Karin,

We are in the same boat as you are! Did you look into using the fixture you want with fluorecent bulbs? They come in sizes to fit the regular fixtures... Then you replace the bulbs after the inspection.. This stuff is such a travesty -- getting worse and worse! Tanya

I don't think that your inspector will let you get away with doing as caview suggests. You have to put in fixtures with a pin base, not a screw in type. The reason is exactly to prevent a later switch out.

A lot of people put in a garage-type fixture because it's cheap. Hope you don't tick off your inspector though.

May I suggest voting out at the next available election opportunity those who desire to force upon us by the power of the state things they would never tolerate for themselves?

i really feel for all of you out on the west coast, and i live in fear that someday we easterners might have to abide by the same restrictions. i decided i would purchase some screw in cfl bulbs for our outdoor fixtures and i am aghast. the light is horrific. genuine fluorescent all right. so since when did someone decide fluorescent lighting is better for us? what about the flicker? i'm so confused about these things. i've always thought fluorescent lighting was "bad" for people and other living things. no? so, i'm sorry to hijack. i wanted to express my sympathy and gain a little info. i hope you can find some happy solution!

I've heard LEDs are attractive, and long lasting. But, I don't know where to purchase them, or if all fixtures will take them.

And here is what you have to do if you break a CFL...

Advice for Cleaning Up After a Broken CFL:

Leave the room and ventilate for 15 minutes or more
While wearing rubber gloves, scoop up glass shards and debris from the bulb with a stiff piece of cardboard
Avoid creating or inhaling dust from the broken bulb
Don't use a vacuum or broom to clean up after a broken bulb on hard surfaces
Place the remains in a plastic bag
Wipe up the immediate area with a damp paper towel put it in the bag as well and seal it
If you need to use a vacuum on carpet, place the filter bag in a plastic bag as well
Wash your hands after finishing the clean up
Check with local authorities on procedures for disposal. Mercury is a hazardous household waste and can't be thrown out with ordinary household trash in some areas

Can you believe it?

Karin

i am aghast. the light is horrific. genuine fluorescent all right. so since when did someone decide fluorescent lighting is better for us?

there are many types of CFL bulbs with varying types of light. you can get them to mimic the light of incandescent pretty well. you just need to buy the right bulb with the right amount of lumens and "warmth".

it's "better for us" because CFL's use about 20% of the energy that incandescent bulbs use. not sure if you've heard, but the energy that comes out of your outlets is produced by burning coal or gas and there's a bit of an issue with global warming as a result of all the burning of that stuff we're doing as a society.

CFL's also last 10-20 times as long as conventional bulbs which means that much less crap going into the garbage (I'm assuming if you're complaining about having to use CFL's, you don't recycle your lightbulbs) and landfills, and also that much less production capacity (requiring energy, heavy metals, etc) that needs to get used to produce the bulbs we, as a society burn through. remember, it's not just you. there are about 300 million of us in this country and some 8 billion of us on this planet.

think about what reducing one bulb from 75W to 15W does in those terms. it's huge.

it's the right thing to do. if you don't like the quality of light that it casts on your luxurious kitchen, think of all the children of future generations who will thank you.

I've heard LEDs are attractive, and long lasting. But, I don't know where to purchase them, or if all fixtures will take them.

they are. they're also very expensive right now, but are going to come down in price quite a bit over the next few years. do a google search and you'll find plenty.

Here is a link that might be useful: an LED bulb

"I've heard LEDs are attractive, and long lasting. But, I don't know where to purchase them, or if all fixtures will take them."

I found a site that sells the undercabinet LED lights that they're recommending over on the Lighting Forum. Almost $600 for a 46" strip of lights. (Let's see, if I put $600 in an investment returning 10% a year, that's $60 a year. Tell me again how much electricity those incandescent U/C lights use, I forget...)

Here is a link that might be useful: Talea-HP LED Lights

I'll try to attach a link to a place that sells LED light bulbs (I'm not associated with them, have never ordered from them, and can't comment on quality/service). The "color temperature tool" is very helpful, and this appears to be the biggest source of light bulbs on the web.

