Text-Alternative Version: LED Replacement Lamps: Current Performance and the Latest on ENERGY STAR®

Below is the text-alternative version of the LED Replacement Lamps: Current Performance and the Latest on ENERGY STAR® webcast.

Terry Shoemaker: Welcome, ladies and gentlemen.  I'm Terry Shoemaker with the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, and I'd like to welcome you today to DOE's webcast LED Replacement Lamps Current Performance and The Latest on ENERGY STAR brought to you by the U.S. Department of Energy's Solid-State Lighting Program. 

At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode.  Before we begin the webcast, we will conduct a polling session.  We have one polling question for you today.  To answer the question, you will need to press the numbers on your touchtone phone. Please wait for the entire question to be ready before responding. There will be a brief 10-to-15 second period of silence after the question has been asked so that the results can be compiled.  Please remain on the line.  The question is:  How many attendees are at your location viewing the webcast together?  Please use the appropriate number on your phone to represent the number of viewers at your site.  For example, press one for one viewer, two for two viewers, and so on.  Please press nine to represent nine or more viewers.  Once again, the question is: How many attendees are at your location viewing the webcast together?  Please use the appropriate number on your phone to represent the number of viewers at your site.  Please answer now by using your touchtone phone.  Please remain on the line during the silence while the results are compiled.  Thank you. This concludes the polling session.

A couple of logistical announcements before we begin. You may ask a question at any time during the webcast today by using the Q&A Menu on your computer.  Questions won't be answered via the computer but will be answered live by the presenters as time allows at the end of the presentation. Lastly, during the webcast, you can hit F5 on your keyboard to enlarge your view of the slides. 

We're very happy to have as our speakers today Rich Karney, U.S. Department of Energy, Bob Lingard, and Kelly Gordon, both of the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.  

First we welcome Rich Karney, the ENERGY STAR Program Manager at the U.S. Department of Energy who will provide a few words of introductions.  Over to you, Rich.

Rich Karney: Thank you, Terry.  On behalf of the United Department of Energy, I'd like to welcome everyone to this webcast on the very timely topic of light emitting diode replacement lamps and the latest on the ENERGY STAR programs efforts in this area. 

New LED replacement lamps are appearing on the market at a rapid pace. If you are a lighting manufacturer, you're probably already making some or in the process of developing such products. If you are a utility or other energy efficiency sponsor, you're probably being approached by vendors seeking to have their LED replacement lamps including your program.  Today, we're going to hear what recent testing by the Department's Commercially Available LED Product Evaluation Reporting program, or CALiPER, tells us about how current LED replacement lamp products are performing and how they compare to incandescent and halogen lamps. Then you'll be provided an update on what the DOE's ENERGY STAR program for solid-state lighting is doing to address this growing category of LED products.  More than 480 registrations were received for today's webcast, so we see interest in this topic is very high.

I want to thank you for taking time to participate in this webcast, and I invite you to review Draft 2 of the ENERGY STAR criteria for integral LED lamps and provide your feedback to the Department during the comment-and-review period. 

I will now turn it over to Bob Lingard of the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.

Robert Lingard: Thanks very much and thanks, everyone, for joining us today.  As an introduction to Kelly's presentation on the ENERGY STAR criteria for LED integral replacement lamps, I wanted to share with you some of our recent findings regarding some common lamp types that are addressed in the ENERGY STAR spec, specifically omnidirectional and directional incandescent lamps, as well as their LED replacements. 

Well indeed they're here, and I imagine that some or many of you have recently returned from LIGHTFAIR and in fairness it would be an understatement to say that white light LED products are exploding onto the marketplace, and that includes luminaires and, more relevant to our discussion today, LED replacement lamps.  Now given the rapid emergence of this technology into the marketplace, DOE has responded with support and guidance, and that's not only in research and development and basic science, but also in commercialization support and that includes a number of programs, and I'll mention a few right here including CALiPER testing, this is product testing of commercially available LED products; the ENERGY STAR for Solid-State Lighting Program. This is a voluntary product qualification and labeling program to help promote high performance LED products as well as, and this is where we're pushing the edge of the envelope, the L-Prize competition, which is to spur the development of ultra efficient solid-state lighting replacement lamps.

