BILL ANALYSIS 1
1
SENATE ENERGY, UTILITIES AND COMMUNICATIONS COMMITTEE
ALEX PADILLA, CHAIR
AB 228 - Huffman Hearing Date:
July 7, 2009 A
As Amended: June 22, 2009 FISCAL B
2
2
8
DESCRIPTION
Current law requires the California Energy Commission (CEC) to
adopt minimum energy efficiency standards for all general
purpose lights by December 31, 2008. The standards shall reduce
the average statewide electricity consumption by not less than
50% from 2007 levels for indoor residential lighting and not
less than 25% for outdoor lighting by 2018.
This bill requires the CEC to adopt, by December 31, 2011,
energy efficiency standards for outdoor lighting of at least 80
lumens per watt, which shall be effective not later than January
1, 2015.
Current law requires the CEC to consult with the Department of
Transportation (Caltrans) to ensure that outdoor lighting
standards that affect Caltrans are compatible with that
department's policies and standards for safety and illumination
on state highways.
This bill deletes the requirement to consult with Caltrans.
BACKGROUND
Outdoor lighting accounts for 4.4% of the energy consumed in the
United States, and is therefore an obvious target for energy
efficiency programs. However, outdoor lighting is generally an
off-peak usage, tempering the cost-avoidance and greenhouse gas
reduction value of improving outdoor lighting efficiency.
During the 2000-2001 energy crisis, policymakers viewed enhanced
energy efficiency as a critical response for preventing
blackouts. Included in the package of policy responses was a
requirement for the CEC to develop outdoor lighting standards.
Those standards were developed and adopted into the 2005
building code revisions. The standards include requirements
for controls for efficient operation and that most luminaries
direct the majority of light toward the ground. Lamps rated
over 100 watts must either be controlled by a motion sensor or
have an efficiency of at least 60 lumens per watt.
Pushing efficiency harder, in 2007 the author carried AB 1109
(Chapter 534 of 2007), which required the CEC to adopt minimum
energy efficiency standards for all general purpose lights by
December 31, 2008, with a goal of reducing energy consumption
from outdoor lighting by not less than 25%.
The bill applies only to new outdoor lighting devices.
Retrofitting is not required. The bill provides the CEC with
some flexibility in establishing the standards, including
defining "outdoor lighting" and the adoption of lighting
controls.
Legislation is pending in Congress (HR 1732 - Harman) to
establish minimum energy efficiency requirements for outdoor
lighting. An early version of that bill contained the 80 lumens
per watt standard; it was deleted from the current version.
COMMENTS
1. Author Statement - The author believes that the
environmental and economic consequences of our lighting
choices are enormous. Upgrading to longer-lasting, more
efficient lights provides significant economic and
environmental benefits, including reducing energy demand
and related CO2 emissions. This bill furthers the goal of
prior lighting legislation carried by the author, which
required the CEC to reduce energy consumption for outdoor
lighting by 25% by 2018.
2. Blinded by the Light - If the 80 lumens per watt
standard becomes mandatory, other less efficient outdoor
lighting devices will not be sold. Many in the lighting
industry are concerned that the 80 lumens per watt standard
will severely limit consumer choice and create a
competitive advantage for a single lighting firm.
Moreover, many in the lighting industry are concerned that
the 80 lumens per watt standard is the wrong metric. They
believe it is too simplistic and cannot be applied to the
myraid types of outdoor lighting. They believe it does not
consider other lighting goals such as glare reduction,
limiting night sky pollution and limiting light trespass
onto neighboring properties. They contend that a better
approach is to consider the efficiency of the entire
lighting application, rather than just the efficiency of
the fixture. Considering application efficiency means
looking at the number and spacing of lighting fixtures and
how those fixtures are controlled.
3. Analysis Has Not Been Performed - While raising the
minimum efficiency standard for outdoor lights will reduce
electric bills, these savings may be offset by higher
installed costs and, potentially, increased maintenance
costs. Weighing the ongoing cost savings against higher
installed costs should be part of any cost/benefit
analysis. The author's 2007 lighting legislation required
that the outdoor lighting standards established by the CEC
be technologically feasible and cost effective. Yet that
analysis has not been performed for the 80 lumens per watt
standard in this bill.
Developing energy efficiency standards always results in
intra-industry disputes, as with automotive fuel efficiency
standards or the television efficiency standards proposed
by the CEC. Those companies who view the standard as
benefiting their technology are supportive, those who can't
or won't meet the standard oppose it. The point of energy
efficiency standards is to push the envelope, to make
industries go where they would not otherwise go. But in
developing those standards there must be a careful analysis
to ensure that the standards don't favor a proprietary
technology or a particular company, which would result in
fewer choices and higher costs for customers. That type of
analysis is the job of regulators such as the CEC, who can
hold workshops, accept evidence, commission studies, and
get into the details of the technology and the industry.
That analysis has not been performed for the 80 lumens per
watt standard.
Improving outdoor lighting efficiency is a widely shared
goal, and an 80 lumens per watt minimum lighting efficiency
standard may make perfect sense. But there is no evidence
to support it. And there is plenty of industry concern
that the standard is infeasible and ill-suited to the goal
of reducing outdoor lighting energy usage. Rather than
make the decision that 80 lumens per watt is the
appropriate standard, the author and committee may wish to
direct the question to the CEC, who has the expertise and
processes to consider it properly.
ASSEMBLY VOTES
Assembly Floor (45-31)
Assembly Appropriations Committee (10-5)
Assembly Natural Resources Committee
(6-3)
Assembly Utilities and Commerce Committee
(9-5)
POSITIONS
Sponsor:
Philips Lighting Company
Support:
Breathe California
Cree, Inc.
Planning and Conservation League
Sierra Club California
Concerns:
Acuity Brands Lighting
General Electric Lighting
Illuminating Engineering Society of North America
Oppose:
Cooper Lighting
OSRAM Sylvania
Randy Chinn
AB 228 Analysis
Hearing Date: July 7, 2009