U.S. Department of Energy - Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

Building Technologies Office – Information Resources

Text-Alternative Version: ENERGY STAR® for SSL: Getting Ready for September 30

Below is the text-alternative version of the ENERGY STAR® for SSL: Getting Ready for September 30 webcast.

Rosemarie Bartlett: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I'm Rosemarie Bartlett with the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, and I'd like to welcome you to today's webcast: "ENERGY STAR for Solid-State Lighting: Getting Ready for September 30," brought to you by the U.S. Department of Energy Solid-State Lighting Program.

We're very happy to have as our speakers today Richard Karney, the Department of Energy's program manager for the ENERGY STAR program. He oversees the program requirements and promotion of several product categories, including solid-state lighting.

Jeff McCullough, a senior research engineer with DOE's Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. Jeff's been supporting the development of DOE's solid-state lighting ENERGY STAR criteria.

And last, but not least, we have Marci Sanders from D&R International, who works on behalf of DOE to implement the ENERGY STAR program for Solid-State Lighting. Marci is filling in for Derek Greenauer, who is unable to participate in the webcast today. She will be covering the timeline on activities planned to prepare for the program launch on September 30.

Welcome to Rich, Jeff, and Marci. Rich, please begin.

Richard Karney: Thanks, Rose. Appreciate everyone coming to the webinar to learn about ENERGY STAR solid-state lighting. What I'd like to do today is give you a quick overview of where we are in the program, why we've done some of the things we've done to the criteria for ENERGY STAR solid-state lighting, and then we'll talk about the criteria itself and how the department is helping to implement the program.

Part of the things I'd like to quickly go over is the exact scope of the solid-state lighting criteria itself. One thing I'd like to highlight is we're excluding OLEDs, or organic light-emitting diodes. These are polymer-based light panels. And right now the efficacy and the lumen maintenance on these products just aren't there enough to deserve the ENERGY STAR label. There's a lot of research and development being conducted by industry, and also under the auspices of the department, and we hope, in the next few years that OLEDs might be able to qualify for the program.

Right now, we're only interested in white light systems, as this is what has the greatest impact on lighting energy consumption, and displacing incumbent technologies that are out there in the field. We're looking at both residential and commercial applications. This cross-cutting strategy increases market size as well as aids early introduction due to the longer-term value proposition in commercial applications. We're using a metric called "luminaire efficacy." Luminaire efficacy is basically defined as "the net light output from the luminaire, divided by the input power." Basically, this measures the light that leaves luminaire. We're interested in seeing what comes out of the fixture itself that can be used for application purposes.

We've established two categories for an ENERGY STAR solid-state lighting: The first one is category A, which is prescriptive specifications for niche applications that we'll be doing for the near-term, and category B, where we've set a long-range luminaire efficacy number that all applications have to meet in the long-term.

Now our approach recognizes a rapidly changing technology of solid-state lighting. As a mentioned with category A, we're allowing a limited range of solid-state lighting products that take advantage of the directionality of light-emitting diodes. Right now we have seven applications that we're looking at to be qualified for ENERGY STAR solid-state lighting: We have undercabinet kitchen lighting, undercabinet shelf-mounted task lighting, portable desk task lights, recessed down lights, outdoor wall-mounted porch lights, outdoor step lights, and outdoor pathway lights.

As I mentioned before (as I have not mentioned before, but I'll mention now) category A will be dropped in its entirety in approximately three years, where category B, which has to be long-range lumen efficacy metric, will be used to measure the degrees that the criteria can measure what qualifies for ENERGY STAR lighting. As you know, the lighting industry is learning the unique issues of applying solid-state lighting to general illumination, causing us to go slow, to allow industry and DOE to learn and adjust. And that's a part of our research program that's ongoing.

Most of you can be quite familiar what happened with compact fluorescent lighting in the late '80s, early '90s, where we weren't aggressive and we weren't able to deal with some of the foibles of the technology itself. There's a report that was printed back in June 2006, basically of lessons learned on CFLs coming to the marketplace. This was prepared for us by the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, and this basically laid the foundation for the solid-state lighting commercialization program, giving us input in what not to do with promoting solid-state lighting. "CFL: Lessons Learned" laid the foundation to help us commercialize the solid-state lighting product, and allowed us to commercialize, and in more proper fashion, basically not allowing poor products to come into the marketplace.

DOE is unwilling to allow inferior products to carry the ENERGY STAR label. Technology is evolving; the industry has much to learn, as well as the Department has much to learn. Allowing unproven products and non-industry-vetted procedures in efforts to expand existing programs will do great harm to the industry, and obviously to the ENERGY STAR brand. The truth is that the technology simply is not ready for widespread adoption at this time. The infrastructure is not yet in place, industry standards are still in development, few good performing products are in the market, and in lieu of maintenance and reliability, are great concerns to the Department. Furthermore, any efforts to expand programs must include the very partners who will be on the front lines promoting the technology to end-users.

Now what we've done is the Department has partnered with the IESNA, the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America, we're working with the American National Standards Institute, or ANSI, we're working with Underwriters Laboratory, and we're working with them to develop the industrywide test procedures, industrywide standards, to measure and be able to evaluate solid-state lighting process. This allows us to provide the foundation for the program itself. We're also following the guidelines of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, and allowing 270 days for us to review, for us to establish final criteria, and then have the criteria take effect.

As I had mentioned, in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, we were directed to allow 270 days for products to be able to be labeled. As you can see here, this is a quick quote coming out of the Energy Policy Act itself, allowing for comments to come to the departments for reviewing ENERGY STAR criteria. We've done this; in fact, we've done with solid-state lighting—we've got over a year ago, to allow industry to get ready to produce products and label products into the marketplace.

As you can see from our timetable, that the Department has done, we've been working with industry, working with partners to establish the criteria. The first draft was released in December 2006. I was able to host a stakeholder meeting in February of 2007 where we actually had over 100 people here: manufacturers, utilities, and various other stakeholders, to comment on the criteria. We had a comment period after that, and we were able to release a second draft criteria in April of 2007. We took comments, we spoke with manufacturers, we spoke with the utilities, and released the final criteria on September 12, 2007. We then established that the final criteria will take effect on September 30, 2008, again, allowing more than 270 days for manufacturers to start producing products and meet the criteria.

We held a stakeholder meeting last month, in May of 2008, where we both had manufacturers in to allow them to discuss the implementation program that we are putting together for the manufacturers to become partners, and how to label products and to get things ready for the marketplace, and we also asked the utilities to start thinking about some of the promotions that they might be interested in developing as we proceed on towards the September 30 effective date.

Our future strategy? Solid-state lighting technology's advancing at a rapid pace, and we intend to frequently review and update ENERGY STAR solid-state lighting criteria to parallel the technology advances. To keep pace with the technology, and provide stakeholders an opportunity to comment, DOE notified stakeholders on March 21 of our plans to consider an expansion of the category A expectations beyond the first group of seven that will be eligible for the ENERGY STAR criteria on September 30. We also mentioned that we're going to adopt a ratcheting schedule for future increases in required efficacy levels, to ensure these products continue to reflect the best in class.

As I mentioned, we had a stakeholder on May 15 to provide details on the parameters of category A expansion, considering, but not limited to, including street and area lightings, parking garage lightings, cove lighting, ceiling fan light kits, replacement lamps, display and accent lighting, and wall wash applications. DOE also shared conceptual details on the implementation of a proposed efficacy ratcheting schedule.

