Legislative discrimnation. Mandatory LED street lights in NS. Government of Canada

[Electric-Light]

http://www.gov.ns.ca/news/details.asp?id=20110421003

The Provincial Government of Nova Scotia Canada is imposing LED mandate, a legislation probably pushed by self serving motive of the LED industry.

Instead of legislating a performance based requirement, the Government of Nova Scotia chose to give preferential treatment to LED technology.

This kind of non-sense shuts out existing technology that provides superior efficacy over LEDs under operating conditions. Electronically ballasted metal halide mated with properly made optics can provide superior efficacy to existing HID lighting, yet the Government plays favorites by mandating LEDs.

 

[hillbilly1]

http://www.gov.ns.ca/news/details.asp?id=20110421003

The Provincial Government of Nova Scotia Canada is imposing LED mandate, a legislation probably pushed by self serving motive of the LED industry.

Instead of legislating a performance based requirement, the Government of Nova Scotia chose to give preferential treatment to LED technology.

This kind of non-sense shuts out existing technology that provides superior efficacy over LEDs under operating conditions. Electronically ballasted metal halide mated with properly made optics can provide superior efficacy to existing HID lighting, yet the Government plays favorites by mandating LEDs.

We have the same thing here in the states, whoever is in charge at the time picks the winners and losers.

 

[the blur]

I call BS to the LED trend. At least partically. Commerical electric billing is done by peak KW demand, with a lower rate per KWH, than a typical residental meter. So after dark, with a lower KW demand, there is no real incentive to save on KWH's. The savings in miniscule, because commerical customers pay a lower KWH rate.

The real savings for commerical customers is cutting there peak KW demand.

 

[Rampage_Rick]

Around here most of the street lighting isn't metered. The utility offers fixed rates for lighting they install and maintain (a single 100W HPS is billed out at $14.12 per month) or monthly rates per watt of connected load for lighting that's not theirs (2.71 cents per watt per month) Given that LED fixtures should require far less maintenance (allegedly) than an HPS fixture, and that the energy cost is only a fraction of the maintenance cost, one would think there are significant savings to be had with LED street lighting.

If anyone's interested in our rates up here in BC: http://www.bchydro.com/etc/medialib...c_tariff.Par.0001.File.00-BC-Hydro-Tariff.pdf The rates pertaining to street lighting start on page 114 (Schedule 17xx)

 

[iwire]

I call BS to the LED trend. At least partically. Commerical electric billing is done by peak KW demand, with a lower rate per KWH, than a typical residental meter. So after dark, with a lower KW demand, there is no real incentive to save on KWH's. The savings in miniscule, because commerical customers pay a lower KWH rate.

The real savings for commercial customers is cutting there peak KW demand.

While to some extent that it is true on the other hand for places like retail stores that really don't have peaks just steady state loads they still want to save KWHs.

We are getting a ton of work installing LEDs in commercial spaces because of the rebates the power companies provided for installing more efficient lights.

 

[hillbilly1]

I call BS to the LED trend. At least partically. Commerical electric billing is done by peak KW demand, with a lower rate per KWH, than a typical residental meter. So after dark, with a lower KW demand, there is no real incentive to save on KWH's. The savings in miniscule, because commerical customers pay a lower KWH rate.

The real savings for commerical customers is cutting there peak KW demand.

We have to save all of those kw's for the millions of electric cars going on the grid at night! :lol:

 

[iwire]

We have to save all of those kw's for the millions of electric cars going on the grid at night! :lol:

:lol:

 

[Electric-Light]

I call BS to the LED trend. At least partically. Commerical electric billing is done by peak KW demand, with a lower rate per KWH, than a typical residental meter. So after dark, with a lower KW demand, there is no real incentive to save on KWH's. The savings in miniscule, because commerical customers pay a lower KWH rate.

The real savings for commerical customers is cutting there peak KW demand.

kW demand is proportional to kWh in street lighting. The operating hours and time frame are identical regardless of lamp type.

