1. Lower Garage Lighting Costs and Improve Illumination – A Case Study Michael Klein, Albany Parking Authority Don Monahan, Walker Parking Consultants The International Parking Institute Conference & Exposition June 2, 2008; Dallas, Texas

2. Introductions  Michael Klein Presenter Executive Director Albany Parking Authority  Don Monahan Presenter Walker Parking Consultants Denver, CO  Novus Engineering, PC Lighting Design Mark J. Bagdon, P.E. Marianne Donovan, LC Background Regulations Albany Parking Implementation Evaluation Questions

3. Presentation Outline  The consumer perspective  The process  Lighting audit  Proposed lighting retrofit & photometric calculations  Implementation  Environmental impacts  Cost savings  Feedback & evaluation Background Regulations Albany Parking Implementation Evaluation Questions

4. The Consumer Perspective  Consumers want parking that is: Accessible Affordable Proximate Safe Clean Well lit Environmentally sensitive Background Regulations Albany Parking Implementation Evaluation Questions

5. The Process  Examine facilities  Determine grant availability  Study with lighting experts  Re-examine studies  Develop operational plans  Implement programs  Evaluate results and consumer reaction Background Regulations Albany Parking Implementation Evaluation Questions

6. Energy Conservation Regulations  International Building Code 2006, Section 505  Parking Garage Interior Lighting < 0.30 watts per SF  Uncovered Parking Areas < 0.15 watts per SF  ASHRAE 90.1-2001, Table 9.3.1.1  Parking Garage < 0.3 watts per SF Background Regulations Albany Parking Implementation Evaluation Questions

7. Background Regulations Albany Parking Implementation Evaluation Questions

8. Comparing Lighting with Regulations  Understanding different technologies  Matching spacing criteria and density  Meeting IES requirements Background Regulations Albany Parking Implementation Evaluation Questions

9. Energy Conservation Incentives  Federal Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT 2005)  Effective Date: January 1, 2006  Must reduce lighting energy usage below limits specified by ASHRAE 90.1- 2001 (0.3 watts per sf for parking garages)  Full tax deduction of $0.60 per sf for 40% reduction in lighting power density (<0.18 watts per SF) Background Regulations Albany Parking Implementation Evaluation Questions

10. Energy Conservation Incentives  Federal Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT 2005)  Partial tax deduction of $0.30 per SF for 25% reduction in lighting power density (0.225 watts per SF)  Tax deduction prorated between 25% and 40% reduction in lighting power density  For tax exempt government buildings, the designer is eligible for the tax deduction as opposed to the owner Background Regulations Albany Parking Implementation Evaluation Questions

11. Energy Conservation Incentives  Clean Energy Tax Stimulus Act of 2008 (not enacted as yet)  Extended tax deduction expiration from December 31, 2008 to December 31, 2009.  Increases full deduction to $2.25 per SF and partial deduction to $0.75 per SF  Project must be placed in service between January 1, 2006 and December 31, 2009 Background Regulations Albany Parking Implementation Evaluation Questions

12. Energy Conservation Incentives for Albany Parking Authority  New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA)  50% rebate on lighting study equaled approximately $7,000  Rebate on per fixture basis for peak load reduction was approximately $6,000  EPACT 2005 Tax Deduction  Garage #1: 121,800 SF @ $0.60/SF equals $73,080 (Net benefit @ 35% tax rate equals $25,578)  Garage #2: 238,200 SF @ $0.60/SF equals $143,000 (Net benefit @ 35% tax rate equals $50,022) Background Regulations Albany Parking Implementation Evaluation Questions

13. Case History – Albany, NY Background Regulations Albany Parking Implementation Evaluation Questions

14. Lighting Measurements Location# Fixtures MaxMinAvgCalc*Light Loss Factor Columbia14119.21.27.420.10.37 Quackenbush34820.03.113.715.10.91 Green Hudson1446.52.14.316.60.65 Horizontal illuminance on the floor directly under each light fixture *Calculated illuminance directly under the fixture with no light loss. Background Regulations Albany Parking Implementation Evaluation Questions

