2.  Budget: $210,000  Energy : 255,700 kWh  Demand reduction: 36 kW  Cost Savings: $34,520 / year  Utility Incentive $61,370  Simple Payback = 4.2 years  after incentive

3.  Lab buildings  high energy usage  lighting loads with long operating hours  Minimal control  Due to the nature of the lab research, difficult to implement lighting energy efficiency

7.  Brought in an outside consultant  assist in evaluation of technologies  support communication to building occupants  support implementation of the hardware/software  Objective technical information.

9.  Two members of the UCSC project team attended a workshop that physically installed and wired 3 major lighting control systems  Pre-construction planning and evaluation was critical because new technologies can:  Be Problematic  Be Proprietary  Have High first time/maintenance costs

12.  Faculty  Principal Investigators  Find PI champions  Phase I rollout best suited for supportive occupants  Troubleshooting  Facilities staff  Protective of their faculty  Even more important to talk to faculty directly  Students  The best advocates!  Green Labs

19.  We achieved a minimum savings of 40% (based on resetting maximum lighting levels), up to ~70% energy savings (based on daylight and occupancy control).

20. Re-evaluated actual lighting levels for hallways, stairwells, and labs (compared to IEEE) Actual lighting levels exceeded requirements substantially. The utilization of integrated lighting controls and dimming ballasts allowed UCSC to achieve significant energy savings.

24.  Different solutions are the best fit for:  Different building types  Campus staffing/needs  System flexibility is important  Cost control  Technology options in future

25.  Occupant input is important  PBSci facilities staff  Physical Plant staff  Installation crew  Prinicipal Investigators  Sustainability Students  Green Labs  PBSci Students