Now I think again and again in today's presentation, you will be hearing us use the term "replacement lamps," and by all rights that should raise the question: What is it that we're replacing here? What is the incumbent technology, the traditional technology that we're talking about?  And for purposes of our discussion today, we're talking about common incandescent and halogen lamps, specifically omnidirectional lamps, for example, the common A-lamp as we all directional lamps, reflector lamps, PAR and MR lamps.  Another kind of replacement lamps that you're aware of are linear fluorescent replacements; however, we're not going to be addressing those today.  We're focusing on these common incandescent and halogen lamp types.  CALiPER undertook a number of benchmark studies to characterize these incumbent technologies and compare them with their LED replacements, and you can see how that benchmarking data would feed nicely into the development of ENERGY STAR criteria for replacement lamps that will meet end-user expectations as well as save energy over the incumbent technology. 

End-user expectations I think is an important point to consider here, so we're characterized incumbent technology. However, if we're going to call an LED lamp a replacement lamp, I think we can infer that the end-user has an expectation of how the product will perform.  Now grant that they may not know a lumen from a candela, but it's pretty certain that they have lived with and used the traditional incumbent products for most of their lives, and what better example of that then the omnidirectional replacement—excuse me, the omnidirectional incandescent lamp, and that is a mouthful. Probably why I tripped over it right there, but essentially it's a lamp that emits light in all directions.  Safe to say it's the most common electric light source in use today.  It's optimized by the common A-lamp, and the world knows it essentially as a light bulb.  It has a low initial cost; it's easy to use.  You screw it into its socket and you turn it on. It is not very efficient.  It uses most of its power creating heat, and it doesn't last a really long time, perhaps 1,000 or 2,000 hours in round figures.  However, that leads us back to the low initial cost and the ease of us. If it burns out, we just screw another one back into the socket. As it relates to end-user expectations, it has a very familiar performance and format, a characteristic warm appearance, a characteristic distribution, and light level that varies with wattage.  Here a few familiar formats and shapes on this slide. You see the familiar A-lamp as well as a number of smaller decorative and candelabra-style lamps.

Another common and familiar lamp is the directional halogen MR16 lamp, a common directional light source used in highlighting and accent applications in both commercial and residential settings. It's physical structure, it's small filament, the placement of the filament within precise reflectors can allow very precise optical control of its beam, and indeed that's sort of a hallmark of the MR16 lamp is it's optical control and this allows for a wide variety of light distributions from these lamps, beam patterns, beam angles, if you will, ranging from flood to spot distributions, as well as intensity. The center beam candle power, how much punch these lamps have, if you will.  So again, this is a familiar lamp with familiar performance.    

Here come the LED replacement lamps that you no doubt saw many of at LIGHTFAIR.  Again, this is an emerging technology and with it comes the potential for high efficiency and long life and right on the coattails of the potential performance come the manufacturer claims, some of them arguably pretty breathless—replaces a 60 watt/a 90 watt incandescent, last for 50,000 hours, and we're going to talk about how manufacturer claims square up against measured performance shortly.  As you can see on this slide, they come in a variety of formats and shapes, and these are all CALiPER photographs ranging from familiar forms to new forms and through CALiPER testing, we're addressing the question:  How do these products perform?  With this kind of knowledge as well as an understanding of the application in which they'll be used, the end-user can ask the question:  Are they going to be worth the extra cost because certainly at this point and time, they're significantly more expensive in their initial cost than the traditional incumbent technologies, the A-lamps and the MR16s. 

