfrs Installing Contractors

Consider alternate methods and costs

1. City
y Owned and Maintained

2. City Owned, Contract Maintenance … for:

A. Existing Streets

B. New Construction

Measured and Analyzed City Pilot Projects

Research the Market … Technology,
Technology Efficacy,
Efficacy Pricing
Street Lighting Review
Q
Questions
ti
Addressed
Add
d by
b this
thi Evaluation
E l ti
Consider …
Sh ld the
Should
th City
Cit take
t k over ownership
hi off street
t
t
lighting?
If so, what fixture should be the standard?
Should the City have a street lighting manager?
What does the City pay for street lighting now
and are there ways to reduce the cost?
Should the City install and own the street lighting at
the Princess Anne Road Expansion Project?
Pilot Projects
j
… Findings
g

Further research indicated that the LED fixtures that were used in the pilot
projects
j t are no llonger manufactured.
f t d IIn fact,
f t the
th manufacturers
f t
that
th t
provided the fixtures for the pilot projects are now producing later model
versions of each of the LED fixtures.

LED lighting technology is a rapidly changing environment.

Most notable in our observation of the pilot projects was the mix of color.
Older high pressure sodium street lighting fixtures produced yellow light.
N
New
LED fixtures
fi t
produced
d
d a very white
hit lilight.
ht Ob
Observing
i b
both
th lilighting
hti
outputs simultaneously enhances the favorability of the white and the
unfavorable impact of the yellow.
Pilot Projects
j
… Findings
g
 All LED pilot project fixtures are outdated and no
l
longer
available.
il bl
 LED pilot projects were mixed with HPS street light
fixtures.
fixtures
 Visually unappealing mix of white and yellow light.
Street Light
g Fixtures Associated with this Project
j

The lighting fixtures currently illuminating the vast majority of streets
th
throughout
h t th
the city
it are hi
high
h pressure sodium,
di
cobra
b h
head
d shaped,
h
d and
d are
mounted to Dominion Virginia Power poles. This fixture is considered the
“incumbent” HPS fixture.

The incumbent HPS produces light at approximately 2,000K, very yellow.

PACE Engineers reviewed numerous LED replacement technologies,
including a Dominion Power provided LED, as well as other fixtures
available
il bl in
i the
th marketplace.
k t l
The
Th associated
i t d efficacy
ffi
(lumens
(l
per watt)
tt)
are compared herein.
Compare Various Street Lighting Fixtures
1
DVP Incumbent
Sodium
2
3
4
5
6
DVP LED
Hi Efficiency LED
Hadco RX2
Beta STR
Dialight
Power ((Watts))
250.00
244.00
190.00
271.00
272.00
252.00
Lumen Output
20000.0
18100.0
18717.0
16944.0
13894.0
20250.0
Lumens Per Watt
80.0
74.2
98.5
62.5
51.1
80.4
Warranty (yrs)
0.0
5.0
10.0
5.0
10.0
n/a
Lumens per Watt (Miles per gallon)
What Others are Doing

PACE Engineers
g
interviewed representatives
p
of other municipalities
p
to determine
what they are doing in the arena of Street Lighting. It became evident that the
majority of municipalities are hiring Dominion Virginia Power to provide and
maintain their street lighting systems, and very few municipalities are even
considering alternatives.

Our interviews revealed that attempts were made in the past byy some municipalities
to own and maintain lighting fixtures with limited success. In one case, a local
municipality, using city maintenance staff, failed to keep pace with the fixture
outages. It became obvious when the number of fixtures not working steadily
increased. The City ultimately turned the fixtures over to Dominion Virginia Power
for continued maintenance. In another case, the underground conductor
installation was a source of frequent outages. When the City attempted to turn this
i t ll ti over tto D
installation
Dominion
i i P
Power, th
the P
Power company refused
f
dd
due tto th
the
complex nature of maintaining a concealed underground circuit that, perhaps, was
not installed up to DVP standards.
What Others are Doing


Arlington:
 City successfully owns and maintains street lighting – Aesthetic choice
 Overhead
O h d di
distribution
t ib ti iis nott practical
ti l
Richmond:
 DVP Provided