15. Comparison of Lamp Types Initial Lumens Lumen Depreciation Design Lumens Lamp Life hours Lamp- Ballast Watts 150W HPS 16,0000.7211,52028,000188 175W MH 14,0000.659,10010,000208 4, T8 Fluor 11,8000.910,62030,000110 2, T5 HO Flour 10,000.95950035,000*121 100W HPS 9,5000.726,84028,000128 100W MH 8,5000.655,52510,000127 2, T8 Fluor 5,9000.95,31030,00068 Background Regulations Albany Parking Implementation Evaluation Questions *12 hours per start

16. Illuminance Calculations LocationAverage Illuminance Minimum Illuminance Maximum Illuminance Columbia, Existing 175W MH 4.61.36.7 Columbia w/2, T5 HO 6.32.417 Green Hudson, Existing 100W HPS 2.70.66.6 Green Hudson, Proposed 2, T8 Fluorescent 5.01.810.1 Quackenbush, Existing 100W MH 5.30.59.2 Background Regulations Albany Parking Implementation Evaluation Questions

17. Temperature Data – Albany, NY Background Regulations Albany Parking Implementation Evaluation Questions

18. Temperature Factor Background Regulations Albany Parking Implementation Evaluation Questions

19. Lighting Operating Cost Calculation Background Regulations Albany Parking Implementation Evaluation Questions  Annual Energy Cost = Annual Operating Hours X # of Light Fixtures X Input Watts per Fixture X Cost/Kwh  New York’s Cost/Kwh is second highest in Nation* Hawaii$.1570/Kwh New York$.1255/Kwh Texas$.0795/Kwh Ohio$.0689/Kwh Kentucky$.0463.Kwh * 2004 data

20. Columbia Garage Electric Costs 2003200420052006 Annual Cost$40,541$39,771$41,857$49,254 Kwh339,171354,320357,200344,160 Cost/Kwh$0.12$0.11$0.12$0.15 Background Regulations Albany Parking Implementation Evaluation Questions

21. Lighting Study Columbia Garage  Existing Lighting Design  Operated 24/7 except 7 major holidays (8592 hours/year)  141, 175-watt metal halide fixtures (208 input watts) equals 29,328 watts  Annual Energy Cost equals $37,798 at $0.15 per KWH  Average illuminance approximately 4.6 footcandles  Lighting Power Density equals 0.236 watts per SF Background Regulations Albany Parking Implementation Evaluation Questions

22. Lighting Study Columbia Garage  Proposed Lighting Retrofit  Replacement of existing fixtures on one-for- one basis with fluorescent fixture utilizing 2, T5HO lamps and high power ballast utilizing 121 input watts  Energy savings = 42%  Annual estimated operating cost savings = $17,400  Estimated construction cost = $60,688  Payback period = 3.4 years  Average illuminance increased to 7.1 footcandles  Lighting power density = 0.127 watts/SF (<0.18 watts/SF) Background Regulations Albany Parking Implementation Evaluation Questions

23. Green Hudson Electric Costs 2003200420052006 Annual Cost$24,029$24,301$27,769$31,366 Kwh208,662220,058211,927204,225 Cost/Kwh$0.12$0.11$0.13$0.15 Background Regulations Albany Parking Implementation Evaluation Questions

24. Lighting Study Green Hudson Garage  Existing Lighting Design  Operated 6 am to midnight on weekdays (6,240 hours/year)  144, 100-watt high pressure sodium fixtures (128 input watts) equals 18,432 watts  Annual Energy Usage = 224,158 kWh at $0.15 per KWH  Average illuminance approximately 2.7 footcandles  Lighting Power Density = 0.15 watts per SF Background Regulations Albany Parking Implementation Evaluation Questions

25. Lighting Study Green Hudson Garage  Proposed Lighting Retrofit  Double the number of light fixtures to increase illuminance to comply with industry standards for an average of 5 footcandles  Utilize fluorescent fixture with 2, T8 lamps and normal power ballast utilizing 55 input watts  Energy usage decreases with twice the light fixtures  Estimated Construction Cost = $102,082  Average illuminance increased to 5.0 footcandles  Lighting Power Density equals 0.094 watts per SF Background Regulations Albany Parking Implementation Evaluation Questions

26. Quackenbush Garage Electric Costs 2003200420052006 Annual Cost$49,735$53,911$60,326$74,045 Kwh431,280449,920490,480501,760 Cost/Kwh$0.12 $0.15 Background Regulations Albany Parking Implementation Evaluation Questions

