Learners Live

Did you Know?
Menu

Lighting Controls: From Code Compliance to Retrofits by Sean Grasby

William Attardi on May 1, 2026

When we talk about lighting controls, we often limit the conversation by focusing on how lights are turned on and off, or how to optimize lighting in various spaces to enhance productivity or conserve energy. While these are important things to consider, in reality, any conversation about lighting control systems should also include several other elements as well. When electrical contractors engage with customers about lighting controls, they should ensure that any conversations also incorporate code requirements, “future-proofing,” and whether a retrofit may be beneficial. Lighting Controls: From Code Compliance to Retrofits | EC&M

 Ensuring lighting controls meet code requirements

As energy codes become more stringent, contractors now need to collaborate with lighting designers, architects, and engineers to not only ensure the lighting design and performance fit the specific needs, but also to comply with industry codes. Clearly, this is no small task — in many cases, a trusted distribution partner can bring in the right expertise or handle much of the administrative burden on the contractor’s behalf.

 Key Takeaways

  • Ensuring lighting control systems meet industry standards such as ASHRAE 90.1, IECC, and NFPA 101 is essential for compliance and safety.
  • Future-proofing involves selecting adaptable, integrated lighting controls that support upgrades and system integrations like HVAC and BMS.
  • Retrofits offer a cost-effective way to upgrade lighting technology, improve efficiency, and reduce disruption compared to new construction projects.
  • Advanced controls like luminaire level lighting control (LLLC) optimize energy use and enable real-time environmental adjustments.

 

BriteSwitch – Commercial Lighting Controls: A Growing Rebate Opportunity

William Attardi on April 22, 2026

Traditional controls fit well within prescriptive rebate programs because they are relatively easy to define, verify, and explain. For decades, programs have offered incentives for adding components such as fixture-mounted occupancy sensors, and these incentives are not going away. In fact, incentives for traditional lighting controls increased by 12–20% this year, depending on the measure. In addition to traditional controls, more advanced lighting control systems have gained prominence in recent years. These systems are typically more intelligent, allowing devices to communicate and respond dynamically to changing conditions. Rebates for advanced systems like NLC and LLLC have historically been more complex. While most programs provide incentives for these systems, the structure varies widely. Some offer incentives through custom programs based on projected kWh savings. Others provide per-fixture adders or separate line items based on control type. RebatePro for Lighting by BriteSwitch is designed to help contractors and distributors identify the best rebate opportunities, estimate incentives for specific projects, and stay current as programs continue to evolve across the US and Canada. Commercial Lighting Controls: A Growing Rebate Opportunity

Memo: Clarifications to the NLC 2020 Report – 2025 update

William Attardi on February 22, 2025

 “Energy Savings from Networked Lighting Control (NLC) Systems With and Without LLLC”  Key updates include refined clarification of the definition of luminaire-level lighting controls (LLLC) used in the report, elaborated explanations on several important aspects of the control savings factors (CSFs), and distinguishing the calculation methodology between high-end trim savings and other control strategies (occupancy sensing and daylight harvesting). The memo emphasizes that the documented CSFs reflect average savings across a diverse set of projects, where optimal programming varied, and highlights considerations for small sample bias in evaluations. Building-specific CSFs and their limitations are explained, and the memo differentiates findings from a related redesign study to avoid misinterpretation. Lastly, an updated executive summary and errata sheet correct clerical errors, reaffirming that NLC systems with LLLC offer higher energy savings potential but encouraging ongoing updates as technology and datasets evolve.

The Creator of Baby Ruth Actually Sued Babe Ruth –The Baby Ruth candy bar was created by the Curtiss Candy Company in 1920 — the same year that baseball legend Babe Ruth hit a then-record 54 home runs. But the Great Bambino was irked that the company was selling a candy bar with such a similar name to his own without offering him any royalties. Rather than take the Curtiss Candy Company to court, the Sultan of Swat decided to make his own candy bar, and in 1926 he debuted Ruth’s Home Run bar. The Curtiss Candy Company responded by turning the tables and taking Ruth to court. They accused the slugger of trying to steal their trademark and capitalize on the success of their brand. In a 1931 deposition, Curtiss founder Otto Schnering insisted the candy was named after “Baby Ruth” Cleveland — the daughter of President Grover Cleveland.  He also attested that the company came up with the name in 1919 before the baseball player had become a household name and that the name was merely coincidental. While the validity of those claims is disputed to this day, the court nonetheless ruled in favor of the candy company, forcing Ruth to end his foray into the world of candy.