Based on the comments received at the stakeholder meeting, as well as other comments received since March, DOE plans to move forward to expand category to include the initial list of applications as discussed at the stakeholder workshop meeting in May. We also have a draft proposal, as planned, for release for further review and comment at the DOE solid-state lighting workshop to be held in Portland, Oregon, or we may not totally be ready for that, but we certainly will get the information out probably a week later, after the workshop in Portland, sometime in July.

So that's where we are right now. I'd like to ask Jeff McCullough with the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory to go ahead and discuss the nits and grits of the ENERGY STAR criteria for solid-state lighting. Jeff?

Jeff McCullough: Thank you, Rich, and I appreciate that hand-off. Welcome, everybody. My name is Jeff McCullough [audio glitch] work with PNNL. What I'd like to do with us now is to go through some of the details of the criteria, share with you some of our underlying thinking and how we establish the threshold levels that we did. I also look forward, a little bit, as far as where we're heading into the future.

It's very important that we understand the terminology. You heard Rich discuss "luminary efficacy." So those that are in the lighting industry, we use terms like lamp efficacy and system efficacy to describe performance of our products. For various reasons—I won't go into them here today—we're not able to actually use system efficacy or lamp efficacy at this time. So let me go through the definitions; we'll talk about them a little bit, but for purposes of this discussion, we will be speaking about luminary efficacy, which is the net light output from the luminaire divided by the input power.

So lamp efficacy, as you would surmise, is typically the light output (in this case, I'm using the definition of rated light lumens), divided by input power. So a typical screw in CFL, we would use lamp efficacy for that particular type of a system.

System efficacy is fairly common for describing, and I've the subscript here of fluorescence. Describing fluorescent systems, where we look at the latent light lumens, typically for a linear fluorescent product we would include a ballast factor, and you divide that by the input power. And then again, for luminary efficacy, that's the metric that we're using for ENERGY STAR.

This next drawing will really hammer home the distinction between system efficacy and luminaire efficacy. The top arrow is a system efficacy approach, and the example that I'm going to use here today is recessed downlight. So starting at the left-hand corner, if I have a CFL system, in this case it's a tin-based CFL system, I mate that with a ballast, then I measure the system efficacy of that system. We have a 50 lumen per watt system, measured by LM 9. I then take that system, I place it inside of a recessed downlight, and what most people aren't aware of is that when I do that, even though light is being emitted from the lamp, because of the inefficiency of the fixture, you know, we use trim rings, we use reflectors, we use various methods to try and get the light out of the fixture. But for the typical downlight, these products lose up to 50% of their light, never leaves the fixture. It's either reabsorbed or redirected or otherwise not provided towards the task or the application.

So what I started with was a 50 lumen per watt system. When I put it inside of a fixture, at the end of the day now I have a 25 lumen per watt luminaire. Now comparing and contrasting that with an LED system, we don't measure the system efficacy of the source, and because of the inherent directionality that solid-state lighting brings us we can minimize our optical, or what we call our secondary losses. And now we have a system that is delivering that light output from the luminaire divided by the input power. And the example that I have here is the threshold that we've established for ENERGY STAR, which is 35 lumens per watt. So in this particular case, at the end of the day my LED system is actually delivering more performance, more light, relative to a CFL system.

Let's talk now about industry standards and test procedures. This is the very cornerstone off all that the department is doing. And it's critical that we have this infrastructure in place so that we can compare and contrast not only amongst solid-state lighting products, but also across technologies. And frankly, without industries vetted in industry-adopted standards, we have no way of assuring performance and unified testing as we begin to look at these products for general illumination purposes.

So what I have here are a series of current standards that are either final or are currently in process. The text in green are the standards that are current final as of 2008. The ones in red are ongoing efforts. So I'll spend a couple of minutes talking about each one of these to that it'll help you to understand what it is we're actually working with.

The first one is ANSI C78377. This is a chromaticity standard for solid-state lighting products, and it defines the color for white light LEDs. And if you'll bear with me a minute, the next slide will actually go into this in more detail. But this defines the nominal CCTs that will be used for solid-state lighting products. About a month ago, IESNA LM 79 was completed. And this is our method for measuring light output, and of course from light output we get luminaire efficacy. What's important to note about LM 79 is that it is at the luminaire level. So again, it's not testing a system; this is actually the net light output from the luminaire. And that's all that LM 79 allows us to do. The next in red below that is LM 80—this is the approved method for measuring lumen maintenance of LED light sources. For all intents and purposes, this is definition of life. What I should share with folks is that LEDs typically do not fail catastrophically, meaning they don't just burn out one day. What happens is that they get dimmer and dimmer over time. And so LM 80 describes a method for measuring that reduction of light output over time, and the definition that the industry has embraced as far as defining life for an LED source, it is the point at which 70% of the initial light output is maintained. So we abbreviate that with an L and the subscript 70.

So this particular standard is under development. The department anticipates it being completed by summer of 2008, so we will have it in place before the criteria launches September 30 of this year. IESNA RP16 is an amendment document. This allows us to be able to communicate consistently: What is a device? What is a module? What is an array?, etc., etc. It allows us to use uniform language in communicating solid-state lighting's components and methodologies.

The remaining two are important but not critical to the path of DOE's ENERGY STAR criteria. ANSI 382 addresses power supplies and/or drivers, and then UL outline of investigations is an ongoing effort looking at some of the safety and other types of aspects that are of interest to UL.

OK, what I'd like to do now is go over, at a fairly high level, the overall requirements of DOE's ENERGY STAR criteria. What you'll notice here is that we first break it out by luminaire, and then we'll break it down into smaller components as we go through here. So, and again, according to ANSI C78, we actually have eight nominal CCTs that define the CCT values, the nominal CCTs that a manufacturer may use for their products.

There's also a requirement for color spatial uniformity. What this is, is that if I have an LED device (and I won't go into the nuts and bolts and stuff as to what actually happens, but the chromaticity, when I look directly at it versus if I move two or three feet to the right or the left, can vary depending on the technology used by the device manufacturer. So the department is concerned about that, and we want manufacturers to be aware of that when they design their luminaires to meet the uniformity in color across the viewing angles.

There's a requirement for color maintenance. We're concerned that over time of course that we know the LED light output depreciates, drops off, and we want to maintain the color within that depreciation over time, such that at the L 70 threshold we're within a seven-step tolerance, or seven-step equivalent, if you will, in the cadam ellipse, that we maintain color over its useful life.

Color rendering index, the Department has established a value of 75 for indoor. We remain silent on outdoor. The reason for that is there are a number of technologies that have very very poor CLIs, for example high-pressure sodium has almost a zero CLI, but yet it's used effectively in outdoor lighting applications. There's also some challenges with solid-state lighting in general that makes this problematic.

So for indoor applications, we establish 75; for outdoor, remain silent. One of the things that DOE's CALiPER program learned was that luminaires were drawing power when in the off-state mode. Because of this, this can have a significant impact on overall performance of our LED systems. And for the ENERGY STAR criteria now, we've established the requirement that there can be no off-state power unless you have some intelligence associated with your luminaire. Such things as occupancy, motion, timers, those types of things. You're allowed to use those, but in the stand-by mode they're limited to 0.5 watts. OK?

For all products there's a minimum three-year warranty. There's also a requirement to manage heat. And I suppose if you're listening to this webcast today you know a little bit about LEDs and you know that they are very much temperature-dependent. The Department takes that very seriously, and therefore requires not only testing, but also requires that you follow any guidelines from your device manufacturer to ensure that these products are operating within the temperature ranges that they're designed for.

