New Mexico Light Pollution
Outdoor Lighting Control Act
Other Southwestern City
Las Cruces Sun-News
Proposed
Guest editorial by |
1997 New Mexico House Bill 337 HOUSE BILL 337 43rd Legislature - STATE OF NEW MEXICO - First Session, 1997 INTRODUCED BY GARY R. KING FOR THE SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENERGY AND DEFENSE CONVERSION COMMITTEE AN ACT RELATING TO THE ENVIRONMENT; ENACTING THE OUTDOOR LIGHTING CONTROL ACT; ESTABLISHING A PENALTY; ENACTING SECTIONS OF THE NMSA 1978. BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO: Section 1. SHORT TITLE.--This act may be cited as the "Outdoor Lighting Control Act". Section 2. PURPOSE.--The purpose of the Outdoor Lighting Control Act is to regulate outdoor night lighting fixtures to preserve and enhance the state's dark sky while promoting safety, conserving energy and preserving the environment for astronomy. Section 3. DEFINITIONS.--As used in the Outdoor Lighting Control Act:
A. "Shielded" means a fixture that is shielded in such a manner that light rays emitted by the fixture, either directly from the lamp or indirectly from the fixture, are projected at leaast fifteen degrees below a horizontal plane running through the lowest point on the fixture where light is emitted; and Section 4. SHIELDING OF OUTDOOR LIGHT FIXTURES.--All outdoor lighting fixtures shall be shielded, except incandescent fixtures of one hundred fifty watts or less and other sources of seventy watts or less. Section 5. NONCONFORMING LIGHT FIXTURES.--
A. In addition to other exemptions provided in the Outdoor Lighting Control Act, an outdoor lighting fixture not meeting these provisions shall be allowed if the fixture is extinguished by an automatic shutoff device between the hours of 11:00 P.M. and sunrise. Section 6. USE OF MERCURY VAPOR LIGHTING FIXTURES,--
A. No new mercury vapor outdoor lighting fixtures shall be installed after January 1, 1998. No replacement equipment other than bulbs for mercury vapor lighting fixtures shall be sold int the state after January 1, 1999, and the use of mercury vapor lighting fixtures is prohibited after January 1, 2008. Section 7. EXEMPTIONS.--
A. The following are exempt from the requirements of the Outdoor Lighting Control Act: Section 8. VIOLATIONS.--PENALTY.--Any person, firm or corporation violating the provisions of the Outdoor Lighting Control Act is guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be sentenced pursuant to the provisions of Section 31-19-1 NMSA 1978.
FORTY-THIRD LEGISLATURE FIRST SESSION, 1997 February 13, 1997 Mr. Speaker: Your GOVERNMENT AND URBAN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE, to whom has been referred HOUSE BILL 337 has had it under consideration and reports same with recommendation that it DO PASS, and thence referred to the JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. Respectfully submitted, Lynda M. Lovejoy, Chairwoman |
Please press your Reload/Refresh button to insure that you retrieve the most recent comments.
|
Returned Comments & Dialog
To add your comments |
John Gilkison (jgilkiso@nmsu.edu) writes: My major comment on the bill was the grandfathering of existing fixtures until they need to be replaced. As a practical matter there is no way to police such a scheme and it could result in fixtures remaining as they are for up to 30 years or more, as industrial area lighting is extremely robust and often long lived. Bulb changes alone necessitate servicing at least every 6 years. Ten years would not be a unreasonable period of time for the owner to provide for a replacement or a retrofitting to bring fixtures up to shielding codes. Having a set date to accomplish this is much more effective and realistic then a opened ended date no one could possibly police. Let's say January 31, 2009, for example.
Warren Offutt (offutt@apo.nmsu.edu) writes:
Thanks for the review copy of House Bill 337. The following should be classified as updating improvements and supporting remarks. The Bill as you sent it would be a positive step, but needs some tuning to reflect current knowledge. General Comment - a philosphical balance:
The benefits of good night lighting accrue to a wider cross-section of citizens than only astronomy interests. Especially for senior citizens and partially sight impaired citizens, the elimination of direct glare is of great importance. The complaint of elderly citizens that they can not see well at night is usually not because of low light levels, but because of direct glare, to which older eyes are intolerant. Glare-free lighting is especially important to older citizens. Specific comments - related to the identified section:
Section 2 - cite the societal benefits which are broader than astronomy, as discussed above. Bring more beneficiaries onto this side of the playing field. For example, give the legislators opportunity to cite their support of elderly citizens' needs. Finally, I'd like to call attention to the growth of two types of illumination which should be mentioned in the Bill specifically:
Architectural designers of all-night truck stops and gas stations are adopting designs which are extremely bright, leading to sky glow that can be seen miles way. It is as though they feel this is a sort of advertising ... follow the sky glow to us. Local attempts to talk reasonably to these establishments have not met with success. This trend among motor fuel suppliers seems to be growing. While the lighting fixture requirements of the Bill should provide protection against this abuse, I recommend devoting a sentence or two to this egregious use. Thank you for your attention to this important issue. Any questions, let me know.
