Author: Jason Livingston

Getting Better Buildings

Henry Petroski, engineer and author, has a piece in today’s New York Times about declining quality in construction materials and workmanship. He places a lot of the blame on “the industries whose practices favor the use of inferior products and labor that drive modern construction: the developers, lenders, builders and Realtors who, to make quick money, have created a stock of domestic and commercial infrastructure that is a waste of resources and will not last. “ I don’t disagree, but based on my professional experience, and on that of many of my friends and colleagues, I think there’s room for more blame that creates a circular firing line.

First in line are owners who want what they want but are unwilling to pay for it. (I have many colleagues who blame Wal-mart and their ilk for this attitude but I’m not an economist and this isn’t about that). I’ve been involved in too many projects where, as the design progresses and is refined, the cost estimates go up but the budget doesn’t. Nor is the developing design reigned in. Rather, the owner assumes, or is assured, that in competitive bidding the cost will somehow come back down to the original, early estimate. Rarely does the architect push back, which introduces the second problem.

Architects are supposed to be the leader of the design team and the advocate for the client. Entering into the bidding phase of a project knowing that the design has exceeded the budget doesn’t help anyone and creates a hostile environment for everyone once the low bid is accepted and construction begins. Which brings us to villain number three: contractors.

Often, especially in publicly funded projects, I have to produce a three name specification, meaning that for every light fixture I have to specify three that I deem to be equal. If I don’t I’m in breach of my contract. Astonishingly, contractors are not required to supply the products that the design team has specified! The result is that contractors are often in a race to the bottom, submitting bids that are unrealistically low because they’ve made assumptions about what kind of substitutions they can make. They do it because they know that their competition is doing it and the low bid wins. Swap out 100 lights that cost $300 for a $100 model and you’ve just underbid your competition. Now, multiply that by hundreds of items in a building and you’re looking at a huge set of conflicts. You can imagine the screaming that results when, later in the project, the designer rejects the substitution.

“I think this is a decent alternative, and it’s what I can afford.” says the contractor.

“This is nothing like the fixture in the specifications. It won’t do the job and I won’t approve it.” replies the designer.

“Well, it’s what I bid.”

“Well then you didn’t bid on this building. What building did you bid on?”

The solution, as I see it, is stricter contracts with builders. I’d love to see the American Institute for Architects (AIA), the International Association of Lighting Designers (IALD), the International Interior Design Association (IIDA), American Society of Interior Designers (ASID) and others work together to draft model bidding instructions and contracts for owners that set clear limits on substitutions. If the contractor can’t substitute inferior materials we’ve made a HUGE difference in the quality of the building.

I’ve worked with plenty of owners, architects, and builders who aren’t as I’ve just described. However, they aren’t the strong majority. Everyone involved can do better. Owners can accept that sometimes you get what you pay for, and that the lowest bid isn’t necessarily the best bid. Architects can take a stronger stand with their clients to prevent issuing drawings for a $10 million building with an $8 million budget. Contractors can construct the building shown in the drawings, not a cheaper alternative. Contractors and unions have no reason to change, and owners don’t have a real organization that can play a role. It’s entirely possible, but I think that the design organizations will have to lead the way.

Now, the Good Climate News

Ok, the headline is slightly misleading. There’s no good news about the fact of climate change, but there is some good news about the politics and the technology for mitigating it. First, the politics where there are several encouraging developments. First, as I’ve previously mentioned, Michael Bloomberg, Henry Paulson, and Tom Steyer have launched an organization called Risky Business that focuses on quantifying and publicizing the economic risks from the impacts of climate change. Politics makes strange bedfellows, and this is an example – people from across the political spectrum and with various perspectives on business and the economy coming together to advocate that we act now to do what we can to slow or stop climate change.

