California Title 24 & energy supply

Status
Not open for further replies.
peter d

peter d

Senior Member
Location
New England
I admire that California is taking the lead and proposing some "ahead of the curve" measures to counteract the vexing nationwide energy supply vs. consumption problem.

Nonetheless, the last time I was there, I saw countless large home developments sprouting up on every scrap of land. These were large homes with tons of incandescent recessed lighting, and they all had the ubiquitous photocell that keeps all the incandescent outside lights on all night long. Plenty more had landscape lighting.

On the one hand, the state goverment is saying "Let's do something drastic to save energy."

On the other hand, the same powers that be are saying "Let's allow 1000s of new energy hungry homes to be crammed into any piece of land that can be built on."

I think it's a step in the right direction. But it seems the continued tremendous growth will easily dwarf what energy is saved by 24. I also wonder how many of the 24 required energy saving required luminaires and controls will be removed by homeowners once they're in place.

I think once the energy supply is maxed out and blackouts become a regular occurance in many parts of the country, not just California, the growth will limit itself, and people will start to take conservation seriously.

Let's not kid ourselves here, the day of reckoning is fast approaching.
 
Your comments are interesting. I work in CA for a service company. We pride our selves on doing work to code. When I go to a call, every violation I find is recorded. If the customer won't pay me to correct, I document the problem to cover myself. When I find problems, I bring them up to code.

All that said, Title 24 is vague. I had a post last night about some exterior lighting on a timer. An inspector from LA indicated I couldn't do the work per Title 24.

I related this to my shop and they thought I could. The issue of new work, on an old house, comes up. No one in this state is tasked with enforcing title 24.

Today, I went to another house where the HO wants me to install new exterior flood lights w/o MD's. Is this legal?

I suggested HID fixtures to meet title 24, but he balked at the price. My shop seems to think I should do the job anyway (with flood lights).

Is it right to do the work against Title 24? Does Title 24 apply to existing homes? Should I let the HO find a contractor who will install what he wants?
 
The 2005 reg's are not vague in my opinion.

Alterations or Additions must meet the current reg's.

The general rule now is all lighting must be high efficacy.

There are exceptions:

Kitchens: At least 50% of total lighting must be high efficacy. Incandescent must be on seperate switch.

Living rooms, bedrooms: can be incandescent if on dimmer or occupant sensor that is manual on and no bypass

Outside (only applies to luminaires mounted on bldg): can be incandescent with a photo/motion combo sensor.
Outside lighting in and around swimming pools and other water features subject to 680 can be incandescent.

Not an all inclusive list.

Your post light would be exempt from T-24 because it is not mounted on the bldg. So would landscape lighting.
 
sandsnow said:
The 2005 reg's are not vague in my opinion.

Not an all inclusive list.

Your post light would be exempt from T-24 because it is not mounted on the bldg. So would landscape lighting.
Click to expand...

The lighting I am proposing would be mounted to the exterior of an existing house. It is probably not OK. What do you think? Do I have to tell the HO he can't have flood lights in his back yard? Is this how CA is going? A HO can't turn on flood lights during a B-B-Que?
 
That may have been my posting last night. I worked as a third party inspector for awhile, but I'm a commercial contractor. I didn't know whether the issue we discussed was residential or commercial. It doesn't matter, as nowhere in that code is a 12 hour timer permitted.

I am quite surprised that you are working on lighting controls without any clue about the new regulations. Building departments are responsible for enforcement, and there is no allowance for a local jurisdiction to bypass or avoid enforcement. They can be looked at here.

Here's a quote from chapter 6 of the 2005 residential standards:
6.6 Outdoor Lighting
?150(k)6
Outdoor lighting attached to a building must be high efficacy, or controlled by a motion sensor with integral photocontrol.
 
Peter D I find your post more political than electrical, if you like being told how to live great, personally I find it disturbing. :(

PM me if you don't understand what I mean. :)
 
I too find Peter D's post quite interesting!

It's not like Title 24, Part 6, of the California Code of Regulations, has been around since 1976, right? ;)
This is something totally new to the Contracting, Architectural and Engineering (MEP) firms + personnel involved with Construction projects in California.

OK, now the Ranting is over!!!

On a serious note:

The current standards (2005) are really indepth, added many new items (Outdoor lighting zones controls, step dimming, bi-level lighting step controls, more Residential requirements for "Chapter 5" installations - AKA "Lighting"; and etc.), and is a lot easier to compile to the required forms - even l though I had to create them myself as ACAD drawing files ( the commission has not yet released forms which are in AutoCAD file format - either .DWG or .DXF - they have only released .PDF's for 2005 , not either option like previous versions had (1995, 1998 and 2001 versions) ).