27. Lighting Study Quackenbush Garage  Existing Lighting Design  Operated weekdays from 6 am to midnight (6240 hours per year)  343, 100-watt metal halide fixtures (127 input watts) equals 43,561 watts  Annual Energy Cost = $37,798 at $0.15 per KWH  Average illuminance approximately 5.3 footcandles  Lighting Power Density equals 0.186 watts per SF Background Regulations Albany Parking Implementation Evaluation Questions

28. Lighting Study Quackenbush Garage  Proposed Lighting Retrofit  Replacement of existing fixtures on one-for-one basis with fluorescent fixtures utilizing 2, T8 lamps and normal power ballast using 68 input watts  Energy Savings = 46%  Annual Operating Cost Savings = $14,206  Estimated Construction Cost = $122,240  Payback period = 8.6 years  Average illuminance remains at approximately 5 footcandles  Lighting Power Density equals 0.096 watts/SF Background Regulations Albany Parking Implementation Evaluation Questions

29. Decision Factors  Base level readings  IES requirements  Calculated payback period  Administrative decisions Background Regulations Albany Parking Implementation Evaluation Questions

30. Operationalizing the Plan  Review original design concepts  Modify for current conditions  Apply expertise of LC professional  Create project manual and bid package Background Regulations Albany Parking Implementation Evaluation Questions

31. Implementation Process  Bid to implement concept with local firm vetted through NYSERDA  Review of Original Design Concepts  Consider Photocell Control for Additional Savings  Consider Fixture Options – Efficiency and Cost  Track for EPAct Tax Deduction Credits  Re-run Photometrics  Develop Plans and Specs Background Regulations Albany Parking Implementation Evaluation Questions

32.  Wet/IP 66 Rating  94% Efficiency  Light Weight Polycarbonate  Extended System Warranty Lamp/Ballast  Offered in Both T5HO and T8  Easy Installation  UV Stabilized  5 Year Warranty Fixture Selection Background Regulations Albany Parking Implementation Evaluation Questions

33. Daylighting Control Sensors  Low temperature/high humidity  Set-point plus safety factor  Deadband prevents system cycling when light level is very near the set-point Background Regulations Albany Parking Implementation Evaluation Questions

34. Daylighting Example Background Regulations Albany Parking Implementation Evaluation Questions

35. Implementation Timeline  10 Bids Received –Bids Reviewed for Accuracy/Completeness  Bid Range $158,600-$224,000  Low Bidder awarded  Contract Awarded – 8/01/07  Preconstruction Meeting – 9/27/07  Kick-Off Meeting – 10/04/07  Construction Begins 11/07  Construction Substantially Completed 2/08 Background Regulations Albany Parking Implementation Evaluation Questions

36. Columbia Results Background Regulations Albany Parking Implementation Evaluation Questions 2005200620072008 Annual Cost$41,857$49,254$51,035$36,371* Kwh357,200344,160354,480239,697 Cost/Kwh$0.12$0.15 * Annual cost projection based on 4 months actual bills

37. Columbia Results Background Regulations Albany Parking Implementation Evaluation Questions

38. Columbia Results Background Regulations Albany Parking Implementation Evaluation Questions

39. Green Hudson Results Background Regulations Albany Parking Implementation Evaluation Questions 2005200620072008 Annual Cost$27,769$31,366$33,817$27,365* Kwh211,927204,225224,158178,551 Cost/Kwh$0.12$0.15 * Annual cost projection based on 4 months actual bills

40. Green Hudson Results Background Regulations Albany Parking Implementation Evaluation Questions

41. Green Hudson Results Background Regulations Albany Parking Implementation Evaluation Questions

42. Environmental Impacts  153,972 lbs. of CO2 avoided  Equivalent number of cars removed from the road is 15. Background Regulations Albany Parking Implementation Evaluation Questions

43. Overall Evaluation  Began on the IPI exhibit floor  Credit – expert advice  Enclosed fluorescent fixtures utilize 47% less energy than comparable HID fixtures  Light loss due to cold weather mitigated by enclosure  Photocell sensors valuable addition  Energy conservation incentives reduce payback period Background Regulations Albany Parking Implementation Evaluation Questions

44. Background Regulations Albany Parking Implementation Evaluation Questions

45. Lower Garage Lighting Costs and Improve Illumination – A Case Study Michael Klein, Albany Parking Authority Don Monahan, Walker Parking Consultants The International Parking Institute Conference & Exposition June 2, 2008; Dallas, Texas