Incandescent lights in california

[kevinengineer99]

Hello, where in Nonresidential Title 24 or Title 20 does it say incandescent lights are not allowed in California? I found mentions of it in Title 20 but in bits and pieces. What exactly is the requirement here?
Thank you.

 

[jaggedben]

I'm not an expert on the requirements but broadly speaking the answer must be in the California Energy Code. And it may not be an outright prohibition on incadescents so much as that you cannot meet the required efficiency standards if you don't mostly use more efficient types.
(Kind of a pet peeve of mine when people say Title 24 and really mean the energy code. Title 24 is all the building codes.)

 

[Gerry_G]

"Of course, there are exceptions to every rule. Sometimes you need that heat-resistant incandescent light bulb, like in ovens. Overall, 26 lamp types will be exempt. That includes specialty light bulbs, like appliance lamps, black light lamps, bug lamps, colored lamps, and more."

 

[Joe.B]

Yep, energy code. The main exception I remember off of the top of my head is "decorative lighting."

 

[ramsy]

Hello, where in Nonresidential Title 24 or Title 20 does it say incandescent lights are not allowed in California? I found mentions of it in Title 20 but in bits and pieces. What exactly is the requirement here?
Thank you.

The energy code regs are available in the public domain, to anyone with a smart phone.

Unfortuneately, the best work ethics don't always follow literacy with the local language, or internet browsing abilities. The number of labor shops running electrical, with illiterate help never ceases to amaze me.

 

[tortuga]

I think Kevin has a copy of the code and is looking for a reference.
The code can be found here:

https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2021-06/CEC-400-2018-020-CMF_0.pdf

Kevin are you looking at section 130(a)

The design and installation of all lighting systems and equipment in nonresidential, high-rise residential,
hotel/motel buildings, outdoor lighting, and electrical power distribution systems within the scope of Section
100.0(a) shall comply with the applicable provisions of Sections 130.0 through 130.5.
NOTE: The requirements of Sections 130.0 through 130.5 apply to newly constructed buildings. Section 141.0
specifies which requirements of Sections 130.0 through 130.5 also apply to additions and alterations to existing
buildings.

 

[tortuga]

Scratch that , I think its myth, you can have incandescent, you just need to meet the requirements of sub chapter 4:

A building complies with this section if:
i.
 The Calculation of Adjusted Indoor Lighting Power of all proposed building areas combined, calculated
under Subsection (a) is no greater than the Calculation of Allowed Indoor Lighting Power, Specific
Methodologies calculated under Subsection (c); and
ii.
 The Calculation of Allowed Indoor Lighting Power, General Rules comply with Subsection (b); and
iii. General lighting complies with the Automatic Daylighting Controls in Secondary Daylit Zone requirements
in Subsection (d).
The prescriptive limits on indoor lighting power are the smaller of the Actual and Allowed Indoor Lighting Power
values determined in accordance with item i.
(a) Calculation of Adjusted Indoor Lighting Power. The adjusted indoor Lighting Power of all proposed building
areas is the total watts of all planned permanent and portable lighting systems in all areas of the proposed
building; subject to the applicable adjustments under Subdivisions 1 through 4 of this subsection and the
requirements of Subdivision 4 of this subsection.

Long live incandescent!

 

[Joe.B]

I think Kevin has a copy of the code and is looking for a reference.
The code can be found here:

https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2021-06/CEC-400-2018-020-CMF_0.pdf

Thanks for sharing this link. At first glance I was about to say "that's not the actual code" but I looked through and it does have the entire Title 24, Part 6 in there along with some of the administrative sections from other codes. Very handy to have that in a pdf format!

The CA energy code is one of the more challenging codes to navigate. It does not explicitly say that incandescent lights are not allowed, but here's where my reading just took me:

For non-residential new construction must follow subchapter 4 130.0-130.5, section 141.0 specifies which of those requirements apply to additions and alterations. So that's the first clarification needed, new construction or addition?