So, if LEDs use 250W and there's a thousand of them, that's 250kW demand with 2.5MWh per day at 10hr/day. If HIDs use 300W per fixture, it will be 300kW 3MW, but then there's the option to use lower wattage HID as well.

It's non-sense that gov is dictating the specific technology that can be used for public works.

 

[TNBaer]

kW demand is proportional to kWh in street lighting. The operating hours and time frame are identical regardless of lamp type.

So, if LEDs use 250W and there's a thousand of them, that's 250kW demand with 2.5MWh per day at 10hr/day. If HIDs use 300W per fixture, it will be 300kW 3MW, but then there's the option to use lower wattage HID as well.

It's non-sense that gov is dictating the specific technology that can be used for public works.

I wonder if they included exceptions for HPS lamps in high fog areas? Bridges and tunnels frequently use HPS/LPS for those reasons. And in rainy/snowy areas prone to fog, like Syracuse, that yellow light, while horrendous in normal conditions, is really the only viable tech when the weather turns sour.

 

[Strife]

We are getting a ton of work installing LEDs in commercial spaces because of the rebates the power companies provided for installing more efficient lights.

Isn't that the definition of DISCRIMINATING?
Without taxpayer footing the bill??? would there be any efficiency in these?

 

[iwire]

Isn't that the definition of DISCRIMINATING?
Without taxpayer footing the bill??? would there be any efficiency in these?

There is no tax money involved, it comes from the utilities own funds. I have heard it is cheaper for them to reduce the load than to add capacity to the infrastructure but I have no proof of that.

The customers electric bill is reduced and in some cases the lighting level may also be lower but that is a sacrifice they seem to be willing to live with.

Bottom line for me is that I install electrical equipment for a living and will install what ever is code legal and makes the customer happy even if I don't see the logic every time.

 

[texie]

There is no tax money involved, it comes from the utilities own funds. I have heard it is cheaper for them to reduce the load than to add capacity to the infrastructure but I have no proof of that.

The customers electric bill is reduced and in some cases the lighting level may also be lower but that is a sacrifice they seem to be willing to live with.

Bottom line for me is that I install electrical equipment for a living and will install what ever is code legal and makes the customer happy even if I don't see the logic every time.

No, it does not come from the utilities funds, it comes from the rate payers. The practice is known as a negawatt in the industry. IMO it is a total scam perpetuated by a political agenda. This would be akin to Ford asking you to not by too many cars so they don't have to build another plant to meet demand.

 

[kwired]

We have the same thing here in the states, whoever is in charge at the time picks the winners and losers.

exactly, where were you and other opposition when a law you oppose is passed? Sometimes these things are done somewhat silently by being attached to some other bill and people find out afterward something has been passed they don't like.

No, it does not come from the utilities funds, it comes from the rate payers. The practice is known as a negawatt in the industry. IMO it is a total scam perpetuated by a political agenda. This would be akin to Ford asking you to not by too many cars so they don't have to build another plant to meet demand.

Not quite the same thing. Building a power plant is likely to have more opposition from environmental concerns than Ford building another plant to produce automobiles. Besides Ford may build the plant outside the US. Although the power plant very well could be outside the US it is not as simple to import the power as it is to import automobiles or parts for them and in general different regulations are involved for energy trading than for goods.

 

[iwire]

No, it does not come from the utilities funds, it comes from the rate payers.

All utility funds come from the rate payers so thanks for pointing out the obvious.

. This would be akin to Ford asking you to not by too many cars so they don't have to build another plant to meet demand.

I disagree with your comparison.

 

[Electric-Light]

Isn't that the definition of DISCRIMINATING?
Without taxpayer footing the bill??? would there be any efficiency in these?

Privately run PoCos can offer incentive if they so wish to an extent. They're different from ordinary privately run companies in that they have an effective monopoly since you don't get to choose the providers.

Something written in a language that will effectively only allow one technology at this time is vastly different from explicit language limiting to that technology. It gives undue bias in favor of LEDs when a local regulation mandates LED technology as opposed to performance based requirements. This is discrimination.