 Some City owned, with limited success
 No in-depth study conducted
Loudoun County:
 County owns some street lighting
 City owns (some) parking lot lighting
Chesapeake:
 DVP Provided
 City owned some previously, with limited success
 Will attempt City Owned LED’s
LED s in upcoming projects
Norfolk:
 DVP Provided, no changes forthcoming
Issues of Ownership
 Th
There are many issues
i
associated
i t d with
ith ownership
hi off a complex
l street
t t
lighting system that often are hidden within the confines of a company
providing the service. Many of these issues have associated costs and
require resources.
resources
 Maintenance of a system of this magnitude will require resources
including manpower and equipment as well as real estate for the storage
of spare components.
 Subcontracting
g the maintenance of the Street Lighting
g
g system
y
to p
private
sector contractors will minimize the impact on the internal resources of
the City. The introduction of competition in this area will result in a cost
reduction and a maintenance process that will appear to be very similar
to that of the current arrangement with Dominion Virginia Power.
Issues of Ownership
City Owned & Maintained Street Lights:
 Staffing
 Equipment
 Real Estate … storage of spare poles and
fixtures
 Metering
M t i Complexities
C
l iti
City Owned With Contracted Fixture Maintenance:
 Storage of spare parts at contractor location
 Contract Management
 Staffing
St ffi and
d Equipment
E i
t issues
i
resolved
l d
More Issues of Takeover

Existing lighting fixtures, which are on existing Dominion Virginia Power
poles with existing conductors would be very difficult to take over from
Dominion Virginia Power.

These fixtures are currently not metered. Revenue metering would have to
be installed.
installed This would
o ld be a very
er e
expensive
pensi e and comple
complex process on an
existing pole.

Dominion Virginia Power fixtures have a remaining asset value and a
twenty-year life. The value of the 48,277 fixtures throughout Virginia Beach
is very high in the eyes of the current owner (DVP).
For example,
p assuming
g each lighting
g
g fixture has an initial value of $500 and it is half-wayy through
g its useful life of 20
years (currently valued at $250) x 48,277 fixtures = Total current asset value of $12.1 million. Purchasing the
48,277 fixtures throughout the city for a value of $12 million and then adding revenue meters to each fixture would
be a cost prohibitive exercise and would not result in savings.

The takeover of Ownership
p from Dominion Virginia
g
Power to the City
y of
Virginia Beach of existing lighting fixtures would require SCC approval.
This is a very time consuming and politically charged process.

In summary
summary, the potential of taking over existing fixtures does not appear to
yield favorable results. Specific cost calculations are offered herein.
Issues of Takeover
It’s not Free
 Installation
sta at o o
of meter
ete costs
 Remaining asset value cost
 SCC approval costs
Steps
p Towards City
y Ownership
p

There are three scenarios which exist concerning the takeover of
ownership of the street lighting infrastructure.
A. There are existing fixtures mounted to existing utility poles, which
currently have existing DVP power conductors. These fixtures are
c rrentl not metered
currently
metered.
B. There are existing fixtures mounted to existing DVP lighting poles with
underground circuiting. There are no overhead power conductors on
poles. These fixtures are not metered; however, the installation
these p
of a single meter at the head of this circuit would be possible.
C. New roadway construction results in the installation of a new street
lighting system. Conceivably, this new system could be installed and
maintained by DVP, or could be installed and maintained by a private
sector contractor.

Cost evaluations of Scenarios A and B resulted in an extraordinarily long
payback
b k period.
i d Thi
This was d
due iin llarge partt tto th
the hi
high
h costt off th
the assett
value and to the high cost of the metering addition. With payback periods
of 78 and 64 years respectively, the conclusions are obvious.
The Costs Are …
Existing
g Utility
y Poles with Power Lines

This is an example of an existing Street Lighting fixture mounted to an
existing pole which currently has existing DVP power conductors
conductors. These
fixtures are currently owned and maintained by DVP. These fixtures are
currently not metered. The City is charged a Bundled Flat Rate per fixture
per month by DVP
DVP.

The addition of revenue meters for each fixture would be required for
t
transfer
f off ownership
hi off these
th
fifixtures.
t
Thi
This process would
ld result
lt in
i one
meter for each lighting fixture and would be complex and expensive.