However, I suggest we all wait until this fall before looking at LEDs. LEDs are EXTREMELY expensive right now but are mercury free and will practically be passed on to your heirs; there is a $90 LED light bulb that will last 50K hours (keeping it on 10 hours/day every day of the year, it would last 14 years???). Allegedly there will be federal energy star ratings coming out this fall for LED lightbulbs, which will (we can only hope) keep these mfr claims realistic.

In the meantime, I'm switching to CFLs wherever the color doesn't bother me, and (I hope) complying with T24 by putting in pin based fluorescent recessed bulbs in the ceiling, incandescent light bulbs in pretty pendants, and xenon under cabinet lighting. The inspector can't see which ones I actually end up using the most. :)

Here is a link that might be useful: Service Lighting - LED page

This is another reason to not live in CA :oP

I have to do something similar to make my inspection go through. I'm using antique lighting. My inspector came through on the rough in inspection and saw one sitting on the floor and thought it was wonderful. He wanted to know if it was sold locally. Well being the idiot I am (and not knowing the code) I told him about it being an antique I'd purchased on ebay and restored, all solid cast iron, blah blah blah and that I'd had it professionaly rewired by a UL certified electrician.

The arse then told my electrician that I needed UL stickers on every one of the antique pieces.

Do you know what it takes to get a UL sticker on a light? THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS EACH!!!

I'm hanging the ugliest $3 fixtures I found on sale at Fred Meyers in my very high end remodel. THank god I didn't have to use freaking floresents as well!

"it's the right thing to do,"

I will point out that that is a statement of opinion, not a statement of fact.

In my opinion, "the right thing to do" is to get away from the scarcity mentality, and build more, and better power plants. Nuclear power plants are non-polluting, and produce plentiful power at low cost.

We should develop some of the nuclear options that were shut down during the Clinton administration, such as the Integral Fast Reactor (IFR). The IFR uses over 99% of it's fuel (compared with less radioactive than then original ore the fuel came from, operates in such a way that it is not reasonably possible to reprocess its fission products into bomb materials (it is far easier to start from raw uranium), and there is already enough processed uranium stored in barrels in the U.S. to supply all our electricity needs for the next 500 years!

Here is a link that might be useful: Integral Fast Reactor

:-) Igloo, you make me smile! I was going to suggest the bay area on another thread as a great place to live, but then saw the 2 criteria that would break the deal - high housing prices and traffic. We do have everything else, though. Title 24 will probably be moving across the nation. We're usually in the front for these kind of policies.

Nuclear power plants are great when everything's working well, but the worst source of power when something goes wrong. No thanks!

What is Title 24? I haven't lived in CA for years and don't remember anything like that.

"Nuclear power plants are great when everything's working well, but the worst source of power when something goes wrong. No thanks!"

Well, yah, we can thank the Soviets for messing everything up for everybody. The design of the Chernobyl reactor was known to be extremely dangerous. It came as a surprise to no one who knew anything about it that it did what it did.

Researchers have attempted to create a worst-case failure in a reactor similar to the IFR. What happens is that it simply shuts down on its own, without even causing any damage to itself. They are very safe.

"What is Title 24? I haven't lived in CA for years and don't remember anything like that."

Title 24 is California's energy code. The provisions we are discussing are relatively new, having taken effect in the last couple years. It has extremely invasive regulations for home lighting, among other things.

I'm going to have to hop in here on the side of the flourescents. We did our kitchen title24 compliant. For our kitchen that meant 6 four inch fl cans, undercab strip fl's and a single over the sink halogen pendant. I was apprehensive at first but this stuff rocks! The undercabs don't appear to need any warmup, the cans do take a couple of minutes to burn right. I have to say I like the idea of running every other light in the kitchen for not much more than the single halogen. Between replacing a 20 year old fridge and our new Bosch DW plus the lights I'm saving a bit every month. Not to get too far up on the old soapbox but we have enjoyed the benefits of historically cheap energy for quite a few years however I think we need to face a new reality here regarding wastefull energy consumption

Like many of us, I've got some pretty strongly held opinions on environmental/political issues (I'm quite happy getting my enviro news from www.grist.org, thank you) but let's try to keep this thread on topic...a place to vent and one-household-at-a-time work-arounds, okay?

