COMcheck for lighting

[JoeStillman]

The energy code requires us to do our COMchecks using the maximum wattage that a fixture is labeled for, not the lamps we decide to use in them. So if a Progress 6" can is labeled for a 75W incandescent, it does no good for our COMcheck to specify a 13W LED medium base lamp. It seems to me that the energy code has made it impossible to specify 90% of the lights made in USA.

I confess that, up until now, I have pretended not to know that rule. Therefore, as penance, I shall spend the rest of my life at the sea shore, waiting for the consequences of my actions to overwhelm me with the rising tide. If you don't want to join me, maybe you can add a weasel note like this one that I'm leaving behind in my boilerplate specs;

The Energy Code requires that the maximum wattage allowed by a fixture be the wattage used for compliance calculations. The lamp wattages shown on the fixture schedule were used in the compliance calculations. When this wattage is less than the maximum wattage labeled on the fixture, install a printed label over the factory label showing the scheduled wattage instead.

My question is this; will we be voiding the UL listing by adding an extra little bit of vinyl tape to a luminaire?

 

[tw1156]

While I agree commcheck gets ridiculous regarding that portion of it, there's no guarantee that someone wouldn't come back with 75W lamps. It's not so much UL that I'd be worried about as it doesn't change the fact that the luminaire is rated to accept 75W and thus needs to be calculated as such in the commcheck as it notes to calculate it that way.

This is almost no different than calculating track lighting at 75W/ft per NEC 220.43(b) for our branchcircuit/feeder/service calcs when IECC only allows us 30W max.

 

[JoeStillman]

While I agree commcheck gets ridiculous regarding that portion of it, there's no guarantee that someone wouldn't come back with 75W lamps. It's not so much UL that I'd be worried about as it doesn't change the fact that the luminaire is rated to accept 75W and thus needs to be calculated as such in the commcheck as it notes to calculate it that way.

This is almost no different than calculating track lighting at 75W/ft per NEC 220.43(b) for our branchcircuit/feeder/service calcs when IECC only allows us 30W max.

I understand why the IECC and ASHRAE want to restrict you to the max allowed, but there aren't too many interior designers who select their fixtures with the energy code in mind. All it takes is one big chandelier to drive your COMcheck into outer space. I hate to go back and tell them they have to redesign it with less lights, even though it meets code when you figure it with LED's.

Seriously though, would anybody object to re-labeling the lights?

 

[dkidd]

Seriously though, would anybody object to re-labeling the lights?

Covering up the label would obscure a very important warning.

 

[tw1156]

I understand why the IECC and ASHRAE want to restrict you to the max allowed, but there aren't too many interior designers who select their fixtures with the energy code in mind. All it takes is one big chandelier to drive your COMcheck into outer space. I hate to go back and tell them they have to redesign it with less lights, even though it meets code when you figure it with LED's.

Seriously though, would anybody object to re-labeling the lights?

We've had to tell Interior Designers before that their choices are less than savvy; ultimately it comes down to us putting our seal on plans saying it conforms with current adopted codes and guess who gets to eat it if it gets flagged.... It's not a risk worth taking on my part. This is before we've exhausted any exemptions we can find for the lighting though in IECC; which there are a few that have come up on projects that help us. If the owner decides to put the light in, it's an issue between the inspector and them. All of this to say I wish it was as you described, with allowance for a little bit of common sense.

 

[JoeStillman]

Covering up the label would obscure a very important warning.

I agree, it IS a very important warning, but what I'm proposing is to impose an even greater limitation on the wattage. The safety waning label doesn't limit the wattage enough for the energy code.

This is just another reason why I hate the energy code.

 

[steve66]

But LED cans are so cheap now (and more efficient), I surprised anyone is still using the lampholder style cans.

I don't think applying a label in the field is a good idea. But many manufacturers will factory apply a label with a reduced wattage. You may just have to ask.

But I suppose those might cost a little more and take longer to get than something already on the shelf at the local supply store.

 

[JFletcher]

on can lights, can you remove the factory Edison base lamp holder, put in one of those two wire quick disconnects going to an LED Style connector? that way there's no way to over lamp with a incandescent bulb... then relabel with your sticker