In many cases the cost of the revenue meter may exceed the cost of a
single lighting fixture.
A. Utility Pole With DVP Power Lines
Transfer of Ownership
p is Difficult
Existing
g Lighting
g
g Poles without Power Lines

This is an example of an existing lighting fixture on a pole with no existing
overhead power lines.
lines Numerous fixtures are connected to a single circuit
and are wired underground.

It would be straight forward and somewhat inexpensive to add the
necessary revenue metering to this scenario. The single circuit could be
“intercepted” near its source and rerouted through a metering and control
station.
t ti

This wiring arrangement results in a single meter for numerous lighting
fixtures and therefore results in a lower initial cost.
B. Lighting Pole Without DVP Power Lines
Ownership is Achievable
Alternate C … New Construction
 PACE Engineers evaluated the currently designed (but not yet installed)
system of DVP lighting for the Princess Anne Road Extension IV (PA-4).
 Previously
y a design
g had been done by
y the roadway
y designer
g
that was
based on conventional DVP High Pressure Sodium lighting fixtures.
 That original design was replaced with a design based on DVP’s currently
available LED lighting fixtures.
 PACE Engineers created a third design layout based on the industry’s
b t available
best
il bl LED roadway
d
lighting
li hti fifixture.
t
 The new layout using high efficiency LED’s matched the lighting level of 1
foot candle which was targeted in the first two layouts
foot-candle
layouts, and resulted in a
significant reduction of lighting fixture quantities.
C. New Roadway / Street
New Construction Ownership is More Achievable
Compare
p
High
g Efficiency
y LED to DVP LED

Various average annual costs were estimated for a City Owned Street Lighting system on the PA-4 roadway
project including the following factors. The calculations for these cost factors are included at the end of this
document.

Lamp Replacements: Most notably influencing this cost factor is the industry standard warranty, which in many
cases is 10-years. The only remaining component of lamp replacement costs are labor and equipment for the first
ten year period. (Note that this increases for years after the tenth year, however it remains less than the DVP
installation). Lamp replacement is included in the Bundled Flat Rate by DVP.

Energy Cost: One primary advantage of LED’s is the reduced energy required for illumination. The Energy cost is
included in the Bundled Flat Rate by DVP.

Knock Down Repair: or Replacement: The estimated quantity of pole knock downs is established by the National
Highway System Asset Preservation Program. This is a very low number.

Cut Circuit Repair: Construction projects require underground trenching for the installation of new wiring and
piping. This activity sometimes results in lighting circuit cuts that require repair.

Photo Cell and Contactor Repairs: Often times the weak link in the reliability of a Street lighting system is the
photo cell. For the purposes of this study, an annual replacement of each photo cell and a four-year replacement of
each contactor was utilized.
Princess Anne Road Street Lighting
Compare - As Designed vs.
s Alternati
Alternative
e
1
2 (City owned)
Dominion LED
High Efficiency
LED
Average Light Level (FC)
1.0
1.0
Fixture Quantity
y
262
182
$1,314,292
$1,197,485
Lamp Replacement
Included
$7,174
Energy
Included
$10,516
Knockdown Repair
Included
$2,818
UG Cut Circuit Repairs
Included
$1,065
Photocell Repairs
Included
$1,076
Contactor Repairs
Included
$930
$47,939 **
$23,580
Initial Cost
Annual Operating Costs:
Total Annual Costs
** This cost from DVP contract based on established Rate Schedule SSL **
Compare to Conventional HPS

It is quite apparent that the use of the industry’s latest and best LED
t h l
technology
coupled
l d with
ith th
the competitive
titi nature
t
off the
th private
i t sector
t will
ill
result in a savings to the City for Street Lighting when compared to DVP’s
current LED offering.