OK, as I shared a couple of slides ago, this is the ANSI 378, 377 schematic that actually shows the nominal CCTs. What I'd like you to learn from this—and by the way, this is a small piece of a CIE 1931 diagram—don't worry about what that is. I suppose many of you have seen the chromaticity diagram, this red line that goes diagonally, if you will, through this is the Planckian locus. The magenta-colored circles, or I should say the magenta-colored ellipses are the six nominal CCTs that are standardized for compact fluorescent lights. You'll notice that there are six of those. What's superimposed or overlaid on those are not the nominal eight CCTs that are required for solid-state lighting.

Why do we do that? First of all, these what we call quadrangles are the direct reflect of the fitting structures that device manufacturers use when they send their products for distribution. There's also a need to maintain continuity along the Planckian locus. So in order to do that, we have these quadrangles. In addition, we have added two additional nominal CCTs, one at 4,500 K and one at 5,700 K in order to accommodate those binning structures. So for DOE's ENERGY STAR criteria there are eight that are allowed, but as you'll learn here shortly, we go to great expense to make sure that end-user quality and end-user satisfaction is maintained, so we will actually limit the CCTs, based on the intended application.

OK. Getting back to the overall requirements, let's talk now about some of the modular array requirements. Earlier on, when I was talking about lumen maintenance, I shared with you that the threshold that has been established is the point at which 70% of the initial light output is maintained, and this is this LL sub-70 or L 70 threshold. The Department has established a residential indoor at 25,000 hours. Residential outdoor and all commercial is greater than or equal to 35,000 hours. There's a requirement for residential outdoor luminaires that are attached to a building and greater than 13 watts. It requires an automatic photo control. Power supplies—this is interesting that for power supplies we establish a power factor of 0.7—I should say greater than or equal to 0.7 for residential, and 0.9 for commercial. This is definitely a step up from the other ENERGY STAR programs that establish a lower threshold.

We also have established an output operating frequency of greater than or equal to 120 Hertz. What the intent is here is to minimize any visible flicker. The human eye, of course, is sensible to flicker—we want to make sure we minimize that. I think you can foresee that over time we will probably move that number up to a level that will ensure that, but in the near term we felt that remaining silent was not appropriate. We want manufacturers to be aware that flicker is an issue, and that when they design their products, even when they dim them, they need to be cognizant of the visible flicker.

OK, how did we establish the thresholds for the DOE ENERGY STAR criteria? At the outset of this presentation, Rich shared with you the seven near-term applications. What I'd like to talk you through here briefly is how we arrive at the luminaire efficacy numbers for each of those. Well, what you see in the first five, we actually use an equivalent CFL system efficacy of 58.8 lumens per watt. Where does that come from? Well, work conducted by IESNA and some of the ASHRAE 90.1 work determined that the prototypical CFL lamp/ballast combination installed is 58.8 lumens per watt. For lower light applications, or lower wattage products, we have defaulted to 50 lumens per watt, which are the current ENERGY STAR criteria. For people that may not be aware, a lower wattage CFL tends to drop off on its efficacy. So we defaulted here to the minimum ENERGY STAR requirements, we've established a typical fixture efficiency for each of those seven applications. And so taking the CFL system equivalency times the fixture efficiency yields the calculated luminaire efficacy that you see in the right-hand column there. So those are the initial thresholds that have been established.

This is an example of the relatively prescriptive nature that DOE has in its criteria. And what this is an example from undercabinet kitchen lighting. What I'd like to draw your attention to initially is the information on the left-hand side. For the applications we've established a minimum light-out, but in this case, for undercabinet kitchens, we're requiring a minimum of 125 lumens per linear foot.

Now why would DOE do that? Well, what I should share with you is that it's entirely possible to have very high efficacy, and yet deliver very little or no light, and especially for a burgeoning technology such as LEDs, it's just not appropriate to remain silent on light output, because frankly, that's one of the challenges as this technology moves into the market is that it doesn't provide enough light, especially after you array it together with other LED devices to create enough light. So DOE is very sensitive about this, and has established minimum light output requirements. It's also entirely possible to take an LED out of a package and perhaps array it in a linear fashion, and depending on the type of device that you're using, you might be restricted to the light output of the distribution from that device.

Well, in the case of undercabinet kitchen lighting, there's a need to provide vertical illumination on the back wall. So what DOE also does, in addition to the minimum light output, we also establish what's called zonal lumen density requirements, that's forced manufacturers to direct appropriate amount of light within certain zones, so that we are assured that the application will be successful. In this case the luminaire efficacy is greater than or equal to 24 lumens per watt, and as I shared earlier, we actually limit CCTs, based upon the application. So in this case the maximum CCT for undercabinet kitchen is 3,500 K.

Here are just some examples of the products you might see in the market, and in fact I was at Lights there just a couple of weeks ago and there are quite a few new products on the market, some of them very nice and very high-performance products. So you can look forward to all kinds of new products coming to the market as a result of DOE's ENERGY STAR program.

OK, so that was discussion on category A. All the category A is the near-term applications. Category B is the future targets. So category B is efficacy based, it's aggressive with respect to the luminaire efficacy, and the threshold we're shooting for is 70 lumens per watt. At the luminaire level it's much simpler. The thinking is that three years from now the industry will have matured, the devices will have improved, the manufacturers will have learned from what's available, they will learn to manage heat in an appropriate way, they'll have managed their secondary optics, so that this requirement for light output and zonal lumen density will go away. Nobody but the fixture manufacturers know how to design a luminaire, and it's not DOE's intent to tell them how to do it. In the near term, we just want to make sure that we have good product coming to market.

It will also allow for non-directional, or direct decorative type lighting applications. So—and in the future, and as the technology evolves, DOE will be adding decorative and non-directional type applications. Manufacturers will be able to qualify under category B approximately three years after the effective date, so approximately September of 2011 category B will be available. And it also serves as a future target for manufacturers, 'cause this actually sets a goal for manufacturers to strive for as they continue to do their R&D and develop products for the future.

OK. In order to ensure quality, we require institute testing of the modules and of the power supply. What does that mean? Well we told you that lumen maintenance, underneath LM 80, and I should just remind folks that is actually at the device or the module level. So it's at the very lowest level. And so we need to take the information from LM 80, and when we put those devices and we array them and we put them inside of a fixture, we need to use that information to assure that the entire fixture will deliver the L 70 threshold of 25,000 or 35,000 hours, respectively.

So what we do is we take the luminaire, we place it in an environment, and you'll see the next slide shows these environments, we measure the hottest LED, or module in that luminaire, and we measure the case temperature of a power supply and/or driver. We allow that system to achieve thermal equilibrium, and then we take that measurement and we're able to go back to the device level, LM 80 test report, and see if it does indeed meet the L 70 threshold.

In order to do these tests we'll be using UL 1598, which is AC testing that's currently in the industry, and tests will be conducted by a third-party laboratory. This graphic here actually shows the various environments that are involved in UL 1598 testing. So for each one of these environments there is actually a test apparatus associated with that. So again, a manufacturer would install his luminaire in this test apparatus, or the appropriate test apparatus for their product, we allow the system to reach thermal equilibrium, we measure the hottest LED, we measure the power supply, and that's how we determine the performance of the products in the requirements.

