LED Street Lighting Interview with David Gassaway

Get a hands-on perspective on what it takes to start a citywide street lighting upgrade project. Governing Senior Fellow, Bob Graves interview with David Gassaway, management analyst, City of Rancho Cordova, California.
by | January 14, 2013

Get a hands-on perspective on what it takes to start a citywide street lighting upgrade project. Governing Senior Fellow, Bob Graves interview with David Gassaway, management analyst, City of Rancho Cordova, California.

Q – What prompted the City of Rancho Cordova to look into retrofitting its street lighting systems?  

To me, the money is the first thing that comes to mind. We only began looking at LEDs because of how much we thought we might be able to save in the long-term.

   

Q – What are the primary factors driving the transition to LEDs forward?

I would say there are three primary purposes driving our interest:

1.  Cost savings. We believe we are going to be saving around 60% or more on electricity costs in the long-term. That is significant considering that the funding source we have for streetlights, a special assessment district, was not established with an adequate inflator. Therefore, more and more of the revenues have been shifted to electricity costs, requiring the City to begin subsidizing maintenance costs with other funds. By reducing the electricity expenditures, we will be able to not only pay down the capital costs – a loan from the California Energy Commission for energy efficiency upgrades to public facilities – but will also be able to reduce the amount of funds we are currently subsidizing from other funds. Once we have the loan paid down we can begin to reestablish our capital reserves.

2.  Environmental Improvement. The City actively seeks ways to be a more energy conscious organization. Since LED lights consume such a smaller amount of electricity, the City is reducing its carbon impact by retrofitting. LEDs, as opposed to incandescent or induction lighting, also do not utilize any toxic gases, therefore reducing landfill pollution. Additionally, thinking further than just carbon and ground pollution, LED lighting is much more controllable (incandescent and induction lighting throws light in 360â—‹) and therefore reduces the amount of light pollution lost into the night sky – creates the City glow effect – and reduces light trespass, which is light that shines into homes that is not wanted. Overall, they just create a healthier environment.

3.  Maintenance Ease. LED lights have about four times longer life than High Pressure Sodium (HPS) or Mercury Vapor (MV) bulbs. This allows us to think much more intelligently about how we maintain and replace street lighting as it nears end of life. Unlike HPS or MV, LEDs do not burn out instantly. Instead, they slowly dim over their life span, preventing need for immediate replacement upon burnout (dimmer lighting is better than dark streets). By knowing generally when your LED lights will need to be replaced, we can schedule citywide replacement of all street lights over the course of two or three years, 20 years from now. That will allow us to utilize the current level of technology for the next 20 years, reducing substantially the number of “callouts” for burnt out bulbs, all the while allowing the technology to further advance for the next two decades. Who knows how cool the stuff we replace these LEDs with will be.

Q – Have you reached the stage of developing an RFP?  If yes, what have been the best resources for this particular element?

I have looked over about a dozen streetlight retrofit RFPs in the past few weeks. I would say we are about 80% towards being ready to actually sit down and develop the RFP. We tried to do as much due diligence as possible, creating a fairly extensive analysis of long-term savings vs. capital expenditures. The numbers indicate that we will see about a 9 year ROI. From there, the next 11+ years will be cost savings.

 

Q – What are the primary barriers?

Not sure yet. Information has been one that I’ve tried tackling by simply doing my research and talking to who I can talk to. Certainly cost is a barrier. The City’s retrofit will cost on order of $1.8+ million, which is a price at which financing becomes a necessity as there is not capital reserves in our street lighting funds. The other barrier I can think of is our utility provider. Many of our streetlights are unmetered, and therefore we pay a flat rate. If we plan to utilize the dimming technologies (explained in the next paragraph) then we need to figure out how we can factor further energy reductions by lights that dim when nobody is around. If there is no meter attached, then there is no way to measure the energy savings. And installation of meters throughout the City may not be cost effective for our utility or us.

Q – What are the advanced feature options that you want to add at a later date? 


View Full Story
Bob Graves  |  Associate Director of the Governing Institute
bgraves@governing.com

Join the Discussion

After you comment, click Post. You can enter an anonymous Display Name or connect to a social profile.

More from GOVERNING Toolkit