Big time changes between this current standards and last cycle's standards.
Looks like the "ENV" chapters have been worked on, but I have seen lots of changes in the "MECH" and "LTG" chapters.

LPT for the area category most related to my area of Injun-earring is down to 1.2 W/sq.ft (general offices - less than 250 sq. ft.) and "Kind Of" 1.0 W/sq.ft. when factoring in the 0.2 W/sq.ft. portable lighting adjustment for 250 sq.ft. + Offices.

Promoting the usage of newer and higher efficacy (??) Luminaries + control equipment, yet allowing the flexibility and simplicity of interior lighting (zone controlled) auto shut-off, carried over for the past 2 cycles.

I just really didn't like having to write all the new compliance forms manually, for use on my ACAD generated E sheets! (XREF the forms to the sheets). Wrote something like 25 individual compliance forms.

The October 1st changeover to the 2005 standards was sooo much better - in regards to plan check submittals. As of Friday, March 24th, I have submitted a total of 6 plansets to various DBS's for compliance checking (from 10/01/2005 to 03/24/2006), and only one project had some corrections (very simple stuff: forgot to sign planset and compliance forms, and an issue regarding exit lights that some of you may remember from a thread at ECN).

So that's my Commercial for the new standards.

This thread caught my eye, mostly from what was mentioned by the OP.
I like the analogy of "Saved Energy Spent On Increasingly Larger Homes With Zillions Of Luminaries" made by the OP! It does appear to be very counter productive, but hopefully the Home Owners will not need a continuous Lighting Power of 9.0 kW just to read the Mail! (read: HO will likely not have every fixture on all day and night, and the new appliances will have much higher efficiency and efficacy characteristics).

Other than that, I need to mention this:
Prior to the "Rolling Blackouts Clown Competition", the energy saved by T24 part 6's compliance (from date of first standards entering the CEC, CBC, and CMC; until before mentioned circus acts were performed) was equivalent to what would had been produced by no less than 10 large full duty coal burning power plants. All the saved resources, less pollutants, and similar effects of reduced power consumption were secondary benefits - as was the more eye pleasing Fluorescent Lighting technologies employed in typical Commercial locations.

So, how many licks does it take to get to the "Tootsie Roll center of the Tootsie Pop?"
I believe it's somewhere in the range of 74,556?, or so.
:eek:

Scott
 
Ok, maybe using California's codes was too controversial. Sorry. They just seemed like the natural choice because they are so....umm....notorious???? I wasn't picking on California, I happen to really like the state and I enjoy my visits there immmensely; I was just amazed by the growth.

Let me make my point another way then.

Although we are using energy more efficiently in this country, we are forever adding more demand to the supply infrastructure. It's simple supply and demand. I just think we are getting dangerously close to the point where demand will exceed supply on a regular basis. It allready comes close in the summer in many parts of this nation.

No, I don't like being told how to live but there will come a point when we won't have much choice with regard to energy. We will either have to conserve or do without. Yes, maybe that's polticial (i don't think it is or want to turn this into a political argument- that's not my goal) but it will affect us all.
 
sparky_magoo said:
Your comments are interesting. I work in CA for a service company. We pride our selves on doing work to code. When I go to a call, every violation I find is recorded. If the customer won't pay me to correct, I document the problem to cover myself. When I find problems, I bring them up to code.
Click to expand...

Where did I accuse any company of not working to code? I was saying that homeowners themselves may defeat the title 24 measures once installed themselves. It's their home after all and you have no control over what they do after you leave. And they don't have to fix the violations you write up either unless they are forced to.
 
I talked to the owner of my company about this issue today. He told me to install flood lamps with flourescent bulbs in the fixtures, if I am worried about it.

My wife is an independant mortgage broker. On weekends, we drive around looking at new housing tracts to help her with her marketing. I always look at the wiring in these new homes. I have to think these homes were permitted under current California code. These houses obviously violate CA Title 24. This doesn't make anything right. The LA guys slammed me, but Title 24 is not being enforced on the central coast.

There is nobody to enforce this code and building inspectors aren't considering it. I have freinds who rope new homes for a living. they aren't changing threir ways because developers aren't willing to pay the increased costs.

It may not be right, but this is what is happening on California's beautiful central coast.
 
As long as a house has under cabinet flourescent lighting in the kitchen, on a seperate switch, the inspectors call it good. The switch doesn't even have to be the first one in the box (a requirement around here).

What can I do as a lone electrician, in these parts, to bring wiring practices up to California code?
 
Sparky, most likely the homes you looking at were permitted under the 2001 energy code (plans submitted before 10/05). Most of the projects I have going now are still under the old code. Under the 2001 energy code undercabinet fluorescents were acceptable if they provided general light in the room. The fluorescent lighting had to be switched at the entrance to the room. Many inspectors mistakenly required the switch to be the first switch.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top