Our GC and KD were both adamant: you could not put in a fixture and use the CFL's. You had to have the pin-base crap so that you could NOT switch back to regular bulbs after the inspection. (We had thought exactly the same thing.)

I'm not fond of the Nanny-state's insistence on this kind of stuff. Try putting in a FAMILY ROOM addition on the back of the house and be told that to pass inspection, you MUST have a smoke alarm in every BEDROOM. I told the inspector, "But this addition had nothing to do with the bedrooms!" That's the rules, she explained. I showed her the smoke alarms that are located in the hallways outside the bedrooms - nope, didn't pass. That was on a Friday. The following week, we had a reinspection. Fortunately they allowed the battery operated ones. She also came early enough that both daughter and husband were still in bed (7 am). I wouldn't let her go into their bedrooms and I didn't really want her to push the buttons on the guestroom and oldest daughter's room smoke alarms. Fortunately she understood and just looked at the two that were available. (I was glad she didn't check one of them. That was the only bedroom that had its own already and the battery was dead!)

Stupid rules...nanny state....People's Republic of California...

DonnaR/CA

I hate Title 24 too ... but for slightly different reasons. One of the main problems with it as I see it, is that it seems to have a tendency to make people put in more light than necessary, but putting in lots of fluorescent so they can still have their incandescents. (Title 24 requires 50% of wattage to be high-efficiency). There must be a better way of achieving energy-efficiency.

On the positive side, it does seem to be encouraging innovation by motivating mfrs to bring out better, high-efficiency lights.

A fun code issue in my home...

I have a sink which will sit on a corner in an L shaped counter spread. There is some 42" from the front of the corner to the back, and I will have a raised countertop on the back behind the sink to use for display purposes.

Code requires a plug every 18". I have to put a plug recepticle IMMEDIATELY behind my sink (behind the faucet actually) because of this stupid code.

Now is it smart to have an open receptical behind a sink? Nope, not at all! Can it be on the raised area mounted into the counter? No that would be too handy and it can't be flat in the "sink" area (even though this is a raised area without water access) so we'll be putting one just a couple of inches from the faucet. Smart huh?

Unfortunately this is in a stainless steel countertop which is of course custom made. THe hole has to be cut for the receptical. We'll have to put a freaking blank over it after the inspection (because even my electrician agrees that this is not a safe place for a plug). Nifty huh?

OK, here are a few observations about what one might do.

First, undercabinet lights are easy. There are quite a number of fluorescent undercabinet lights available. Alkco make undercabinet lights that can be ordered with dimming ballasts. (However, those only go down to 10% brightness, which because of the nonlinear response of you eye looks like about 30% brightness.) In principle, one could get the T5HO version of there U/C lights, which have double the "hi-efficiency" watts, and install Lutron's Hi-lume dimming ballasts, which go down to 1% brightness. (Whether your building officials would be cool with the ballast retrofit is another question.)

For counter light from the ceiling, I don't know of any good solutions. I don't know of any fluorescent cans that focus the light well at all; the light source is just too big. CMH (Ceramic Metal Halide) lights can produce a really nice beam, to my eye look just like halogens, and I believe count as "high-efficiency" lighting. The problem is that they won't restrike for several minutes after you turn them off; they are mostly good for places where the lights stay on, like stores. Also, I suspect they are very expensive. (The fixtures have a big honking ballast that has got to be expensive.)

I haven't seen anything for lighting counters from the ceiling that's anywhere close to being a substitute for a can with an MR-16 bulb.

It you like cans for general illumination, there are decent fluorescent cans around. (I don't happen to like cans for general illumination.)

There isn't much that I know of in the way of decorative fixtures that are fluorescent; like 99++% of them are incandescent.

You can always put a big fluorescent fixture in the middle of the ceiling for general illumination, if you can stomach that.

In my opinion, about all you can do is put fluorescents under the cabinets, fluorescent cans in the ceiling if you like those, some ugly fixture in the middle of the ceiling if the forgoing aren't enough light, put in as much incandescent wattage as you're allowed, and retrofit after the final inspection.