So let's talk about what that actually means physically. Manufacturers will designate what we call a temperature measurement point. And this is an important concept. The geometry and the footprint of the products that are in the market range, anything from a very small device all the way up to a module, and even potentially taking module and arraying them together. But the various devices that are out there have different temperature measurement location.

The image that you have here from our friends at General Electric, you can actually see a T subscript B in the lower right-hand corner. That's a bore temperature. And that's the point that the manufacturer wants you to measure so that you'll be able to look at the test data under steady-state conditions and see if that module will deliver the lumen maintenance that your system prescribes. Some other manufacturers may use a solder joint, some others may use a case temperature, but collectively, all these of those are what we're calling a temperature measurement point. Likewise for your power supply or driver, typically there's a location designated on the power supply, typically a case temperature that we'll measure as well.

Well, what does all this look like? And so what I have here is a chart that shows the lumen maintenance for a singular LED device with three different junction temperatures of 85, 65 and 45 degree C. And as an example, I've just a point up there which is just for example purposes. I take my luminaire, I put it inside the UL 1598 apparatus, allow it to meet steady-state thermal conditions, I measure that TMP, that temperature measurement point, and come up with this point of, it depends, 70, maybe 75 degrees centigrade.

So based on that, and then based on the LM 80 test results for that product, for that module, I'm able to determine if this product will indeed deliver a 25,000 [?] logarithmic scale on the bottom, so it's a little misleading.

So this is practically how things work. So a luminaire passes the L 70 threshold if the in situ measured drive current is the same, or lower, and if the in situ temperature measurement point for the device, module, or array is the same or lower than the LM 80 test report. I recognize that's a lot or words—I guess I would just go back up a slide to look at this graph. I just put into words what I described in this graph here. OK?

All right. DOE will also be offering a quality assurance program. You'll see this first quarter of 2009. Products will be selected both through a random basis as well as through a product nomination process. Three samples of each luminaire will be purchased—products will be tested for things such as flux—of course, from flux we can detect lumen efficacy, we'll be measuring color, we'll be verifying that steady-state operating temperature, and also verifying the lumen maintenance of that particular product by doing this.

OK, let's talk now about the future strategy. You heard from Rich that DOE has announced that it is considering adding the following categories to category A. So we're simply augmenting the existing criteria—the major components of the criteria remain the same: the chromaticity, the LS 70 values—all those things remain the same. All we're simply doing is defining more applications with which manufacturers can submit products for the ENERGY STAR label. Very quickly: street and area lighting, parking lot, parking garage-type lighting, cove lighting, ceiling fan light kits, replacement lamp applications, display and accent lighting, certain wall wash applications.

Also the Department will be maintaining pace with the technology by implementing a converging ratchet. I'll talk about that here shortly in a little more detail, but what you'll see here is that the technology is moving so quickly that in order to maintain the viability of the ENERGY STAR program, we need to keep pace with that technology.

OK, here is a chart that's very interesting. This is actually from the DOE multi-year project plan dated March of 2008. There's several curves here that show the performance not only of laboratory products, but also commercially available products. And then we also separate those into warm lights and cool lights. So the ready lifts actually circles warm light commercially available products. And what you should see—so I'll assume 2008 is current. We're seeing products that are approaching 70, 80 lumens per watt at the device level. So very, very high, and five years from now, we'll have products that are approaching 150 lumens per watt. Again, so it's very, very high numbers.

So that was at the device level. Now if I look at the improvements that can be made to the overall LED luminaire or the LED systems, yes, the devices will continue to increase at a very rapid rate, but we're able to improve the thermal efficiency, the drivers, which are the power supplies—they'll be improving over time, the efficiency of the fixture—can take advantage of the inherent directionality, so we'll be able to make some fixture efficiency increases.

I guess what I'd like to draw your attention to is the very bottom line, which is looking at the luminaire efficacy for commercial-available warm light products. So in 2007 we were seeing products in the 33 lumens per watt, again the luminaire efficacy level. In 2010 we're expecting products to be at 80. That's almost a 50-point increase in efficacy. And again, it's going to be very important that DOE maintain pace with that technology, otherwise the ENERGY STAR program will be rendered irrelevant as the technology marches ahead.

OK, here's just a sample of some of the products that you might see, coming to a showroom or a shelf near you. I won't say much about them, but these are some very high-performing products that have been measured in DOE's caliper program and we have products now that are meeting and/or exceeding the ENERGY STAR criteria that take effect at the end of the summer here, on September 30.

I spoke earlier about the planned efficacy ratchet. Again, the technology is moving very, very fast, and so it's going to be important that we maintain pace with that. DOE plans on adopting a schedule to maintain pace with that technology. DOE will be working with the industry and proposing a schedule to do that, and you'll be hearing more from the Department later on this summer, and you'll have an opportunity to comment and review on that, of course. But our thinking is that products that are already qualified will remain qualified for one year after a ratchet catches up with them, and I actually—what I will share with you is that this ratchet will take the form of a series of steps. So when I talk about a ratchet, I mean various steps, increasing over time. So if your product is eclipsed by a ratchet, you'll still have one year to market that product. All products will be required to be retested every years, and again this is largely driven by the pace at which the technology is evolving. That'll be an ongoing activity.

Actually that concludes my presentation, and at this point I'd like to hand it off to Marci to talk about the infestation activities.

Marci Sanders: Thank you, Jeff. My name is Marci Sanders, and I'm with D&R International, and I actually am filling in today for Derek Greenauer, who is the D&R International, and is the program manager for the ENERGY STAR program for solid-state lighting on behalf—we work on behalf of DOE to implement and manage the ENERGY STAR program for solid-state lighting.

You've just heard from Rich and Jeff on the history and strategy that is behind the ENERGY STAR program for solid-state lighting, as well as the details of the criteria. And now I'm going to talk about and cover the activities that are underway to get ready to launch the ENERGY STAR program on September 30.

So as an overview, I will be covering the pre-launch timeline of activities, the qualifications process for product qualification, some of the partner outreach activities that we are conducting and planning, and our planned consumer outreach activities.

The pre-launch timeline began in April, actually, and we're in June now. And as you can see from the timeline, it goes through September. There are a number of activities that are underway. The major focus of DOE's pre-launch efforts has to do with ensuring that there are qualified products that will be available by program launch on September 30. To this end, DOE has been actively developing tools and resources for manufacturers and for retail and utility partners, as well.

DOE is posting all of the ENERGY STAR program for solid-state lighting materials right now on DOE's SSL (Solid-State Lighting) Web site, which is the same Web site that you used to register for this webcast. There's a specific Web page for ENERGY STAR, and if you go to the home page, there's an ENERGY STAR logo and you just click on that. Currently there are a couple of items there, including a link to the criteria, and we just posted a series of frequently asked questions that are specific to the ENERGY STAR program that you might want to check out, that give you more information for the program launch.

We also are developing a manufacturer guide that will very soon be released for manufacturers, to help them understand and go through the qualification process, and I'll speak about that in a little bit more detail. And we're also developing an online product submission tool. This'll be the first time that ENERGY STAR has an online tool for manufacturers to qualify product, and I'll talk a little bit about that, as well. And later in August—that tool will be launched in August, and also in August we will be releasing some solid-state lighting versions of some of the same kinds of resources and tools that are available under other ENERGY STAR programs, and I'll cover those.

For the product qualification process, the first step is becoming an ENERGY STAR partner, followed by the process for online submission of qualified products. Under Step One, all ENERGY STAR partners have to complete a partnership agreement. Those partnership agreements will be available in July, very soon. And once you complete and sign a partnership agreement, you will be provided an ENERGY STAR account, and it will be automatically sent to you.