The second piece of news happened at a congressional hearing on June 18th (an archived webcast is available at the link). Four former EPA administrators, all republicans, were called to testify before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. All four of them agreed that there is no debate on the reality of climate change and that immediate action is needed. Here are a few quotes:

William Ruckelshaus, first EPA administrator in 1970 under President Nixon: “Inherent in [a list of previously cited environmental challenges] was uncertain science and powerful economic interests resisting controls. The same is true of climate change. In all of the cases cited the solutions to the problems did not result in the predicted economic and social calamity. Scientific uncertainty or the inevitable industry resistance does not mean that nothing should be done unless we are willing to suffer the consequences of inaction.”

Lee Thomas, EPA administrator from 1985-1989 under President Reagan: “The issue of climate change is one that the EPA and the global scientific community have studied and analyzed for decades. And since my time as Administrator, the assessment of risk global warming poses to public health and the environment has continually improved and become more certain.”

William Reilly, head of the EPA from 1989-1992 under President George H. W. Bush: “Markets the world over eagerly seek clean energy technologies. … Technology and innovation are a comparative advantage for our country that will help control what we can and help find ways to replace the most serious contributors to the climate challenge. This is an enormous opportunity for U.S. entrepreneurs and exporters even as we deploy more clean energy at home.”

Christine Todd Whitman, EPA head from 2001-2003 under President George W. Bush: “Congressional action and leadership would be a preferable approach. But since Congress has declined to act, the EPA must.”

It’s getting harder and harder for the conservative crowd to deny reality. Sooner, not later, they’re going to have to admit that we face a global challenge. At that point they’ll have to decide if the U.S. is going to lead or follow. Industry and citizens clearly intend to lead. Consider the following:

On the technology front there’s more good news. In Hawaii the adoption of solar power has been so successful that the local power company can’t handle the power being fed into the grid. Beginning in December of 2013 the Hawaiian Electric Company told contractors to stop connecting solar panels to the grid because there’s so much energy that it may be a threat to the system. Until studies can confirm whether grid upgrade are needed, and what they are, solar panels can still be connected to homes and businesses but the excess energy cannot be fed back into the grid.

One solution to the problem is storage of the excess energy until it is needed. A new type of battery that uses vanadium in a solution of sulfuric acid is being developed that quickly charges and discharges with little loss of performance, even after 20,000 cycles. It’s called a vanadium redox flow battery. Read the article. It’s pretty amazing to read how smart people are able to solve whatever challenges are put in front of them.

First, The Bad Climate News

There’s more climate change news this week, some of it good and which I’ll get to in a few days.  First, though, the bad news.  According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) May 2014 was the hottest May ever recorded, and we have records dating back as far as 1880.

  • The combined average temperature over land and ocean surfaces was 1.33°F higher than the 20th century average, and the average temperature over land alone was 2.03°F higher.
  • The period of March through May was the third warmest on record, with global land surface temperature 2.27°F above the 20th century average.
  • he period of January through may was the fifth warmest on record, with a global land surface temperature of 1.19°F above the 20th century average.

Here’s a map showing the global temperature variations for May in degrees Celsius.

201405temps

Combined with the just released report Risky Business, this is indeed bad news.  This report was commissioned by a new organization of the same name that was started by former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg, and hedge fund manager Tom Steyer.  The report warns that, among other climate driven issues we’ll face by mid century, the number of days over 95°F will nearly double to between 45 and 96.  Outdoor laborers, including construction workers, may be unable to work for days or weeks at a time because of the extreme threat of heat stroke and even death due to the high heat.

Why do I keep going on about climate change?  Because it’s real, it’s here, and it does and will affect the lighting profession.  As long as we are still struggling to control greenhouse gas emissions to limit climate change we should expect to see it impact lighting designers and manufacturers.  First, we should expect to see expanded requirements for, and limitations on, lighting systems.  Lower lumen power densities (LPDs), more requirements for sensors and controls, and more requirements for load shedding all seem inevitable.  On one hand that may be good for the profession because fewer and fewer architects and interior designers are going to be able to execute their own lighting designs (more work for us!).  On the other hand it will probably be a struggle to get clients to pay us more for the additional work.