One other comment, (now that I have read the bill). Section 4 talks about no shielding requirements for incandescents of 150 watts or less and 70 watts for other light sources. This is a loophole big enough to drive a trainload of proliferating fixtures through. Anything we exempt you will see multiply without limit. A way to deal with that is to first place a lumens cap for unshielded lighting per acre of lets say 3,300 lumens in fixtures with no more 1,100 lumes each. If someone wanted four fixtures of 600 lumens each and one of 900 it would fit under the cap. We need to specify lumens not watts as this is meaningless. All other single light sources over 3,300 lumens shall be shielded regardless of what they are. This exemption allows for porch lights without allowing them to proliferate. Another exemption for floodlights could be allowed based on a 8,000 lumens cap per acre for shielded residential area lighting. If such flood lighting were pointed down at a 55 degree angle it could be considered shielded and as long as in total it didn't exceed 8,000 lumens in output it would be legal. The 8,000 lumens cap would keep the larger NEMA heads out of residential or rural areas, shielded or not. This would satisfy homeowners wanting more light and satisfy our need to keep light out of the sky. I would put a 2200 lumens cap on these fixtures to keep out the 300 watt Quartz Halogen floodlight energy hog. Different rules would apply to business and they need to be differentiated.
Two concerns I have: 1) Does the bill need to address the "home rule" issue? Ideally, local communities could enact stricter lighting ordinances, but no less strict than this. It worries me, though, that they may have the right to over-ride this law with more exemptions.
Section 4. SHIELDING OF OUTDOOR LIGHT FIXTURES.--All outdoor lighting fixtures shall be shielded, except incandescent fixtures of one hundred fifty watts or less and other sources of seventy watts or less. The seventy watt high pressure sodium wall pack is one of the worst offenders and the 35 watt wall packs are not much better. One of the problems we run into is people put in good parking lot fixtures and then stick twenty or more of these things on the sides of the building. For every two of these things that are installed we wind up with worse pollution then we would from a single NEMA head mercury fixture. Additionally, unlike the mercury bulb, the lumen output of a high pressure sodium bulb does not decline as the bulb ages. I would recommend that reference to other sources be dropped. There are wall mounted fixtures available that have excellency shielding. This paragraph would be better worded as follows: except for fixtures using a single incandescent bulb of one hundred fifty watts or less. The incandescent bulb is well defined in dictionaries. If the words incandescent fixture are used it can be argued that all light emissions are produced by some type of incandescence. (We have already heard that argument.) Section 6. USE OF MERCURY VAPOR LIGHTING FIXTURES,-- A. No new mercury vapor outdoor lighting fixtures shall be installed after January 1, 1998. No replacement equipment other than bulbs for mercury vapor lighting fixtures shall be sold int the state after January 1, 1999, and the use of mercury vapor lighting fixtures is prohibited after January 1, 2008. I think there is to much emphasis on the elimination of the mercury vapor bulb. If the objective is to get rid of white light, mercury vapor is one of many sources. If the objective is to get rid of mercury pollution in land fills then this bill is not the place for it. There is really nothing wrong with a shielded mercury vapor street light/ night light. It would be just as easy to prohibit the sale of "unshielded" fixtures. Section 5. NONCONFORMING LIGHT FIXTURES.-- A. In addition to other exemptions provided in the Outdoor Lighting Control Act, an outdoor lighting fixture not meeting these provisions shall be allowed if the fixture is extinguished by an automatic shutoff device between the hours of 11:00 P.M. and sunrise. One of the stated objectives is safety. Any lighting bill should address the problem of bright flood lights aimed into the eyes of drivers and pedestrians. This paragraph allows offenders to (forever) continue to use poorly aimed/shielded fixtures during the time of the evening when most driver/pedestrians are out and about. This is also the time of the evening when people enjoy outdoor activities in residential areas. (4) outdoor lighting fixtures that are necessary for normal safety at industrial, mining or mineral extraction facilities. Again, this allows poor practices to continue. Safety and security are always reduced when poorly shielded/aimed fixtures are used. In seeking enforcement of local ordinances we have learned that it is important to have a date when all fixtures must be in compliance. It is very difficult to "prove" when a fixture was installed on a facility that existed prior to enactment. Thanks and good luck,
I have only a few comments. Section 3.A. says: "Shielded" means a fixture ... Since "shielded" is an adjective and "fixture" is a noun, neither one can mean the other. The words "a fixture that is" should be struck from the text. Section 4. specifies 150 and 70 watts as lower thresholds of required compliance. I think that's too high. The only things that should be acceptable unshielded are xmas lights and such -- those wattages seem far beyond any reasonable requirement for that. Section 5.A. still says January 1, 1998 -- that obviously must now be changed. That's my two cents worth. The other side of the coin is: I think it's a fine job, and I support you wholeheartedly. Good luck.