The second step for manufacturers will be to review the manufacturer's guide that DOE will be releasing also in July. This guide will answer all your questions regarding the qualification process, and it will include an outline of the process for submitting products, submission forms, a checklist of data needs, sample sizes and approved margins of error. Those are the details that will be aligned with the criteria as Jeff just outlined. The guide, as I said, will be available in July, and the notice will be sent via the ENERGY STAR program solid-state lighting email. So if you have been receiving emails from the DOE ENERGY STAR Solid-State Lighting program, you will automatically get this notice. The guide will also be posted on the DOE SSL Web site, which the address is right here on the screen. And it'll also be repeated several times throughout this presentation. Again, it's the same Web site that you went to to register for this webcast.

Step Three is the online process for submitting your product qualification. And applications, as I said, will be submitted online by manufacturers. You'll be able to upload test reports and your packaging information to the Web site, and you will receive instantaneous feedback once you have submitted you qualifications on whether your product qualifies. That will again be available in August, and we will make sure that ample notice goes out.

This is an example of the product's online submission web tool. It will look something like this. It is currently under development. This would be the landing page where you would enter your information on your account. So your email address and your password is given to you, once you are an ENERGY STAR partner.

Partner outreach activities. We have been announcing the progress of the program, and have been sharing information through an e-newsletter that has been sent out, again, using the email system that we have for the ENERGY STAR partners. So if you want to continue receiving or want to start receiving those updates that will occur as information is available up until and possibly through the launch date, just go to the Web site, which is the next piece of information here, the DOE SSL Web site. And there's the address again, it's the Web site that's—all the information for this webcast is available. And just go to the ENERGY STAR page and you can find out for the emails. Once the program is live on September 30, the plans are to transfer all of this information to the EnergyStar.gov Web site. So that is the main Web site that will contain the information for the program once it is launched and becomes live.

The various forms we have been using to keep stakeholders and partners up-to-date on the program plans have included the stakeholder workshop back on May 15—about a month ago in Washington, D.C. There was then a June 5 brown bag conference call that AESP sponsored. And the upcoming DOE SSL workshop next month, from July 9 through 11 in Portland, Oregon, will be another opportunity.

Our plans for consumer outreach activities include developing messaging, clear and simple, messaging, Web content for the EnergyStar.gov Web site, and tools and resources that partners can use to promote ENERGY STAR solid-state lighting products.

The messaging for the program is going to focus on—initially it's going to be segmented and available by the targets of residential and commercial. And we're targeting early adopters for residential customers that are attracted by new technologies, so the messaging will be around the superior advantages of LED technology as a new technology. And commercial—for the commercial sector we'll be targeting lighting designers and specifiers.

Our primary message is, for residential indoor products, will be focused around superior light quality; for residential outdoor, they'll be focused on durability; and for the commercial products on the design elements. And these messages are being developed based on input that we are getting from various manufacturing and retail partners about the technological and application advantages of the products. And finally, the secondary messages will of course include the long-life and energy savings that are inherent with these products.

And we should also mention that CFLs—it's going to be important to create a marketing platform that also acknowledges the contributions and the continued value of qualified CFL programs. So CFLs are not the enemy; there is room for both.

The Web content on the solid-state lighting page for ENERGY STAR—pretty much we're developing Web content that will resident on the ENERGY STAR.gov Web site, which typically contains the qualified products list and the product locator. These will not be available until the effective date of September 30, and that is when that Web site will go live. It'll also include the rebate locator for utility rebates on products that are qualified, as well as savings calculators and more frequently asked questions and update frequently asked questions and various consumer education tools.

And the tools and resources that are in development now are some of the common tools and resources that partners have grown accustomed to with the ENERGY STAR program, and most of these examples of what you see on the right hand side of your slide are going to be—we're providing the examples from the CFL program, and they'll be similar kinds of resources available for the Solid-State Lighting program. Again, sample example partner resources, including brochures as well as infographics and sample Web tools. And this, again, these are all from the CFL program, and we'll be providing and creating similar tools for solid-state lighting.

So here is the contact information if you want more information. There's email address for Derek, as well as his phone number. The Web site information for the solid-state lighting ENERGY STAR page, and an email address if you would like to sign up for regular e-newsletters and information on the program as we move toward launch.

So I will turn it over now to Rosemary. This concludes the end of my presentation.

Rosemarie Bartlett: Well, thank you very much for an informative webcast, Rich, Jeff, and Marci, and thanks to all of you. The U.S. Department of Energy appreciates your attendance today. Before we begin answering the questions that have come in, I understand that Rich has a few comments that he's like to add. Rich?

Richard Karney: Thank you, Rose. The Department understands the concerns ENERGY STAR stakeholders have towards the present conflict between DOE's Solid-State Lighting program requirements, version 1.0 and the Environmental Protection Agency's Residential Light Fixture, version 4.2. We want you to know, DOE is doing all it can to resolve the issues as quickly as possible. David Rogers, our deputy assistant secretary for energy efficiency, has issued the following statement:

"DOE is aware of the confusion created by EPA's release of the amended criteria. Efforts to resolve this confusion are ongoing. In the meantime, the September 2007 guidance stands as a valid guidance for solid-state lighting. In other words, September 30, 2008, the ENERGY STAR criteria will become effective. DOE recognizes there can only be one criteria for solid-state lighting. Two criteria occupying the same space will only create market confusion, increase program costs for duplicative marketing efforts, points of contact, etc., and ultimately harm the ENERGY STAR brands. DOE focused on resolving the issue quickly, and we ask your patience during this period of confusion."

DOE's commitment to you:

DOE is committed to maintaining the open process that is the cornerstone of the ENERGY STAR program. We value your participation, and we value your input. We will continue to focus on product quality, ensuring end-user satisfaction with the technology, and maintaining the trust placed by consumers in the ENERGY STAR label. That confidence comes from the open process in establishing criteria, and the use of standards and test procedures that are recognized by the lighting industry, and developed through a consensus process. Failure to do so sets a dangerous precedent for the program.

The solid-state lighting industry is in the early stages of its development, and it is important to lay the infrastructure necessary to support future activities. Hastily developed non-industry consensus standards or test procedures only serve to undermine the technology and delay market introduction, potentially sending us down the same early path of compact fluorescent lamps. DOE will not let that happen. We will move forward with launching the first step in energy subcriteria for solid-state lighting on September 30, 2008, and keep pace with the technology as it evolves. We intend to answer today's questions as Rose has discussed previously. Those that we can't get to we will post on our Web site. So feel free to keep sending them in, and we will get them answered as soon as we can, and get them posted up on the Web site. Thanks, Rose.

Rosemarie Bartlett: Well, thanks for that, Rich. And we are ready for questions now, and the speakers have a lot to try to get through. Jeff will start us off. Jeff, please take it away.

Jeff McCullough: Thank you, Rose, and good afternoon, everyone. I have quite a number of questions in front of me and so I will do my best to get to them as quickly as I can. Periodically I will hand it off to Rich or to Marci to answer some of the questions that are directed for and to their discussion. So with that said, keep the questions coming. Again, we assure you that we will answer them all, either on the air live here today or in follow-up comments that will be posted to the Web.