The second impact this will have on our profession is that of credentials.  Today, lighting designer credentials are entirely voluntary except for the lead designer on federal projects, who must hold an LC.  I think we can expect more clients to ask for higher levels of green certification for their buildings, whether that is LEED, Green Globes, Energy Star or some other.  To demonstrate that we have the education and training to design these buildings, green credentials are going to be more important in the near future.  Designers who do not hold a LEED Green Associate credential, at a minimum, will be at a disadvantage.  So get ready.  The work, and the rewards, of being a lighting designer are changing.

The Cost of Mitigating Climate Change (It’s Cheap)

Henry Paulson, former Secretary of the Treasury, has on op-ed piece in today’s New York Times in which he looks at the potential costs of climate change from a risk management perspective. His conclusion is that the most conservative thing to do, the thing that will hold down the size of government and our national debt, is to act now to mitigate climate change while the costs are low and we have more time. His solution is a carbon tax, which he predicts will “empower the market to find the most efficient response” and will “create incentives to develop new, cleaner energy technologies.” He makes several comparisons to the risks that were ignored leading up to the economic crash of 2008 and makes a point of urging his fellow republicans to avoid the same mistakes that were made then.

Conservatives reaction to a carbon tax, cap and trade, or any other form of legislation to curb emissions is always to claim that it will be disastrous for industry and the economy. However two recent studies from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce dispute that. As I’ve noted before, the IPCC estimates that the costs of stabilizing CO2 is 0.6% to 1.3% of GDP. Perhaps you distrust the United Nations, so let’s take a look at what the Chamber of Commerce has to say. The chamber commissioned a study that was released in May. Deeply opposed to any form of energy or environmental regulation, they commissioned a report from an organization with similar attitudes – the Energy Institute. Their findings estimate the cost of carbon regulation at $51 billion per year through 2030. Now to you and me that’s a lot of money, but in the $21.5 trillion U.S. economy that comes out to 0.2%. To put that into personal terms, it amounts to about $1.20 per day per household.

I’m not saying that there is no downside. Jobs will be lost in extractive industries like coal and oil. I’ve been unemployed. I know what it’s like to worry about paying rent or buying groceries, and I’d like to see those who lose their jobs get retraining and even subsidized moves so that they can go to where the new jobs are located. But, I don’t think we should smother the planet in CO2 to save jobs that are going to be lost anyway or to hang onto that $1.20 per household. The times they are a-changin’ whether we like it or not. The goal should be to control that change to the benefit of as many people as possible. Acting now makes that easier to do.

DOE Suspends PAR38 L-Prize Competition

On June 13, 2014 the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)  suspended the L-Prize PAR38 Competition. The LED PAR38 products currently on the market fall far short of reaching the rigorous L -rize targets, making it unlikely the DOE will receive a qualifying entry in a reasonable amount of time. The DOE cannot lower the efficacy target because it was set by Congress. The DOE will continue to monitor the PAR38 market for performance and price improvements, to consider reopening the competition at a later date.  The graph below illustrates the market vs the L-Prize goals as of November 2013.

LPrizeNov2013PAR38graph

 

More information is available on the DOE web site.

Substitutions vs Specifications

Earlier this week I had a disagreement with a contractor about my specifications and fixture schedule.  The client, who had never been involved in a construction project of this type, didn’t know which one of us to believe.  It went like this:  We are coming up on the end of construction and the contractor is slightly over budget.  In order to save money he wants to start to substitute less expensive products for those that have not yet been purchased which, in this case, includes the lighting fixtures and control system.  His problem is that my specification and fixture schedule are so clear and precise (also referred to as “tight”) that he is having a hard time finding acceptable alternates.  He told that owner that my tight specification is unfair because of this, and that I’ve essentially “given” the project to certain manufacturers “regardless of price.”  I explained that a tight specification protects the integrity of the design, and thus protects the owner, by guaranteeing that the expected design is the one that is installed.   Who is a client to believe?  Let’s go through this.