I hate to sound preachy - but it bugs me that so many of you are desparately trying to avoid following the new energy efficiency laws out of fear without investigating and finding out the facts v fiction. The new flourescent lights - if you get a good quality - work beautifully with a nice, warm light. They are less expensive to run over the long term and help energy conservation efforts. California uses approximately the same energy as it did in the 1970's, and on a percapita basis is as energy efficient as the most energy efficient European countries. The rest of the U.S. uses nearly double the per capita energy. Yes, you need to recycle them in a responsible manner similar to mercury thermometers and computer/electronic parts and pesticides/paints - etc. But -- many retailers who sell the bulbs also serve as free disposal places. We recently remodeled our CA kitchen using energy efficient appliances and lighting and have been more than pleasantly suprised at how good it looks and works. Instead of trying to get away with cheap products to fool an inspector - why not step up and do the responsible thing in a beautiful way with decent fixtures?. We all need to reduce our energy consumption think of it as a gift to your grandchildren - and with the variety of products on the market, including new LED lights, you may find that you get beauty, function and significant energy cost savings also! Try it rather than fight it - you may be pleasantly suprised!

Igloochic, NEC section 210.52(C)(1)(Exception) specifically exempts that area from the requirement of having receptacles: "Exception: Receptacle outlets shall not be required on a wall directly behind a rangetop or sink."

Exactly the situation you describe is illustrated on the right in figure 210.52, stating that no receptacle is required there.

Tomalyse,

I'm glad to hear that someone has found solutions!

Would you be so kind as to share with the rest of us what you've found? Specifically,

1. What are some good fixtures for focusing light from the ceiling onto counters?

2. What are some good fixtures for focused accent lighting?

3. What are some good-looking, decorative lights for general illumination?

Thanks!

Solar...pretty please help me out on this one?

Here's a picture of the sink area (kitchen overall)

{{!gwi}}

It is MORE than 18" from the backside of the sink to the corner of the wall between the windows. That's why he says we have to have the outlet, despite the fact that the countertop will actually be raised up six inches high directly behind the faucet.

I could only pull the code...not the illustration...perhaps that would help me? I really don't want this stupid outlet in my sink area and I'd love to be able to fight this!

By the way, the sink and faucet drawn in this drawing are not accurate to the actual pieces being used in the room (nor is the other sink LOL) we fired this KD. The actual sink is 30x20x12. Between the 20, the 3" inset, and the total debth of 42" we have too much space back there according to what he's telling me...A bigger sink won't work...it would have to be a swimming pool :)

Igloochic,

Figure 210.52 is essentially identical to what you have there. The illustration has leader lines starting at the back to corners of the sink, that run towards the walls like a continuation of the sides of the sink. (I.e., they are at a diagonal to the walls.) Between where those leader lines intersect the walls and the corner, there is the notation, "Outlets not required." Then on the outside sides of those intersections it says, "Outlet within 600mm (24 in.)"

There is no "18"" requirement anywhere that I know of. The requirement is that there be an outlet within 24" of every point along the intersection of the counter with the wall (with the exception for behind ranges and sinks).

Eyeballing your drawing, it appears to me that the closest you are required to have outlets to the sink is somewhere above the two cabinets next to the sink, but nowhere above the sink cabinet itself.

jeffrow, tomalyse and anyone else with fluorescent lighting in their kitchens, please post pics of your kitchens and details of your fluorescent lighting on my thread linked below ...

Here is a link that might be useful: Please post pics of kitchens with fluorescent lighting here ...

Igloochic,

Just to be sure, I pulled up a copy of the 2008 Code (we're on 2002 here in CA), and discovered that they have changed the requirement for angled sinks such as you have. Indeed, if it is more than 18" from the back of the sink to the corner, an outlet is now required there. :-( #@&$*^!!!

Sorry that I didn't check that before. I hadn't expected that they would change something like that--it seems insane to put an outlet there.

As I look at the new 210.52, and if I understand your description correctly, your countertop is folded upwards immediately behind the sink, is that correct?