So the first question falls underneath my scope. The question is, does off-grid, in this case, solar, wind, hydro, etc., solid-state lighting have a different qualification process? So the individual is asking why is DOE currently not recognizing off-grid applications. At this time the Department is not recognizing off-grid applications for a number of reasons. One, we're obviously interested in reducing the load to the utility grid, and in fact with solid-state lighting what we'll see is a number of new applications that come in that actually add load. So I grant you there are applications where off-grid is attractive, most notably state-of-the-art landscape lighting. Unfortunately, the products that are currently in the market that are landscape lighting type products are little more than runway markers. So at some point in the future we'll revisit this, but for now we're not looking at off-grid type applications.

There's several questions asking why is DOE limiting the CCTs based on application. The direct answer is that for—in some cases for consumer applications, high CCT values are not acceptable, and one question here is asking about undercabinet kitchens. We limit the maximum CCT at 3,500 Kelvin. One could perhaps make an argument that 4,000 is acceptable, but frankly anything higher than that is a higher CCT. The consumer is not accustomed to it, and frankly they don't prefer higher color temperatures. So in the near-term, we're narrowing the CCTs, we're trying to inject market information as far as developing products that the consumers will find most satisfactory.

Question here: How will you validate photometric files? We saw, during Marci's presentation, the Department is currently working on a Web-based submission tool. Part of that tool will be the ability for you to upload your LM 79 test report directly to a Web site for near-instantaneous confirmation as to whether or not you're meeting some of the zonal lumen requirements, as well as the efficacy requirements. You won't get an immediate go/no-go, meaning you'll be able to upload the file, get a sense as to whether photometrically you meet the requirements, but there will be a set of human eyes that look over this in the material submitted, and ultimately you'll get an ENERGY STAR designation by doing that. It's hoped that this'll expedite the process and allow you to bring products to the market with relative ease and frequency.

As far as validating them, DOE is requiring that testing be conducted by DOE-approved third-party testing labs. You'll be hearing more about this in the coming months, but there are a list of currently five labs that are currently approved by the DOE CALiPER program for doing testing on behalf of the ENERGY STAR program.

Question here: Why is system efficacy not measured for LED systems? Are fixture losses inherently lower than CFL and fluorescent? And I guess the short answer is "Yes." What it's important to understand is that LEDs are a light source that emit light hemispherically. They are inherently directional—they put out light in the hemisphere out front. All of our traditional light sources, whether we talk about incandescent, whether we talk about compact fluorescent and even linear fluorescent, those light sources emit light spherically, meaning in all directions. So built in with LEDs is inherent directionality that we can take advantage of.

As far as why can't we measure system efficacy, well, first of all there is not an industry-recognized test procedure to do that. LM 79 is a luminaire test procedure. It also has what they're calling and LED system approach that allows you to test an LED system, but in general it's a luminaire test procedure. Problems with measuring system efficacy, as you've probably surmised by now, performance of LEDs is strongly dependent on management of temperature and heat over time. And so doing a test that initially may show very good results, but will concern about managing heat over time and making sure that the end-user gets the claims of long life and that those are realized as you move off into the future.

What I'd like to do now is to go ahead and hand off the questioning process to Rich. I know he's received a few questions. So Rich, if you would just take it away for two or three questions and then send it back to me, please.

Richard Karney: Sure, Jeff, will do.

Question came in, basically asking: Why are you expanding category A before the criteria is even effective? Well, the technology's improving rapidly, and applications that were not previously in our criteria have become much more better-performing than they were previously. And we're taking a hard look at them to see if we can adopt them into the solid-state lighting criteria. So we're always looking for potential new applications. What we'll be doing is that we will be studying and evaluating them. Hopefully we'll be able to test some product in the CALiPER testing program, and to be able to see if we can develop criteria for these. So we're always looking for possible expanding criteria and getting new applications, where it does fit into overall criteria and overall mission of supporting the technology with the label.

Similarly, I got another question of, why are you even ratcheting? Well, as noted, the technology is improving constantly. You saw Jeff's chart from the Department of Energy multi-year program plan, showing how the actual lab testing of the product is improving, and soon the commercial potential of these products will be moving out. So we don't want to keep the qualification level stagnant. It's very conceivable that if we do, then the market could get saturated with product, and the market saturation will be so large that would render the ENERGY STAR label meaningless. So that is the purpose of the ratcheting. We will be careful, and when we do, we'll send out the anticipated plans, as I mentioned before, around mid-July, the criteria for the new applications and also what the ratcheting would look like.

Another question that came in: it says with release of the residential light fixture 4.2, Pacific Gas and Electric is concerned about potential marketplace confusion with two different solid-state lighting ENERGY STAR specs in place. In fact, until issues are resolved, Pacific Gas and Electric does not plan to include product qualified under the EPA RLF 4.2 spec in our incentives program. Has the Department of Energy been contacted by manufacturers or customers who share this concern?

Actually, yes. We have heard from many manufacturers. We've heard from retailers and we've heard from utilities, have definitely contacted us on this problem about marketplace confusion. Many believe that version 4.2 was coordinated with the Department, and don't understand where one spec prevails and another one does not. Unfortunately we do not know that version 4.2 of the RLF spec was being developed. We learned about it the same time that you did.

Some manufacturers have complained about having spent large sums of money designing products that meet the Department of Energy's developed specs, in our case in the possibility those investments are rendered useless. Someone's complained that their customers don't understand what is going on, many worry about lasting damage having been done to the ENERGY STAR brand, as we all have shared that concern. The Department is making these concerns known to our upper management, and we are trying to bring this problem to a resolution as quickly as possible. But bear with us, and we hope to get this resolved shortly.


Jeff McCullough: Thank you, Rich. What I'd like to do now is to pass the mic, if you will, off to Marci Sanders. She has a couple of questions that were asked. Go ahead, Marci.

Marci Sanders: One question that has come in is actually a housekeeping question. There were three references in my presentation to the DOE ENERGY STAR SSL Web site, and the second one on slide 40 had a little typo in it and was not correct. So I'll just reiterate the Web address is [Editor's note: The EnergyStar web site is now found at http://www.energystar.gov/] and that'll take you to the home page. So I think I left off one letter of one of the front part of the Web address. Sorry about that.

Another question that has come in: Why is energy savings a secondary message? The energy savings and cost ownership should be a primary message. That is the case with, for instance, CFL. At this point, with the category A group of products that will be eligible for qualification on September 30, those products, the efficacy levels are tied and benchmarked to CFLs. So the savings calculations are dependent on—are not as—some of the message, and aren't differentiated enough from CFLs to be compelling enough to really give the best bang for the buck kind of scenario to warrant the highest cost effectiveness as a primary message.

So from a competitive or comparative advantage standpoint, we're really looking at wanting to highlight those products that are going to be initially eligible with the unique qualities as LED directional lighting provides. So the messaging will be much more focused on sort of the high functionality and functionability of them.

The third question that has come in for me is, how are you working with energy providers so that they recognize SSL and offer rebates? Here we have been working with utilities and energy efficiency organizations who have indicated to us their interest in initially running promotional programs and offering incentives on the category A group of products. And we're just making sure that they're up-to-speed on what those product categories and applications are, as well as when product will be eligible. We don't know when they'll be actually available in the market, but we will be able to provide them with—have them providing them with that information, and also pointing them in the direction of the CALiPER test results for some of those product categories, so they can see how products are performing at this point.

And I don't have any more questions right now, so I will send it back to Jeff.