So I'm going to give you a brief overview of the CALiPER benchmarking—benchmark testing that has been performed to date.  Here's an overview of the testing for omnidirectional lamps.  Included a couple of categories here, including the common A-lamp, and we looked at several wattages here—25 watt, 40 watt, and 60 watt—as well as the smaller decorative candelabra-style lamps, and these range from approximately 4-to-25 watts.  Now the ceiling here in terms of wattage was 60 watts on the A-lamp, you establish that at the ceiling because this is sort of the range of wattages where LED products can feasibly compete with these incandescent lamps in terms of light output and performance as they don't currently have the performance to compete with higher wattage, higher lumen output versions of these lamps.  Now we did some extensive data mining for this CALiPER benchmark test evaluating manufacturer data for more than 400 incandescent lamps and we selected six lamps for benchmark testing and compared those with the CALiPER test results for 10 LED replacement lamps for these omnidirectional lamp types. 

Here's the other lamp type we did benchmark testing for, the MR16s, these directional lamps.  We focused on 20 watt MR16 products, halogen MR16 products, and for a similar reason as I discussed on the previous slide that the higher wattage versions of these MR16s exceed the current capability of LED products.  LED products simply can't compete with a higher wattage, higher intensity, higher lumen output versions of MR16, so we limited our scope to 20 watt.  We evaluated manufacturer data for over 60 halogen MR16 lamps and tested six representative halogen MR16 samples and in the benchmark report compared these with the CALiPER test results for 10 LED MR16 replacements. 

Now there's some common features to both benchmark reports when we're looking at lamp characteristics.  Of course, importantly is light output, lumen output if you will, and efficacy. How many lumens are being produced per watt?  These are initial values.  Also importantly are the color characteristics of both the incumbent technology and the LED replacements. Distribution.  Where are these products putting their light? Where are they directing their light?  Another important consideration, the format, the lamp shape and fit, not only within perhaps intended fixtures but also how do they fit performance-wise within intended applications? Then as I touched on earlier this issue of claimed performance versus what we're seeing in terms of actual performance. 

Now the actual benchmark reports are substantial on the order of 14 or 15 pages long and they're packed with data and detail discussion. Obviously, we're not going to get into that level of detail today. I'm giving you a high level view today to help draft—to help introduce our draft ENERGY STAR criteria for LED replacement lamps. 

Now that doesn't mean that you're going to escape a few graphs, and I've selected a couple here which I think tell a pretty interesting story.  This first graph we're looking at touches on the benchmarking data for omnidirectional lamps.  On your vertical or your Y-axis here, you have the initial lamp light output in lumens on your horizontal or your X-axis.  We have our efficacy in lumens per watt, and we have three clouds (Yeah, we'll call them three clouds.) of product types here. From left-to-right, we have our incandescent product; we have our LED product in the middle, and then we've included CFL as part of the discussion here as well. Now our benchmarking for the incandescent product, you can see the expected increase in light output and efficacy as we increase our wattage, and the efficacy pretty much peaks out at about 10 or 11 lumens per watt.  Next, I'll draw your attention to the LED product.  As I stated earlier, current LED technology is limited in its lumen output; and as our testing showed, it's performance now approaches that of 40 watt incandescent lamps, but as you can see with considerably higher efficacy approximately on the order of three or four times higher than the incandescent lamps.  We included CSL here because as an established technology, you can see how it can match the light output of these higher wattage incandescent with significantly higher efficacy.  There is some overlap with the LED product at these lower equivalent incandescent wattages such as 25-to-40 watt. But what this graph illustrates is a niche where LED products currently stand on their own, and you can see that's with these lower wattage, and these would be the decorative and candelabra-style incandescent lamps where LED, these lower wattage LED products, five watts or less, can produce equivalent light output but with considerably higher efficacy, and you can see we don't have any overlap with the CFL products, and that is primarily a function of size or format that CFLs are limited in how small we can create these lamps.  So LEDs have right now certainly have a niche in terms of energy efficient, low lumen decorative style lamps while producing higher efficacy. 