I would like to make comments on this proposed legislation but it will take some time to go through it all. One thing that hits me in the face right now is the exemption for lighting controlled by the federal government. No way. They have to abide by all the other stuff now, such as environmental requirements, OSHA, Hazmat, etc. etc. Why not in this case? Is this a case of trying to not offend them because they bring a lot of money here? That is part of the problem with everything now--that is if money is involved we'll overlook it. In fact the federal government would not have any more problem conforming with a state lighting law than anybody else. Every time I go near Holloman AFB at night I wish I could go in there and shut down their light. I have been on base at night and believe THAT is OVERKILL. Not to mention those 300 foot poles they use which are totally unnecessary. Another thing I can comment on right now is BILLBOARDS. I notice that MOST billboards are lit from the bottom rather than the top. This causes light to flow ever upward, and when there are 8 in a row such as on I-10, there is a lot of excess glow. In addition, having lights on BOTH SIDES at the bottom can cause a blinding light to shine in motorists' faces. Witness the sign out at Oakwood mobile homes on US 70. The opposite side light is blinding when you are heading west on 70. More and more signs like this are being put up every day and they should NOT be grandfathered. I will probably have other comments before the legislative session. Is there a date certain when the comments should be in? If there is it would be easier to get the comments together and send them, otherwise they might be forgotten.
Since I do not currently live in New Mexico, I have not been following your past experiences with the proposed bill. However, I am somewhat familiar with the history of similar efforts in the State of Wisconsin. The Wisconsin legislature was definitely put off by the astronomy aspect of preventing light pollution. It was felt that they did not want to cater to a narrow special interest group such as astronomers. Their proposal has not passed yet, but it was looked at in a much more favorable light when the aspect of monetary savings to the state was considered. You might want to emphasize the large savings accrued by not lighting up the night sky, and directing the light where it is needed, by shielded lighting, and that good lighting decreases glare. We wish you good luck in your attempt to have a state-wide Light Pollution Bill passed by the New Mexico state assembly.
I had a chance to quickly read the document and comments on the WEB. I would like to ditto the comments made by Dr. Warren Offutt-- especially the point that he made about shielding all lights regardless of wattage &/or lumens [except Xmas (seasonal) ornamental/ extremely low lumen output lights as pointed out by Barry Gordon] need to be shielded so lighting is confined to the user's property. Dave Schuhman made an excellent point about billboard's-- these lights need to be shielded so as not to emit light beyond a given distance (or better yet--confine the light to the billboard advertised/message surface only without emitting any glare and/or reflection). Excellent points were also made about expanding the scope of who is affected by glaring lighting, safety and security issues--blind spots created by glare and created shadows caused by ineffective lighting for criminals to hide behind, and the economic benefits of using more effective lighting--less wattage/lumen bulbs and fixtures are needed if the light is directed to where it is needed to perform its function--lower consumption of fuel by the power companies and lower maintenance costs--lower wattage bulbs of each given type will last longer.
I want to add another comment on high tower FAA safety lighting. Something could be put in the bill to address towers over 400 feet tall that are being required by the FAA to run white strobe lights in the day. They are using said lights for night use when technically all they are required to use are red lights. In this instance, because the white strobe lights can do double duty and no one is mandating they use the red lights at night, unsuspecting citizens in communities all over New Mexico could be stuck with these brilliant white blinking monstrosities on high towers at night. The bill should read "require dual lighting systems on towers requiring white strobe lights in the day to be able to switch to red lights at night to alleviate enviromental concerns. It is an aesthetic concern as brilliant white strobes at night definitely trash up the environment. Being as they are not required by law at night by the FAA, I don't see why we should have to be burdened with them because some tower operator who is earning big bucks operating his tower wants to save a few bucks by cutting corners and not operating a dual lighting system. |
