Minutes - 20030224 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Commission for most requesting parties. Mercury vapor is available in cut-off fixtures so the light pollution issue would be addressed but the cansumptian issue would remain. "One side note about the consumption issue: the rates for mercury vapor lights are a flat rate, it's not based on cansumptian, it is based on a flat rate. Mercury vapor fixtures are alow- costoption because it is less costly to install and it's less costly to maintain. The rates are set and they are based on the cost of the consumption, the cost of the facilities and the cost that Duke Power has to expend going out there and making a repair trip. Metal halide has more maintenance involved than the mercury vapor, even though it is more efficient. So there are some trade-offs. It's not a linear comparison that can be made sometimes. "The other thing is that the electricity that is used for lighting at night is really not wasted energy. I know that is hard to comprehend sometimes but the power system that Duke Power and the other utilities use to generate electricity is designed to address peak loading situations which occur during the daytime. We have to build that generation whether we use it or not. And at night when the load is down, we've still got that generation available at really no extra cast. And using it far illumination actually offsets the cost during peak times. It's kind of like building a four-lane road to get to Kenan Stadium but you only need it ten times a year, but you've got that road there and it would be nice if you could use it every day of the year and offset the cost of it, and that is haw lighting is viewed. And again the flat rate and the maintenance cast are considered in what the Commission approves for us to build. "In closing, I would like to say that Duke Power, and I, myself, would be glad to continue the dialogue with the County and other interested parties. We appreciate the opportunity we've had so far. We look forward to getting an effective, and simple and, ultimately, workable Ordinance." A. Nicole Goading-Ray "Is there anyone who was not signed up to speak who would like to speak to this issue at this time? OK." Barry Jacobs "I would like to make some comments. First, unless I missed it, I didn't see anything in here about subdivision signs, which are basically advertising signs. We don't light our street signs. I don't see why we would allow the lighting of subdivision signs. "I would like to second Mr. Bryan's comment. I think it would be probably more in keeping with Duke Power recommendation to have a simple, cleaner way of lacking at fixtures on a periodic basis. I don't know how that affects the exemptions. C, if you are talking about publicly funded streetlights ar if you are talking about all streetlights. I'm not sure we have control over publicly funded streetlights, but we da have over privately funded streetlights. Probably the grossest light polluter in central Orange County is DOT's new interchange at Efland, which you can, I would think you could see from satellites going around the earth. And I would hope that when we get to the point that we have something adopted that we bring this to the attention of our Division Engineer and express our concerns because that's a real shame what they've done right in the middle of the County. "And another egregious example would be the bank as you are coming into Hillsborough on Old 86. I wonder if under 6.31.11 -Lighting On Buildings and Landscaping - if you could just review that section and think about that bank, and think if this Ordinance adequately covers the gluttony that's involved in the bathing of that building in unnecessary light all night.