But, how does this compare to the conventional High Pressure Sodium
lighting fixture, those that produce that familiar yellow light that has been
the predominant system for the last thirty-or-so years?
Princess Anne Road Street Lighting
Compare - As Designed vs.
s Alternati
Alternative
e
1
2 (City owned)
3
Dominion LED
High
g Efficiency
y
LED
Conventional
Dominion Sodium
Average Light Level (FC)
1.0
1.0
1.0
Fixture Quantity
262
182
257
$1,314,292
$1,197,485
$1,222,159
L
Lamp
Replacement
R l
t
I l d d
Included
$7 174
$7,174
I l d d
Included
Energy
Included
$10,516
Included
Knockdown Repair
Included
$2,818
Included
UG Cut Circuit Repairs
Included
$1,065
Included
Photocell Repairs
Included
$1,076
Included
Contactor Repairs
Included
$930
Included
Total Average Annual Costs
$47,939 **
$23,580
$38,828
Initial Cost
Average Annual Operating Costs:
** This cost from DVP contract based on established Rate Schedule SSL **
Reporting Process

Currently, malfunctioning street lights are reported with 1 of 3 methods: (1) A call to the PWC Operations (757)3851470, (2) a call to DVP directly, or (3) a report through the online “Report a Problem Center” …
http://www.vbgov.com/government/departments/public-works/report-a-problem/pages/default.aspx

DVP then uses that information to perform repairs and billings.

DVP bills the City monthly, giving credit for any lights that may have not been repaired promptly.

The order of magnitude
g
of the monthly
y bills is approx
pp
$450,000.
,
The order of magnitude
g
of any
y credits that are
included (due to fixtures that are not repaired promptly) is approx. $1,800. This vast range has been cause for
concern among City personnel resulting in a question of validity. Does the credit fairly reflect lighting fixtures that
are have not been repaired promptly?

City Operations sends staff members out annually to travel the major roadways within the City to observe the
functionality of the Street Lighting System. The resulting counts and quantities have historically fell in line with the
credits in the DVP billings. This effort has reduced the cause for concern about the validity of the DVP accounting.

It is the belief of City personnel that fixture outages within residential neighborhoods are quickly reported by the
residents and therefore need no further monitoring.

IIn some cases, City
Cit P
Police
li officers
ffi
notify
tif O
Operations
ti
off lighting
li hti pole
l or fifixture
t
d
damage b
by submitting
b itti an “A
“Agency
Referral Notice.”

City Operations personnel have direct access to the DVP online database that tracks street lighting systems. DVP
representatives indicate that the information contained within this database should put any questions to rest about
the validity of the billings and credits.
credits

DVP re-negotiates rates for street lighting every four years. The current rates will remain in effect until 2014. The
rates are negotiated through VEPGA, The Virginia Electric Purchasing Governmental Association.

Previous DVP rate schedules did not include LED lighting as it is very new technology. The current rate for LED’s
is the SSL (Solid State Lighting) rate schedule which has been approved by DVP in October of 2012
2012.
Reporting Process
Observe
Lights Out
DVP
Database
City PWC Ops
Website
Call DVP
Bill
City
Accounting
Virginia
Vi
i i Electric
El t i
Purchasing
Governmental
Association
(VEPGA)
Deducts
$
Rates
4-Years
DVP
Police Form
“A
“Agency
R
Referral
f
lN
Notice”
ti ”

The attached Police Form “Agency Referral Notice” is sometimes used by
the City
y Police Department
p
to communicate damaged
g lighting
g
gp
poles or
fixtures.

City Police Officers could perhaps be a valuable resource in monitoring the
status of malfunctioning Street Lighting Systems.
A Few Findings

The Review process revealed numerous findings that, perhaps, could have
b
been
d
declared
l d obvious.
b i
S
Several,
l h
however, are quite
it astounding.
t
di

The vast amounts of dollars spent to illuminate the City roadways cause
one to ponder.

The understanding that these dollars are spent in a non-competitive
environment should result in question at least and action at best.

Lighting, like many other industries
Lighting
industries, is increasingly complex
complex, extraordinarily
important and warrants increased attention and resources.
AF
Few Findings
Fi di
…
1. $5.4 Million Annual Cost to provide Street Lighting in VaBeach
2. Higher Efficiency Lighting Fixtures exist … than DVP’s
3. There is a Fragmented standardization of Fixture Types
4. City ownership of NEW PROJECT Street lighting Can save money
5. City ownership of existing street lighting will not save money
6. Tracking and Reporting of DVP System is Vague
7. There is a Fragmented understanding of the procurement system
8. Dark Sky compliance is desirable among stakeholders
9. Color temperature 4000 - 4500 K is desirable among stakeholders
Recommendations

A well thought out city-wide standard for street lighting equipment would
ensure that
th t the
th mostt currentt technology
t h l
and
d mostt costt effective
ff ti methods
th d
are employed to illuminate the City streets.