If that distance is less than 12", I believe that you have there the case that is the top diagram in figure 210.52, so that no outlet would be required immediately behind the sink. I would expect, though, that they might require that there an outlet on the wall behind the raised portion.

(However, I would attempt to argue that the raised portion is a "shelf", not a "counter", and therefore doesn't require outlets. To facilitate that interpretation, I would label that as a "shelf" on the drawings. If the inspector is a nice guy, he would probably go for that, as he too probably would see that an outlet there is a bad idea.)

If you got your permits before the 2008 NEC was adopted in your area (actually, has it been adopted yet in your area?), then it may be that you are controlled by the 2005 NEC, not the 2008. Which would make all the difference in the world for your problem.

this from the new york times:

Here is a link that might be useful: Any Other Bright Ideas?

About 50% of the lighting in my home is fluorescent (the "f" word). Fortunately I do not live in CA, so I am able to use CFLs in regular fixtures. The ONLY reason we are using them is to reduce our energy consumption and keep our energy costs low. (Actually, I think DH may actually like them, but he knows better than to admit that to me!)

In a nutshell, we used fluorescents anywhere where color temperature was not important: outside, basement, garage, attic, etc.

Most of the rest of the house has incandescents. I have LEDs undercabinet lights, which I like, but at this point are still too expensive to use extensively.

At this point in time, this is a good, fairly painless compromise for us, but I can read the writing on the wall and can see that Title 24-like legislation is headed towards the rest of the country. Hopefully, by that time production of LEDs will have picked up greatly, driving the cost down.

We are green, green, green conservatives (surprisingly, not that rare of a species in CA). We use CFLs all over the place to save energy. We've found that the advertised bulb life of fluorescents--one of the main justifications for their use--is grossly overstated. They burn out about 4-5x as often as the literature would suggest. We have a pin-type fluorescent security light over the garage that emits a godawful nasty light and burns out every 3 months on a precise schedule. That prompts a nighttime run to Home Depot to spend $10 for a new bulb. Hmmm. As you might imagine, I have some concerns about spending $$$$ on pin-type fluorescent high-end fixtures for the kitchen. Did anyone here happen to mention that the CA legislature is made up of idealistic morons??

"but I can read the writing on the wall and can see that Title 24-like legislation is headed towards the rest of the country."

It's already been done. The federal energy bill that was passed a few months ago nationally phases out incandescent bulbs over the next few years. :-(

After my negativity about Title 24 in this thread, I thought I really ought to post a positive thought.

I believe that there is good potential for fluorescent lights. A few months ago I replaced the dead four-foot fluorescent tube in our bathroom with a GE "Ecolux Kitchen&Bath" lamp. It has a color temperature of 3000K with CRI of 70. I quite like the light it puts out, actually. (Having read a cutsheet on this lamp, I'm suspicious that the CRI is only 70 because they accentuate places in the spectrum to make it look better in kitchens and bathrooms, which of course technically makes it render colors in a less true manner, but might make it appear more pleasing. This is just a guess, though.)

At this point, though, I have to emphasize the word "potential." In particular, fluorescent dimming technology is still quite expensive, and rather hit-or-miss on what is supported. There don't appear to be any Insteon dimmers that are compatible with any fluorescent ballasts. There aren't any T5 dimming ballasts I can find that dim below 10%. And fixtures suitable for nice homes are seriously lacking.

But I can see the possibility for some decent stuff in the future.

If you dont like it, leave CA! The state could use a few million fewer people. ;)

Hopefully someday there will be even better solutions to our energy crisis, but until there are, it should not be that big of a deal to do what little you can to help out with the methods that we have now. Not saying our legislature is not made up of morons, but we should all strive to use less energy, no matter where we live- it should not *have* to be legislated!

Well I only wish we had an energy conservation consciousness in Georgia. Apart from a sales tax holiday for energy star items in the fall, there's no direction or encouragement or incentives that I can find. No wind energy on the coast; no solar; insufficient pollution control for our coal fired power plants; single minded pursuit of nuclear plant expansion....