Now I'm going to show you a similar graph for MR16 light output and efficacy.  Lumen output is typically not used to characterize halogen MR16s. They're typically characterized by their center beam candle power, their intensity. However, if we're going to talk about efficacy, lumens per watt, we need to talk about lumens here.  So in this graph, you'll see that yellow region to the left of the graph which represents our observed range of 20 watt halogen MR16 performance in terms of light output and efficacy. These halogen lamps are more efficacious than the incandescent lamps you saw on the previous slide where we have standard halogen and halogen infrared technologies, which can push 18/20 lumens per watt in their efficacy.  Now what's interesting to note in this slide, these small yellow diamonds as well as those points that are surrounded by the red circles, those reflect current solid-state lighting, LED, MR16 replacements.  They are approaching what we'll call the basement or the ground level of a 20 watt halogen MR16 performance as designated by that dashed horizontal line at approximately 175/180 lumens.  But as you can see, the majority of those LED products lack the lumen output and by extension the intensity and the punch to compete with MR16 halogen lamps right now.

Another important characteristic that we evaluated in the benchmark reports were the color characteristics, and I'm going to use the omnidirectional lamps here as an example. The results and the findings were similar for the MR16 lamps and their replacements. If you'll take a look at the graph on the left first, and this deals with color correlated color temperature, CCT, or color appearance of these lamps.  The typical omnidirectional A-lamp color temperature is on your far left of that first graph, and it's somewhere in the neighborhood of 2800-to-3000 kelvin.  Those other bars on the graph are the tested LED products; and as you can see a majority of them do pretty good in creating the approximate color appearance of incandescent lamps, but there are a few outliers as you'll see on the far side of that graph.  We had measured color temperature values in excess of 6000, 20000, 24000 K; and as you can imagine, this is nowhere near the warm wide or the neutral wide appearance that an end-user might expect from the incumbent technology.  Color temperature matters. The more detailed graph on the right is a variation on the … Perhaps what's familiar to you, the CIE chromaticity diagram, the 1931 version of the diagram looks like a pie piece or an artist palette with the colors in it. This version of the graph focuses in on what we call the planckian or blackbody locus upon which we define the chromaticity for white light sources ranging from lower color temperatures to higher color temperatures, and this corresponds with the ANSI specification for white light LED products.  You'll see a number of yellow diamonds on this graph which represent the chromaticity coordinates of the LED replacement lamps tested.  Quite a few of them fall, as you can see, well within the color temperature definitions along the blackbody locus, however there are a few outliers towards the top of the graph and also along the bottom axis of the graph and those corresponds with those lamps that had the very high color temperatures outside of ANSI specifications for correlated color temperature.  Another important metric or consideration is the Duv value.  We're plotting the UV chromaticity coordinates here, and the Duv value reflects the distance that the chromaticity coordinates fall from the blackbody locus or fall from our definition of white light.  The further you get away from the blackbody locus, the more the color shifts away from what is considered white light for that particular color temperature; and to the end-user that can result in a say a blue or greenish or a purplish appearance, so the Duv matters, particularly if it falls outside of specifications. 

Now another important consideration for both omnidirectional and directional lamps is light distribution, literally where we're directing the light, and I use the again the omnidirectional benchmark data as an example here.  Here you have some polar intensity plots of traditional A-lamp, incandescent A-lamp, as well as a number of LED replacements.  The incandescent lamp, that's designated A in your upper left-hand corner there. That's the omnidirectional distribution we expect that incumbent lamp technology.  Now here are a few examples of the LED replacements.  If you look just to the right example B in the upper right-hand corner, this is …  Well, I should step back a second.  The incandescent lamp is—the A-lamp is by its nature an omnidirectional source. Now we're taking a directional light source, LEDs, and we're going to attempt to have them perform as an omnidirectional light source, and what we've seen in many cases is that the LEDs continue to behave like a directional light source in a lamp package that may try to emulate an omnidirectional lamp.  First example is B where we have a directional almost flood-type. In the lower right-hand corner, again a directional but much more spiky distribution, if you will.  However, it is possible with LED products to get something approaching an omnidirectional distribution, as you'll see an example D in the lower right-hand corner.  So it can be done. 