City ownership of new roadway lighting systems, coupled with a private
sector, competitively bid contract for the installation, service and
maintenance of the system will result in significant savings to the City.

A more comprehensive understanding of the current DVP tracking and
billing methods as well as a deeper understanding of the capabilities of the
existing DVP database would be good for the City. This may reveal
potential areas to reduce costs.
costs

Create the position of a City lighting “Czar” to work toward the
consolidation of the City lighting vision, to create and manage the
standards
t d d ffor lighting
li hti system
t
components,
t tto monitor
it and
d manage th
the DVP
relationship, to monitor and manage the lighting service and maintenance
contracts, to keep abreast of lighting technology and to inform interested
C departments off on-going updates in the industry.
City
R
Recommendations
d ti
1. Create a City-wide Lighting Standard
2. Consider Ownership of Street Lights on all new
roadway projects
a Contract for installation
a.
b. Contract for Maintenance
3. Improve the verification system of the DVP contract
a. Improve the DVP reporting system
b. Improving City use of the DVP database
c. Solicit
S li it the
th help
h l off Police
P li to
t reportt outages
t
4 Consolidate the City-Wide
4.
City Wide Lighting Vision
Create a position of a Lighting “Czar”
5 Avoid the added expense of taking over existing
5.
street lights
Supporting Calculations

The following appendix includes calculations as well as pertinent technical
discussions from previous studies
studies.
Supporting Calculations
March 2013
Supporting Calculations
March 2013
Supporting Calculations
March 2013
Supporting Calculations
March 2013
Supporting Calculations
March 2013
Technologies

LED technology
t h l
is
i relatively
l ti l young. It's
It' efficacy
ffi
continues
ti
to
t increase
i
while most other lighting technologies have leveled off.

The price for LED technology is decreasing as its efficacy increases.

gy will continue to develop
p and it will soon become the
LED technology
obvious choice.

Note: This information and the accompanying graphic is from the “Pedestrian Site Lighting Review” by PACE for the City dated July, 2012.
Efficacy of Light Sources
Color: White vs
vs. Yellow

The Incumbent HPS fixture produces light that appears yellow. This light is at approximately 2000 degrees Kelvin
((K),
), quite
q
yellow.
y

The color temperature is a measurement of “whiteness” of a light source. It is expressed in “Degrees Kelvin” or “K”.
The higher the “K” number, the whiter the light. The lower the color temperature, the more yellow the light appears.

LED light
g sources as well as select fluorescents and metal-halides p
produce light
g in much higher
g
color temperatures
p
ranging from 3000-K up to 5000-K. This light is very “white”.

There is much discussion and research being done concerning the color of light and the associated “see-ability” in a
luminous environment. It is rapidly becoming evident that occupants of a given luminous environment desire white
light as opposed to yellow light, and that the perceived “see-ability” is much improved in the white light environment.

Steps are being taken to quantify this perception with numerical ratios termed Scotopic / Photopic ratios, or S/P
ratios. These numerical weighting ratios will permit white light environments to be less bright than yellow light
environments, and yet be considered equal in terms of “see-ability”. For example, a white light environment at 1FootCandle may be visually equivalent to 2-Footcandles in a yellow light environment. One can only imagine the
energy saving implications involved.

Although this developing area offers much promise to the proponents of white light, it is important to note that both
the Illuminating Engineering Society (IES) as well as the Department of Energy (DOE) do not accept the use of
numerical weighting ratios when comparing light color and insist that light level measurements be made using
methods independent of color.

Through discussions, interviews, and research it remains evident and obvious that white light is preferred.

Note: This information and the accompanying graphic is from the “Pedestrian Site Lighting Review” by PACE Collaborative, P.C. July, 2012.
White vs. Yellow Light
g
Spectral Weighting
Scotopic / Photopic ratio
IES and DOE Positions