The UCLA campus may be adhering to the University of California system’s motto, “Fiat Lux,” or “Let there be light,” a little too literally.
If you stroll across campus past midnight, you’ll find that many of the buildings still have their lights on. For a campus that prides itself on its sustainability, such a visible example of energy waste sends a poor message.
By prioritizing the installation of both motion sensors and meters – devices that monitor electricity consumption – UCLA can both reduce and track its energy consumption in order to eliminate unnecessary lighting, furthering its commitment to being a green campus.
Nurit Katz, the chief sustainability officer at UCLA, said that more than 11,000 occupancy sensors have been installed in campus stairwells, offices and some classrooms in about 40 buildings. However, this accounts for fewer than 25 percent of the buildings on campus. Since 2008, lighting efficiency projects have reduced building-related greenhouse gases by about 5 percent, Katz said.
Right now, UCLA’s efforts appear irregular. UCLA needs to streamline these actions, beginning by systematically installing motion sensors in all areas of all buildings. While lighting may only be a small sector of the energy consumption on campus, it is also the most visible sector. Leaving on unnecessary lights for long periods of time sends a contradictory message from a campus that strives to embrace sustainability.
UCLA has touted the sustainability of several buildings that have successfully met the requirements of a national green building certification system known as Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design. In order to become certified, buildings must earn points in various categories such as innovation in design, water efficiency and energy and atmosphere.
La Kretz was the first building on campus to earn a silver certification. The Terasaki Life Sciences Building also reached this status by improving its ventilation system, among other renovations, three years ago. Twelve buildings on campus have Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design certification.
Environmental certifications aside, if you walk by either building late at night, lights will be on in both buildings.
Katz said there is a certain degree of flexibility within the certification system – buildings can pick and choose which components they want to emphasize, so long as baseline environmental requirements are met. For example, no mandate exists for motion sensors. Lighting, which uses less energy than components like heating and cooling, may fall by the wayside.
Of course, energy efficiency must be balanced with other concerns such as campus safety. Lights are generally left on late at night in order to accommodate researchers or custodial workers. Katz said that lighting must comply with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration requirements, which designate hallways as areas in need of “high lighting.” Motion sensors provide an ideal solution to meeting safety requirements while maximizing energy efficiency.
Last year, an Action Research Team – a hands-on research program run by the Institute of the Environment and Sustainability – investigated excessive lighting in the Engineering IV Building through the Corridor Lighting Assessment Project.
The team purchased their own light meters to measure the amount of electricity consumption. The team discovered that the Engineering IV Building exceeded its ideal light intensity levels five times over.
The team’s final report suggested replacing 28-watt bulbs with more efficient 25-watt bulbs without drastically decreasing light levels. These efforts were implemented last summer and are estimated to save the Engineering IV Building between $30,000 and $40,000 in energy payments each year.
While the efforts of Action Research Teams are commendable, they remain severely limited in scope. Furthermore, the work of individuals or groups on campus to reduce their footprint is complicated because building-specific statistics about energy use are not readily available.
According to a report by the 2012 Action Research Team, there was no electronic database available for comparing energy usage. Instead, the team used outdated information from a 1993 campus-wide survey. Without a baseline, it is difficult to judge per-building energy savings. Both the pace and number of energy audits at UCLA must be significantly improved.
This year, Facilities Management Energy Services and Utilities has begun an annual audit program – undertaking an in-depth analysis of ten buildings per year. But with approximately 200 buildings on campus, a comprehensive audit will take two decades if UCLA continues at this pace.
For a step in the right direction, UCLA should look to UC Berkeley for a clear model for tracking energy consumption on campus buildings.
Last year, UC Berkeley launched myPower.berkeley.edu, a website that tracks the daily energy efficiency of all buildings on campus. Meters installed in each building measure the electricity consumption and send updates to the website every 15 minutes.
Lewis Rosman, energy facility manager, said their goal is to have meters installed in all of UCLA’s buildings, which would allow them to accurately prioritize and determine where the largest campus energy use takes place. The obstacles to installing the meters boil down to time and money.
However, the payback period of the meters suggests that it is a worthwhile investment. Berkeley’s program cost $763,000 to install but is projected to save $257,000 annually, said Erin Fenley, energy management communications specialist for the UC Berkeley campus in a Daily Cal article from 2012. UCLA should invest in a similar program in order to publicize energy efficiency and keep the campus on the forefront of sustainability efforts.