Jeff McCullough: Thank you, Marci. It looks like the majority of questions—I have a mountain of them in front of me, so it sounds like for the rest of the hour, for the most part, you're going to be hearing from Jeff here. So what I'd like to do is I'll take them right off the top and answer as many as I possibly can. [Audio glitch]. We have a limited amount of time as far as being able to answer them all live, so in the event that we don't get to yours, please bear with us. We will provide you with a written response and make that public.

So diving in, here's a question asking, is DOE considering a category A application category covering LED lamps? And in parenthesis they say, "(LED light engines)." I think most of you are aware that there's a fundamental difference between the DOE's approach and what the EPA is suggesting underneath version 4.2.

They're proposing the use of light engines. And so this question is asking will DOE be embracing light engines at some point in the future? Very simply stated, the technology is not yet ready and the infrastructure is not yet in place for the concept of a light engine. DOE understands the excitement surrounding solid-state lighting, and understands that you are being approached by vendors with all kinds of claims of performance, that are frankly hard to ignore. I guess I direct your attention to the slide that I showed you with all the various efficacy curves, and also I would direct you to the slide that talked about the lamp efficacy versus system efficacy versus luminaire efficacy.

In many cases, the efficacies that you're being told is simply the device efficacy given to the manufacturer, and I'll call them an integrator, given to the manufacturer at the device level. So you might hear, "Well, we're giving you an 80 lumen per watt, say, replacement lamp," but in reality when you test that—according to industry standard test procedures—the number is far less, typically much less than half of that.

Well, what does this actually mean? You should understand that chip manufacturers do what we call a 25/25 test—they pulse test their devices at 25 degrees centigrade, which essentially is room temperature, for 25 milliseconds. And they do this to bin their devices based on flux, or light output, as well as for color or chromaticity. It's important to note that those devices will never again see 25 degree C unless they're installed somewhere in Alaska. From that point forward they will always be operating at a higher temperature, and with higher temperature comes reduced light output and accelerated lumen depreciation.

In addition, most LEDs are DC devices, and thus the power supply and driver must often convert AC to DC. And so there's an inherent loss in doing just that. Until two months ago, the industry did not have a test procedure. We now have LM 79 that is live and is available for anybody to download from the IESNA Web site. The LM 79 can be uniformly applied to products, hence the reason why it is so important to have industrywide standards and test procedures recognized by everyone, and not just those developed by a subset of the industry without engagement of the likes of IES and ANSI and UL.

As the technology improves, as consensus industry standard test procedures are developed, and there's also going to be standardization of interfaces and form factors and all kinds of things, and with knowledge of good performing products in the market, DOE will reconsider this. DOE intends to use its CALiPER program and other resources to monitor the state of technology. The other concern is that while LED systems may test well at time T equals zero, we simply do not know how they will perform in the longer term, especially when you integrate the LED devices with power supplies in close proximity to each other.

Much in the same way as the integral CFL, LED systems are only as good as their weakest link. There's a lot that we don't know today; there's a lot that we need to learn. We need to work together to develop specifications and thoroughly vetted test procedures. Now is not the time to open the floodgates, allowing inferior products into the market. The reality is that you will have a large number of hastily developed, proprietary products unleashed on end-users, which can only harm the technology and harm the brand. Frankly, as an ENERGY STAR community, we need to become very good at saying, "Just because you have LEDs does not automatically mean you're energy efficient.

I apologize for the semi-longwinded response there, but I know that this is something that you're very interested in, and it's really the heart of the difference between the DOE approach and EPA's approach. So I hope that was helpful.

We've received a couple of questions here, talking about why is DOE not acknowledging or including recessed, linear fluorescent T8-type replacement lamps. The reality is they are not testing that well. I would direct your attention to the DOE Web site, and let me just say it verbally again. It's on our slides, but it's [Editor's note: The EnergyStar web site is now found at http://www.energystar.gov/]. That is the home base for DOE's ENERGY STAR and DOE's commercialization program.

On that Web site you'll also see CALiPER, and CALiPER results is off on the left-hand side, and I would encourage you to go out there and look at the CALiPER results. We've recently released version 5, or I should say Round Five of CALiPER testing. Within Round Five there's a number of LED replacement lamps that have been evaluated. Actually we've gone even so far as to place them inside troffers. There's one that is a prismatic, two-by-four, two-lamp trougher, there's one that's a 12-cell parabolic trougher. And so we've done absolute photometry on those lamps installed in the luminaire. And we also compared and contrast those to the fluorescent incumbents that are occupying that same space.

So I'd encourage you to go look at those results. What we're finding is that they're delivering half of the light output and half of the efficacy. And DOE certainly has the responsibility to maintain cost-effectiveness for this technology. And quite frankly, troffers are going to be one of the longer-term things that LEDs will pervade, the reason being is that I can buy a $3.00 T8 now that will deliver a rated life of up to—there's some new ones out now that are in the high 40,000 hour range. So given a $3.00 lamp lasting 40,000 hours plus—oh, and by the way, it has a 95% lumen maintenance. So with those types of numbers, it's a pretty difficult sell to convince consumers to buy something—buy an LED replacement.

Now I'm not saying that there aren't applications where it does make sense. If maintenance is a major issue, if there's hazardous locations, certainly these technologies will make sense. But in general it's hard to justify that kind of a cost.

OK, moving on to some additional questions: how ready are the third-party labs for providing independent testing? As an example, the LRC at RPI is extensively backlogged.

This is certainly an area that DOE is working on. Right now there are currently five laboratories that are DOE CALiPER-approved. We're actively soliciting additional laboratories to join the program. In order to do that, they have to participate in various round-robin activities. There's a number of requirements that we have so we can ensure high-quality results. So there are five, we're working on more, but certainly in the near-term there's going to be a little bit of a bottleneck. But again, we're working to try and address those.

Here's another question: As consumer interest is growing concerning toxic compounds in lighting products, disposal and embodied energy, what info will be provided?

This is actually a great question. I know that most of the folks on the call are familiar with some of the concerns that are out there as far as the prevalence of fluorescent lighting, particularly compact fluorescent lighting, concerns about mercury finding its way into the groundwater and polluting the environment. There are some similar issues that are being addressed as it related to solid-state lighting. And I believe that the Department either has or will be commissioning a study to look specifically at these issues, you know, looking at what's involved in producing these products, what are the waste streams involved, and then trying to quantify it and provide recommendations for how they should be managed into the future. So that's a great question. I know it's on DOE's radar screen, and I know that they're currently working on it.

Next question: Inability to dim using current phase control. Wall dimmers is also a big limiter to wide adoption of CFLs in residential applications. Dimmable CFLs are just now becoming available on a limited basis. Does dimmability figure into ENERGY STAR solid-state lighting technology?

Absolutely. And in fact, the issue of dimmability crosscuts all of our technologies—with fluorescent lighting, there are problems with dimming, there's costs associated with dimming down below, say, 30%. There's incompatibility with dimmers and various technologies. DOE recognizes this, and in fact we are launching an effort currently to undertake a standardizing program, working with industry to standardize dimming, to standardize the slope with which products dim, making sure that the industry has the necessary information so that we can begin to address this issue, but it's not—I guess the point I'd like to make—it's not solely solid-state lighting. It certainly is a concern for SSL, but it's a larger issue that often needs to be addressed for the existing technologies.

Another question: It's clear that these are better at low-voltage DC environments. Will there be guidelines set when using DC versus AC?