My own feeble efforts include replacing the 30-yr old HVAC, all kitchen appliances, the water heater and light fixtures, and using CFLs where possible. Each month, our electric bill shows the previous month and year usage and cost. In the year since we began overhauling the house, our usage and cost have dropped by 25-40% (depending on season). Next step is adding attic insulation.

I buy the bulbs at Ikea and Lowes, and have no problems with the light produced. Compared to the light from an incandescent (e.g., GE Reveal 3-way), the Ikea CFLs are less yellow (on a gold/green wall). I like that I can recycle the bulbs at Ikea when they eventually die too.

Granted, I'm no lighting connoisseur, but I am really liking the energy/cost savings. And I wish I lived in a state where the leadership recognized energy conservation as a valid pursuit.

We use the daylight and bright white n:vision CFLs from Home Depot (and I think I saw a sale promotion for them the other day, too). All of my old Ikea ones have been regulated to areas where I don't care about the lighting because these are MUCH more flattering. I even use the daylight ones where I do my makeup. They're a bit more expensive than the soft white ones, but definitely worth every penny for the color and keeping the kitchen cooler in the summer heat.

not in CA, but I find it amazing that we are no longer allowed to buy mercury thermometers but are forced to use flourescent bulbs.

About a year ago, I ran out and bought several f bulbs for my home when I found out they were more energy efficient (I like to be green when I can.) I paid over 10 dollars a piece for the 3 ways (GE) and they both became one ways within a week of putting them in two different, high quality 3 way fixtures.

Now I find they contain mercury. It's madness. please don't yell at me for being "off topic." IMO, it isn't off topic. The OP was complaining, not asking for a work-around.

"If you dont like it, leave CA! The state could use a few million fewer people. ;)"

Yup, CA - love it or leave it! Now where have I heard that before :-)

One thing that California does for the rest of the world:

The state passes these sorts of restrictions--energy-saving, non-polluting, whatever.

By doing so, they create an instant, HUGE market. That market gets bigger bcs some *other* states pass similar restrictions.

Then, the manufacturers have an INCENTIVE to make a better version, cheaper version, etc., of the CFL bulb.

as solarpowered said: "But I can see the possibility for some decent stuff in the future."

The problem is that everyone is forced to become a "beta user" (and computer geeks know, you don't want to pay to be a beta user, bcs YOU will be the one to find and work through all the bugs).

But it's a very effective way to create a LARGER change.

Solar, I really do appreciate the research you did for me. We were permitted prior to 2008 (actually in 2006 I believe) which should help me with the issue. In addition, I did find (after some research) another little piece of that code that seems to say that the whole issue is exempt from the 18" rule IF I have outlets on each side which are less than 48" from each other. I'm going to go over and measure while I'm doing plaster today. I could easily move those outlets to be compliant with the 48" rule.

I actually do want to put an outlet on the "shelf" as we are now labeling it heh heh I want to use (I don't remember the name of it) one of those below counter plugs that is used in labratorys (because of water being close) that pops up to give you access to the fixture. This would be in the farthest reach of the corner, used for our Aerogarden which we'll keep in that window. I can't mount anything on the wall because it's a very very small area, basically with just the structural beams intersecting for the building in it, and those can't be cut into for power issues.

Either way, I think you solved a really stupid problem that's been bothering me so I'm glad I complained. I'm going to wander through the site and see if anything else is bothering me LOL what are you doing tonight? heh heh heh

You Rock!!!!

In response to those defending CA's Title 24 prescriptions for energy savings, economists would point out that this is the LEAST efficient way to reduce energy consumption. Instead, the state should tax energy at a level commensurate with the societal cost of excessive energy consumption. With higher energy rates, energy producers and consumers would be motivated to conserve and would be allowed the freedom to do so in a manner which works best for them. Such freedom would prompt all manner of creative solutions, many of which would prove to be far better than the simple-minded ones defined by Title 24.

And for those who would bemoan the higher costs this would foist upon those tragic "victims of poverty", recognize that (at least here in CA) special rate scales and low-income programs give these folks virtually a free ride on energy costs. The rich would assume the biggest burden (as is the case with most other taxes).

Bob