Then 130.0 goes on to reference different UL or IES listings, JA8 requirements, etc... 130.1 is for indoor lighting controls, 130.2 for outdoor lighting controls and equipment, 130.3 sign lighting controls, 130.4 acceptance and certificate requirements, and 130.5 for electrical power distribution systems.

Subchapter 5 outlines performance and prescriptive requirements, performance meaning computer modeled/calculated, prescriptive meaning straight out of the code, designer chooses one or the other for approval. 140.1 performance approach outlines the energy budget requirements for modeling/calculating the TDV. 140.2 performance approach says that you follow 140.3-140.9.

140.6 prescriptive requirements for indoor lighting is where @tortuga found that last quote. It is then followed by several pages of complicated calculations and tables, looks like a fun read...

While I agree that the code doesn't explicitly prohibit incandescent lights, I suspect that people who have bothered to unravel these complicated requirements have found that typically they wont work out in the calculations. Hence a general "rule of thumb" that incandescent are not allowed.

 

[wwhitney]

Right, but if they are only prohibited by the prescriptive lighting energy budget being based on more efficient types of luminaires, then you certainly could incorporate a small fraction of incandescents by using more efficient lighting elsewhere.

So the question is are they just limited to a small fraction of lighting in non-residential settings via the above, or are they completely prohibited by some product standard that is reference in Section 130 or 140?

Cheers, Wayne

 

[tortuga]

people who have bothered to unravel these complicated requirements have found that typically they wont work out in the calculations. Hence a general "rule of thumb" that incandescent are not allowed.

@kevinengineer99 lists his profession as an engineer, and someone perhaps his boss or an inspector probably told him 'you can't use incandescent for xyz in that darn California' so he looked in that code for a reference and there is none.
Now since he is probably savvy enginner armed with this new information,that he can use incandescent as long as he does the calcs, he can post some cool photos of his calcs and or incandescent lighting project.

 

[Besoeker3]

Long live incandescent!

But why would you?

 

[tortuga]

But why would you?

That was a joke, but I do like old stuff and I keep a few around in old lamps and such, for historical purposes.

 

[Besoeker3]

That was a joke, but I do like old stuff and I keep a few around in old lamps and such, for historical purposes.

Thank you for that. Humour doesn't always work with text...........................

 

[Joe.B]

Right, but if they are only prohibited by the prescriptive lighting energy budget being based on more efficient types of luminaires, then you certainly could incorporate a small fraction of incandescents by using more efficient lighting elsewhere.

So the question is are they just limited to a small fraction of lighting in non-residential settings via the above, or are they completely prohibited by some product standard that is reference in Section 130 or 140?

Cheers, Wayne

Agreed, great question. Anyone have full access to the UL or IES listings? I don't...

 

[tortuga]

Agreed, great question. Anyone have full access to the UL or IES listings? I don't...

Wow and your an inspector in California?
Its seems every code cycle more and more things are required to be (UL) listed, like zip-ties, duct seal....
Even if there is public access to UL and IES, its not as easy as having it in a code.
I think Dennis on here showed me there is a limited way to 'view' a UL standard for free online thru UL's website.
But its not that great if your a busy inspector, there is no copy and paste obviously.
I wish more CMP members would oppose the removal of 'construction specifications' from the code into (UL) standards for this reason.

 

[Joe.B]

Wow and your an inspector in California?
Its seems every code cycle more and more things are required to be (UL) listed, like zip-ties, duct seal....
Even if there is public access to UL and IES, its not as easy as having it in a code.
I think Dennis on here showed me there is a limited way to 'view' a UL standard for free online thru UL's website.
But its not that great if your a busy inspector, there is no copy and paste obviously.
I wish more CMP members would oppose the removal of 'construction specifications' from the code into (UL) standards for this reason.

Yeah, when I have run into something on the job and need to find an exact UL listing I will find it, either through some free/limited version, or in one case I had the city cough up the $7.99 to buy a specific listing. I would love to see some sort of change in the system that would give us better access to these, but I'm just along for the ride.