In California, the California Energy Commission (CEC) is proposing a new regulation (Article 24) that will affect the lighting choices of greenhouse growers, effective from January 2023. According to the proposed language, the greenhouse operator will only need to install a fixed device with a rated efficiency of 1.7 umol/j (micromole per joule), suitable for any canopy that adds greenhouse lighting.

According to Bob Gunn, CEO of Seinergy, who specializes in the lighting rebate program, this proposed regulation will eliminate all fluorescent lighting options (indoor or greenhouse) and may eliminate all single-ended or large base luminaires , Including ceramic metal halide lamps. The proposed regulations should still allow the use of double-ended HID (High Intensity Discharge) fixtures; however, the method of grading and qualifying for the proposed standard is uncertain.

“The proposed regulations may require growers to install lights to transform their entire canopy before the effective date of the regulations,” Gunn said, citing two potential examples: increasing the intensity of lighting or lighting in the canopy, or adding outside the PAR The rated spectrum of special lighting. Growers who want to increase the lighting intensity of the illuminated canopy (for example, increase the lighting level from 400 PPFD to 800 PPFD because they want to switch from ornamental flowers to hemp, or add lighting in the canopy) may have to retrofit all their existing lights That space.

"This is based on language implied that the modification of more than 10% of the lamps or any increase in installed wattage will make the entire canopy subject to the new regulations," Gunn said.

Second, growers are not allowed to add LEDs that only use ultraviolet light, because ultraviolet light is not in the 400-700nm spectral range, which CEC believes is the only useful spectrum for plant cultivation.

"What happens if a facility wants to rearrange lighting equipment from one space or facility to another? Is their equipment condemned? Maybe it is, but we don't know yet," Gunn said.

Finally, Gunn pointed out that the energy-saving effects of the proposed regulations, as well as the unintended consequences of the regulations (for example, erosion of profits, substitution of market competitive disadvantages, expansion of the tree canopy to meet market demand, and weakening of utility incentives) are highly uncertain.

“The authors of the proposal and CEC did not try to quantify the lighting currently used in the industry, so their analysis of the proposed energy is invalid,” Gunn said. "Perhaps the most worrying is the complete lack of industry involvement in the formulation of the proposed regulations."

After a consultant hired by a California investor-owned utility company led the drafting process, CEC held its first horticultural lighting seminar in November. Gunn pointed out that so far, despite the input of the horticulture industry, neither organization has shown willingness to consider the difficulties or more realistic standards that the proposed regulation will bring to growers.

“While we wait for the next round of CEC editing, we encourage greenhouse operators of all crops to submit comments to the CEC public file,” Gunn said. "For any type of horticultural lighting, energy regulation is brand new, so let the regulator know what works for you and what does not work for you."

We asked two major lighting technology manufacturers how these regulatory developments will affect growers. This is what they have to say.

(Brady Nemeth, Utility Tax Rebate Coordinator, Osram Fluence): It is important to note that if finalized in the current form, the new regulations will not take effect until 2023. Once effective, this does not mean that growers have to go out and switch their lighting technology. Like other energy regulations, it only applies to newly built greenhouses or greenhouses undergoing major renovations. This is not an exact rule, but if you do not need to apply for a building permit for renovations, you may not be affected. For greenhouse growers, the current draft regulations have more relaxed requirements for product efficacy, which is 1.7 umol/J. This is in contrast to the currently proposed specification for indoor growers of 2.1 umol/J. "

(Rachelle Winningham [Utility Rebate Coordinator] and Colin Brice [Plant Specialist], Signify): This proposed authorization will affect growers by effectively requiring the transfer of lighting systems from HPS to CMH or LEDs, as HPS is usually only 1.9 The efficacy/J of µmol represents the entire lamp. In terms of efficacy, CEC requirements seem to be much stricter than DLC requirements. If the minimum light efficiency cannot be reduced, we believe that growers should be able to choose to convert 50% of their total lamps to the recommended light efficiency, or simply reduce their lighting power consumption by at least 20% each year. A more flexible approach is still geared towards reducing energy consumption, but allowing growers other options besides full LED conversion will allow for more acceptable technology transfer and prevent the market from disrupting the market by forcing changes to planting practices. "

Brian D. Sparks is the senior editor of Greenhouse Grower and GreenhouseGrower.com. View all author stories here.

Sound of Controlled Environment Production