We come down to  format and fit, and again you've seen photographs, CALiPER photographs of the various LED products that we've tested and I have a few on the bottom of this slide.  Form factor can be an issue, and that's just as it was an issue for the early versions of compact fluorescent lamps. We're calling this a replacement.  Does it fit in the fixture?  Does it fit in the socket?  As we've observed in our testing, some commercially available LED products may be longer; they may be larger in diameter, perhaps wider at the base than the lamps they're supposed to replace. In some case, say with MR16 replacements, we have lamps that don't fit properly into the existing lamp sockets and some are heavy.  We've seen some gorgeous and exotic aluminum heat sinking in some of these products and some of them are literally heavy enough, you could drive with a nail with them, so that is something to consider.  There's physical fit; there's also fit to the application.  As you saw on the distribution slide, some of these LED products are similar to an A-lamp in their shape and their form, but instead of omnidirectional light output, they have more of a directional light output, and that's something for the end-user to consider.  Yes, this looks like an A-lamp, but is it going to perform or behave the way you expect or the way you want.

Now I told you we would come down to manufacturer claims.  In CALiPER testing to date, and you've probably heard this on other CALiPER webcasts, most of the LED replacement lamps we have tested so far do not meet their manufacturing performance claims, whether this be a lumen output or you'll see many products claiming equivalency.  For example, this replaces a 40-watt lamp or it's far more efficient, 90% more efficient than a 60-watt lamp.  But as we're observing, they typically only produce anywhere from 10 to say 60% of their claims light output. So truthfully if a lamp is going to claim equivalency with an incumbent technology, it should be claiming equivalency with a lower wattage incandescent products, for example.  We've also seem some extraordinary life claims, for example, 50,000 hours or more. However, the long-term reliability of these products is still largely untested as well as the long-term performance, in terms of lumen maintenance and color maintenance, that is largely untested and not yet fully understood.

But there is some good news in all of this. In our CALiPER testing to date from 2006 to date, we have seen a steady increase in LED product performance in terms of the efficacy of products in lumens per watt and also in terms of manufacturer claims coming more in line with product performance as these manufacturers ascend the learning curve, if you will. 

However, these are still early days and there are a number of pitfalls we should be aware of. Color is important in white light LED products and a lot of these nominally white light products can appear quite bullish, greenish, purplish, so color temperature and Duv matter.  These color deviations we're observing, it's not only photometrically but we've observed it with our own eyes and perhaps many or some of you have also observed this as well with LED products.  Comparisons, comparing the incumbent technology to LED technologies. It's important that you verify that LED product performance is based on standardized photometric testing; and when I say that, I mean IES LM-79 testing.  Ask for it by name. Manufacturer claims.  Product literature can be erroneous or misleading; and as you've seen with CALiPER data, it pays to do your due diligence when researching these products with any information source you can lay your hands on, including the ones that we are providing, for example, with CALIPER.  Lifetime performance, still a great unknown. These products installed in a fixture in their intended application in situ, if you will, their long-term performance is still unknown.  As we're seeing with initial lumen maintenance data, the results are mixed so the understanding of that is still developing.  We're all on a learning curve, not only the end-users, but as well—but the manufacturers as well, and we enjoyed borrowing this graphic ascending the learning curve that our colleague Mia Paget developed for CALiPER.  Some manufacturers are doing very well. They're right up there at the top of the slope, but some others are just getting started and perhaps some are even slipping a little bit.  So again, these are early days and we all need to do our homework with our available information. 

Are you looking for more information? There's plenty to be found.  I've provided the URL here for DOE's CALiPER program where you'll not only find the detailed benchmark reports for omnidirectional, the MR16 as well as the linear fluorescent replacements, but you'll see find round-by-round summaries of our CALiPER testing, most recently Round 7, detailed photometric reports, as well as some very interesting exploratory reports on some pressing topics.  I use dimming as an example. 

This ends my presentation, and I would like to introduce to you Kelly Gordon. She's the Program Manage overseeing our ENERGY STAR for solid-state lighting, as well as our L-Prize activities. Thank you for your attention, and take it away, Kelly.