As a lighting designer I have one source of income – my fee.  I don’t get a royalty or commission from manufacturers that I specify*, I don’t sell fixtures to the project, and I don’t set pricing for fixtures.  As a result, my only incentive to specify one manufacturer over another is appropriateness for the project.  I talk to the owner about their needs and desires, budget, and timeline. I evaluate fixtures based on performance, options, accessories, quality, and price.  I run calculations to make sure that the appropriate amount of light is being delivered and that the lighting system’s power consumption is within code limits.  In some cases I’m contractually required to identify three equal fixtures for each type.  That’s a lot of work and I want to make sure that it isn’t lost or undermined, so I write a tight specification.

After all of that work, though, most projects don’t require the contractor to provide only those items that the designers have specified.  The rationale is that this gives contractors more flexibility in getting the best price, especially for public projects being paid for with tax dollars.  In practice, however, this is often not the case.  The contractor wasn’t present during the design process and doesn’t understand the criteria that went into selecting each fixture.  He (or she) is primarily concerned with price, not performance.  It’s common for the first round of substitutions offered by the contractor contain a large number of fixtures that are inappropriate for one reason or another.  If a substitute fixture will do the job I usually accept it, but I won’t accept a fixture just because it’s offered.  A tight specification sets the requirements for the fixtures and provides the basis for rejecting inappropriate substitutions.  Yes, this can constrain the contractor’s choice of substitutions but for a good reason.  There are huge variations in fixture performance, even when fixtures look the same.  I’ve had contractors (and architects) say that a downlight is a downlight is a downlight.  Take a look at the photometrics and it quickly becomes obvious that this just isn’t so.

From a designer’s perspective we protect the client by protecting the design, accepting substitutions that work but rejecting those that don’t.  A tight specification can limit the amount of back and forth with substitutions by setting strict criteria that substitutions must meet.  That’s part of the professional expertise we bring to the project.

*I admit I do sometimes get a nice box of chocolates during the holidays.

Some Thoughts on Climate Change

The climate related news lately has been pretty bleak.  The news includes:

  • Separate studies by NASA and the University of Washington both find that the Western Antarctic ice sheet is collapsing into the sea.  At this point the melting is unstoppable and could raise global sea levels by 4 feet.  To put this into perspective, the average elevation of Miami is 6 feet above sea level.
  • The Carbon Tracker Initiative has estimated that 60% to 80% of our coal, oil, and gas reserves are “unburnable” if we are to limit global warming to a somewhat manageable 2°C.
  • According to NOAA, CO2 levels measured at Mauna Loa, Hawaii have risen by 24% in just the past 56 years.

Which naturally had me asking what I can do as a citizen and as a lighting professional.  My initial thought was, “Not nearly enough to make a difference.”  But, once I recovered my balance I realized that things aren’t as gloomy as they seem.  Yes, we still have a long way to go in order to maintain a livable planet.  This includes that fact that some industries are going to fade away, be legislated away, or be forced to adapt to new circumstances.  The economic impact of that doesn’t worry me too much for several reasons.  First, the IPCC finds that the sooner we act the easier the transition will be, and that the cost of addressing climate change would result in an average annual reduction in economic growth of a mere 0.06% for the rest of this century.  Second, those industries that become obsolete will be replaced by new industries.  Imagine the jobs that would be created if every flat roof in every city were to be outfitted with solar panels.

We also need the Republican Party to join the real world.  When 97% of the world’s climate scientists in industry, government, and research institutions agree that climate change is happening and that the cause is man-made only a fool would join with the remaining three percent.  When someone like Marco Rubio says that he’s not convinced, he doesn’t mean that he’s reviewed the research history and, because of his deep expertise in this field, finds the conclusions lacking.  He means that some of his biggest donors are companies and individuals who rely on fossil fuels for their wealth and that rather than adapt they are going to deny.  Fortunately, although only 25% of Tea Party Republicans believe that there is evidence for climate change, 84% of Democrats and 67% of all American adults do believe the scientists.