Interesting question. Obviously DOE's near-term concerns are AC via the grid, but recognizing that if you take away the AC to DC conversion, you inherently have a more efficient system. By the way, depending on the quality of the power supply or driver that you're using, these things can range anywhere from maybe 75% efficient to a high of maybe the low 90s. So there clearly are some opportunities here by improving the power supply and looking at the overall luminaire efficacy when you're able to increase that power conversion efficiency.

So I guess the direct answer here is, "No, not yet." Great question, but again, we're focused on grid power, but certainly as the technology evolves, we can certainly look at some other applications as well.

"Will someone comment on pricing of LEDs within each category of Phase One?" I'm not entirely sure what the question is. Clearly this technology will have somewhat of a cost premium associated with it. Actually this is an area that the industry and you as ENERGY STAR stakeholders need to give some additional thought. For example, if we look at just the creation of light—typically we'll have a chart developed that is cost per kilo-lumens, if you look solely at the light that is emitted from the source, and you compare apples to apples, certainly LEDs are much, much more expensive. But I take that LED and I take advantage of its inherent directionality, rather than looking on a light output basis, if you looked at an application basis, then the cost-effective equation makes more sense.

So certainly cost is an issue—the ENERGY STAR program has a mandate to make sure that the technologies are cost-effective, but we need to balance that with what's available in the market, with this new technology that's becoming available. So I guess my perception—and we certainly have done some preliminary looks at the cost, depending on the product, certainly there's going to be a cost premium over the incumbent technologies. But looking at the life-cycle costing and looking at the value propositions for solid-state lighting, certainly solid-state lighting does make sense here in the near-term.

Here's a question from, I think, a fixture manufacturer: Do you still need a safety test report coverage statement from an OSHA-NRTL lab if the product is already UL listed, or can you submit the UL listing number?

The answer is "Yes," you can submit the UL listing number, but recognize that in addition to UL 1598, which you're required to do, we're asking you to do this in situ temperature test measurement that is in a UL1598 environment. So you would have to go back to UL 1598 and do that and mate that with your LM 80 test results. So that's what you'll need to submit for ENERGY STAR. OK?

Here's a question: How does LED efficacy trend with light output? Clearly, the light output decreases over time, and likewise the efficacy decreases over time. So how do we deal with that? I guess the first thing that I would say to do is that fluorescent technology over its life, particularly with compact fluorescent technology, can depreciate by 30% to 40%. So if you've got an integral CFL, it may have say an 8,000 or 10,000 hour life, but at the end of its life its light output has dropped off 305 or 40%. So that already happens.

It happens much less so with linear fluorescent products, because there's some of the premium, super T8s that are out in the market today—they're able to maintain a very high percentage of their light output over time. So we certainly recognize this—yes, the efficacy drops off—that's part of the reason why we define the useful life of an LED to be that L 70 metric—that point at which 70% of the initial light output is maintained, recognizing that, in all likelihood, that device may continue to operate well beyond that, but for purposes of life cycle costing and doing placements are relamping, etc., etc., L 70 is the threshold to look at.

Here's a question, I think, from a fixture manufacturer: Have you estimated the approximate cost added per fixture to test, qualify and maintain ENERGY STAR rating for a typical fixture that is technically qualified, i.e., costs outside any re-engineering or redesign to achieve the required levels of efficacy, life, etc.?

The answer is "Yes." And I know the concern here is, with this new technology, with DOE potentially adding a ratchet schedule here in the future, there's concerns by manufacturers, I would say largely by the decorative residential manufacturers who are somewhat unaccustomed to doing photometry and doing testing, that costs will escalate by doing that. They have a great number of skews, and testing each and every one of those certainly is prohibitive.

The Department understand that, recognized that. What I will tell you, initially, is that if you take a look at the DOE's ENERGY STAR criteria, we are allowing you to test one product in a family—we actually have a "skew family category." We're allowing you to test one product in that family and have it be representative of all the products in that family. Let me make an example out of that: if I have a recessed down light, and I offer it with specular clear trim, I offer it with wheat or straw (color, by the way), offer maybe a black or white step baffle—if I test a single product in that product line, that test result will apply to all those products.

So the message that manufacturers should walk away with is it behooves you to test the least-efficient product in your line. So per my example, I would say, you know, test the black step baffle, knowing full well that the specular clear reflector luminaires is going to be of a higher performance.

As far as product testing costs. These luminaires, because of the inherent issues with solid-state lighting, require absolute photometry—we cannot use relative photometry. And LM 75 is, indeed, absolute photometry. That test, depending on the lab and depending on the volume of testing we're talking about, can range anywhere from $250 to $500. In addition, you're required to do this in situ temperature measurement test in the UL 1598 environment. It's hoped that you can do that at the same time as you would normally do, but in the event that you can't, you would have to do that as a retest.

So I would say that the range of costs are anywhere from $500 to $1,500 for testing, and again, for the decorative residential fixture manufacturers, this ability to do skew families versus testing each and every one of the products in your product line. I will say that as the technology evolves and as more products are added, DOE will certainly revisit this. We look forward to engaging the industry on better ways to do this, but in the near term, we feel that this is the best path forward.

Let me do a couple of more. I clearly have way more questions than I'm capable of answering, so I'm going to do a couple of more, and then I'll turn it back to Rose and she can tell you about the closing comments. She can also let you know that we'll be posting any of the questions not answered on the DOE Web site and the appropriate response.

Question here: Where can I get a copy of the efficacy table with timeline?

I'm assuming we're talking about the ratchet that we've been talking about. DOE intends to announce that ratchet here, I would say within the month of July. We also intend to vet it, meaning, it's not going to simply be announced directly. We are going to engage industry and have a dialog. So it's not going to be imposed uniformly or unilaterally, it will be vetted with the industry, and we'll certainly consider the feedback that we receive.

Here's another question: Category A residential power factor—why so low? Given the impact on the grid, wouldn't it be better to have a relatively low maximum wattage limit, to have a low power factor?

Actually this is a much larger issue that has come up many times in the past. It also is a fairly common argument that's raised, as it relates to the compact fluorescent light industry. Both the DOE CFL program and EPA RLF establish power factors of 0.5. The issue here—there's a couple things. First of all, we believe, based on the testing of products through CALiPER, that the majority of products were actually exhibiting higher power factor, and so we believe that it was appropriate to raise that power factor to address some of the issues and some of the concerns that utility companies might have.

Beyond that, clearly for commercial applications we establish a much higher threshold of 0.9. Utility customers that are large commercial customers are penalized for a low power factor. And so it's certainly the 0.9 threshold is appropriate for commercial applications.

With that, we're—it looks to me to be a couple minutes past our allotted time. I would like to extend my thank you and the thank you of both Rich and Marci for your time today. With that I'll turn it back over to Rose.

Rosemarie Bartlett: And I would just like to ask Rich if he has any final comments that he would like to add?

Richard Karney: I would just like to say that I'd like to remind everybody about the solid-state lighting workshop we're going to hold in Portland, Oregon. I believe it's July 8 through 11. Information is available on the Web site. It's a three-day agenda with lots of opportunity for further discussion, to learn more about how partners can support the program and start to think about qualifying products. I look forward to seeing everyone in Portland. I thank those who have hung on the line for an hour-and-a-half. I appreciate your attention, and turn it back to you, Rose.

Rosemarie Bartlett: All right. Thank you, Rich, and also thanks to Jeff and Marci, and we'd like to thank all of you for participating in today's webcast, brought to you by the U.S. Department of Energy.

[End of Audio]