Kelly Gordon: Thank you very much, Bob.  Now I'd like to provide an update on the activities of ENERGY STAR. The Department of Energy is managing for integral LED lamps.  Just to recap the scope and schedule of what we're talking about here, and I think Bob's presentation certainly provided a very good and useful background within which we are working here. For the integral LED replacement lamps criteria for ENERGY STAR what we are addressing omnidirectional lamps, including A-type, directional, that's the reflector lamps, and then decorative, and I know that was included under omnidirectional in Bob's remarks.  We do have a separate category for that in the ENERGY STAR criteria.  In terms of all these lamps types, we're talking about lamps that use any ANSI standard base.  At this time, we are not addressing replacements for linear fluorescent or for HID lamps.  The first draft of these criteria was published in mid-January and we had a stakeholder review-and-comment period that ended at the end of February. The current draft being published now will entail a second stakeholder review-and-comment period that will end June 26th. 

A slight review: Now are we addressing LED integral lamps at this time? Well, as Bob has indicated and as we have observed in the market and in the development of LED technology, the technology has continued to evolve in terms of efficacy and light output, color characteristics, et cetera, as well as product development to the point where LED integral lamps will soon compete on most performance perimeters for incandescent and halogen lamp replacement.  At the same time, there is an urgent need for market guidance because frankly there are many more performing products that are already being introduced on the market.  Utilities, energy efficiency programs, and other interested parties who deal in lighting and energy efficiency are asking for market guidance and criteria, and it provides useful targets to manufacturers. 

The overall approach that DOE has employed in developing criteria for integral LED lamps involves several aspects.  First of all that products that are claiming parity with incandescents should perform similarly to the lamps they claim to replace. This is in terms of light output, distribution, color characteristics, both the color appearance and color rendering ability; and in the form factors, they should be able to fit into the same places where we currently use incandescent and halogen lamps.  We're going into existing sockets, into existing fixtures, so they should fit in those places.  At the same time, we don't want to inhibit innovation. There may be other form factors and other designs provide very good solutions for LEDs, perhaps allowing them to maximize their technology potential in terms of light output, thermal management, electrical management, and we want to allow for these nonstandard lamp forms that may indeed provide superior lighting quality while at the same time balancing that with the need to fit into existing fixtures and meet user expectations.  Then finally, this being the ENERGY STAR program and the Department of Energy, of course we want these lamps to provide significant energy savings relative to the lamps that they are intended to replace. 

As I said, DOE did invite stakeholder review-and-comment on the first draft of these criteria and we were really pleased and appreciative of the level of detailed review that both industry and energy efficiency organizations provided back to us, very useful comments, and I would say at a very highest level, there is—seems to be broad support for addressing integral LED lamps at this time.  Now one said, "You shouldn't be doing this at this time." 

As I mentioned, DOE did invite feedback and we called out several issues in particular.  I would characterize these as potential challenges and areas that need to be addressed for the successful introduction of integral LED lamps into the market, things that we want to look ahead to and recognize these could be problems, these could be impediments to the market, and we want to figure out how to address them. These are dimming and dimming compatibility issues, nonstandard lamp forms, as I alluded to before, low voltage MR16s, and reliability testing. 

What I'd like to do now is walk you through each of these issues, and this is the format I'm going to use. First, for each of these issues, I'll go through very briefly what did the first draft of the integral LED lamp criteria say.  What did we have in that first draft, and what specific questions did we tee-up for stakeholder feedback?  Then we'll move on to the next slide, which will be the feedback that we received. This is the condensed version of what we got back on that question, and the finally we'll talk about what does Draft 2 say, or what is DOE doing to respond to the feedback that was received?  And new and revised text and language for the criteria is identified in blue. 