On the positive side, our profession has accomplished quite a bit. For example, the maximum lighting power density (LPD) allowed under ASHRAE 90.1for an open office was 1.9 w/sf in 1986, 1.3 w/sf in 1999, and .98 w/sf in 2010.  And, our clients are asking for more.  Here are the number of LEED certified buildings 2000 – 2012.

Source: U.S. Green Building Council
Source: U.S. Green Building Council

 

That last number is 4,605 projects in 2012, when 41% of all nonresidential buildings starts were green, as compared to 2% of all nonresidential building starts in 2005.  Better than that, Net Zero buildings are a reality, and as the design and construction industries adapt we’re going to see more of them. Other organizations are working on this, too.  For example, Architecture2030.org already has commitments from a number of U.S. cities and property owners representing about 100,000,000 square feet of real estate to dramatically reduce fossil fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions.

So designers and builders have begun, and we’re moving with increasing speed toward reducing the effect of the built environment on climate change.  But there’s more to do, including convincing those who oppose action that a planned transition is achievable, affordable, sustainable, and in the best interest of the entire planet.

Energy Code Update

Yesterday the DOE issued a Notice of Preliminary Determination that ANSI/ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1-2013 would achieve greater energy efficiency in buildings subject to the code than its predecessor, 90.1-2010. The preliminary analysis estimates national  energy savings of approximately 8.5% for commercial building energy consumption.

The evaluation of every new version of ASHRAE 90.1 is required by law.  Now that the DOE has determined the level of energy savings the analysis is available for public review.  A docket has also been established to accept public comments.  Feedback is requested by June 16, 2014.

If this determination is finalized, States would be required to certify within two years that they have reviewed the provisions of their commercial building code regarding energy efficiency and updated their codes to meet or exceed Standard 90.1-2013.  More information is available on the DOE website.

As much as I kick and scream about being strangled by tight LPDs, the recent climate related news, from the collapsing ice sheets in the Western Antarctic to atmospheric CO2 concentrations that are higher than ever recorded,  has given me a reason to embrace adoption of 90.1-2013.  I’ll have more to say on that soon.

What’s Old Is New Again

Earlier this week the New York Times had an interesting, although not very informative, article about two new lamp manufacturers and their technologies.  The first is Finally, a Massachusetts based company that is using an old technology, induction, to generate light.  Induction lamps are very similar to fluorescent lamps except that they do not have electrodes or filaments, which are a fluorescent lamp’s most common points of failure. Instead of an electric arc passing through the gas-filled tube, induction lamps use an electromagnetic field to excite the gas.  Like fluorescent lamps, mercury in the lamp produces UV light, which excites phosphors on the lamp envelope to create visible light. Induction lighting has been on the market for many years from other manufacturers.  The advantages of induction include very long life, good color rendering, no flicker, and instant start and restrike.  The drawback to the other induction lamps is that the equipment producing the electromagnetic field is bulky.  The Finally lamp manufacturer has found a way to shrink the equipment to the size of the ballast in a typical retrofit CFL lamp.  The only drawback is that it cannot dim with conventional wallbox dimmers.

The second lamp is the Vu1.  It too uses an old technology in a new way.  The Vu1 is essentially a cathode ray tube, just like old televisions and computer monitors.  It fires a stream of electrons at phosphors embedded in a glass plate, which in turn produce light.  It does not contain mercury, is instant on, has excellent color rendering, and is dimmable.  It is currently available as an R30 replacement lamp.

Since both of these lamps are designed for the retrofit market, they aren’t likely to be specified by lighting designers.  Nonetheless, I’m looking forward to seeing them in operation, and I’m excited to see some alternatives to LEDs.  It will be interesting to see where these two technologies go in the next few years.