FRANCESCA BETTRIDGE | Principal | CLINE BETTRIDGE BERNSTEIN LIGHTING DESIGN
Jim makes some very good points, specifically how important it is for the design community to be involved, and he is correct that it has been shouldered by a minority of designers. About Jim’s points, I’d like to add some comments.
I agree with Jim that there needs to be more development in committees and an open public process to keep refining the requirements that we are all using now. We all need to be looking at this rapidly changing situation and keep our communication with each other going strong. GARY FLAMM | Lighting Program Lead | CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION
I appreciate being privy to this dialogue. Regarding gaming types of spaces in Title 24: It is the responsibility of the Energy Commission to establish that an energy efficiency measure is cost effective, technically feasible, and saves energy. Each time we initiate a new rulemaking process, a host of proposals, studies, and analyses are presented to us for consideration. One reason that some spaces have not yet been regulated is because no one has done the baseline assessment to qualify and quantify the potential energy savings for that measure. If someone would bring to us the required completed field study and analysis for gaming types of spaces, we would be able to publicly vet the idea among all of the stakeholders for possible adoption in the next round of standards. Much of the completed analysis comes to us from the electric utility companies. Eventhough lighting for gaming spaces may have high-energy use per square foot, there might not be enough total square feet of space in the state for anyone to invest in the required analysis. Another consideration is that virtually all of the casinos in California are on sovereign Indian land, which is not regulated by Title 24. However, some casinos do voluntarily try to meet energy standards, so it might be useful to provide a standard for such use.