First, let's talk about dimming.  So what did we say about dimming in Draft 1?   We said that the intent was to have all qualified lamps be dimmable with specific requirements to be determined, and we invited stakeholder feedback on the feasibility of a common dimming protocol, and this is all in recognition that there are compatibility issues for LED integral lamps when you used on existing dimming circuits and dimmer switches that were designed for use with incandescent lamps.  This primarily a problem in the residential sector. There are many currently installed dimmers that were designed for incandescent and just as we have seen compatibility problems with electronically ballasted CFLs, there are many of the same issues with integral LED lamps. It is not possible to ensure that an LED product will be able to dim with every dimmer that's out there and so the—we ask for feedback on the feasibility of movement toward a common dimming protocol, the need for transition to LED compatible dimmers, and basically what can DOE and ENERGY STAR do to help with this issue?  Now the feedback that we received, I think very much verified that yes this is an issue. There is no one quick simple solution to this problem, but the basic message that we got back was it's probably too soon to require that all lamps be dimmable.  We need to allow for both dimmable and non-dimmable lamps and dimming is not required for all lamps.  Yes, there's verification that industry needs to develop dimming standards and very much a feeling that DOE should work with the industry standards organizations to support development of standards and protocols that will address these dimming compatibility issues, and this needs to be on both sides. It needs to be the LED and the lamp manufacturers, if you will, and the controls manufacturers, the companies that make the dimmers, there very much needs to be dialogue there.  Further, DOE should consider a role for step dimming and looking at interactions with utility demand response programs.

DOE has taken this feedback very much to heart and has begun discussions with some of the relevant industry standard committees, primarily NEMA and ANSI committees and has in fact engaged in industry expert who will be coordinating dimming standards development working with those committees and really trying to spur that development to help it happen sooner than it otherwise would.  In the meantime, what are we proposing as language in this second draft of the criteria is to say, "Lamps may dimmable or non-dimmable, and they will be required to be clearly labeled to state whether they are dimmable or non-dimmable.  Three-way and other step dimming certainly allowed and encouraged.  All …  We're also proposing that all lamps must be dimmer safe, meaning that there wouldn't be catastrophic failure when operated on a dimming circuit.  It may not dim, but we don't want it to destroy the lamps so that it can be used elsewhere, and we're seeking feedback from the industry on how to ensure that dimmer safeness.  Further, ENERGY STAR partners with dimmable products would be required to have a Web page that provides dimmer compatibility information, and we've seen this with some of the manufacturers of LED products already. They publish information on compatible dimmers that they have tested with their product and that information needs to kept up to date.  We're also asking that they would carry a cautionary label, something like the example given here: This product may not be compatible with all dimmers, just to give people fair warning. Please see the Web site for up-to-date dimmer compatibility information. 

Now let's move on to nonstandard lamp forms.  Again, these are … This would be defined as products that do not fit the form factor descriptions of ANSI standard lamp types, so we in the first draft of the criteria, we set the efficacy level for this category at 55 lumens per watt, established a minimum lumen level of 400, and indicated that the manufacturer would have to provide an LM-79 goniophotometer report that shows the luminance intensity distribution, and then also indicate intended applications.  We invited stakeholder feedback on several questions.  One:  Is there a need to specify an intensity distribution and minimum lumens for this category?  We asked for comments on the limits, on product claims and equivalency, which are intended to avoid misleading consumers.  We know that even saying equivalent to a 60-watt light bulb conjures an image in one's mind of that A-19 lamp. You kind of expect it to look and perform like that, so how do we allow for description of these nonstandard products without leading to preconceptions that can't be met.  How do we avoid performance loopholes?  Basically we want to avoid this nonstandard lamp category being used as kind of a catchall for products that don't meet the performance requirements of these standard lamp categories. 

The feedback we received here, it largely circled around using labeling to address expectations.  There were many suggestions that certainly the appropriate application should be indicated, perhaps even through some form of a checklist of the most common, particularly in the retail/consumer market, something that makes it easy for someone to look at a checklist and say, "Okay, this is what's appropriate for."  And that there should be an indication of the beam distribution, and then they agreed, I'm jumping down to the last bullet here, they agreed that statements of equivalency to existing lamps should not be allowed, simply the information should be stated and an indication of the appropriate application.  There was some question about the need to set minimum lumens for this category given that we don't know how exactly it will be used.

So what we have done with Draft 2 for nonstandard lamps? Well we have stuck with the same luminance efficacy and minimum lumens levels.  Although, I just mentioned some of the feedback being that should we really be setting minimum lumens here if we don't know how it's going to be used?  We want to ensure at least a minimum light output again at a high efficacy level to ensure that this category doesn't become a catch-all for lamps that can't meet other performance requirements.  So we're staying with the 55 lumens per watt and 400 lumens, provided a little bit more detail on the requirements for the goniophotometer report, specifically looking for the LM-63 format and what's commonly called "ies" file to show the beam characteristics and the intensity distribution.  Further, we are suggesting that partners would be required to show a beam distribution in some simple graphical form on the packaging to provide just a quick snapshot of where the light goes, and down at the bottom here we've got example graphics. The intent is to provide some common very—again, very simple graphics.  This wouldn't all of the angles labeled and everything, but it's a simple visual message about where is the light going with this lamp, and of course then there would be labeling to indicate intended applications. 

Now low-voltage MR16s.  In the first draft, this category of MR16s was not specifically called out.  It was addressed in the general requirements for the MR16 and PAR lamp category.   But the questions on low-voltage MR16s in particular are these that we called out:  First, how to address compatibility issues with LED MR16 lamps when used on existing low-voltage transformer? So that the issue here is similar to that with dimmer compatibility.  So if you have a low voltage say a track fixture, I know you can buy these at do-it-yourself stores, that can be installed in a residence and of course they're used in commercial applications as well, those fixtures have a transformer to convert line voltage down to low voltage to run the lamps. Sometimes those are magnetic transformers; sometimes they are electronic. Compatibility issues can happen with both. It's more common with electronic transformers when you put an LED MR16 lamp into that existing fixture. There can be the compatibility issue. It may not talk right to the transformer.  There can also be minimal load issues and LED MR16 is considerably less wattage than an halogen MR16. It may not meet the minimum load for the transformer to work properly.  And how can we address both of these issues in ENERGY STAR?

Now the feedback that we received on this issue of low-voltage MR16s, again, there are no—there is no quick easy answer to this problem. The suggestions back from stakeholders is: Clear labeling and instructions for use with existing fixtures is needed.  We need to provide people information to make a reasoned decision and suggestion we need to have truth in advertising here.  There was also the suggestion that there will be a transition to new electronic low-voltage transformers with lower load requirements.  As LED lamps become more common, fixtures will be designed for them with lower load requirements that would be more appropriate for the LED products.  There was a suggestion to require testing with low voltage transformers, that the MR16 lamps would have to be tested and in multiple lamp combinations. There may be varying issues when the lamps are issued in varying—various combinations.  In spite of the challenges in this particular category, no stakeholder suggested excluding this lamp category at this time, and we know just from looking at new product offerings, hearing about where people are interested in using LED products that there is tremendous interest in LED replacements for low-voltage MR16s. 

So what has DOE done in Draft 2 in this particular area?  Well we are stating that manufacturers must provide the results of in-house testing of their LED MR16 lamps on commercially available low-voltage transformers.  We want to know that they are testing them on transformers and the results of those testing.  The labeling must identify know incompatibilities; and again, similar to the approach with the dimmer compatibility issues, they must have a Web page containing compatibility information along with a cautionary label that says, "This product may not be compatible with all transformers used in low-voltage fixtures.  Please see the Web site for up-to-update compatibility information.  Then performance requirements, we will discuss later when I get to the specific lamp types. 

Let's talk about reliability.  As Bob I think described very well in his presentation, reliability and overall life expectations and performance of this category of products is somewhat of an unknown at this point.  There is no long-term experience with these products.  So in Draft 1, what we had published was an expectation that we would require at least 6,000 hours of testing of at least 10 lamp samples under elevated temperature conditions.  We would look at average lumen maintenance across the 10 samples, and there would be some qualification threshold in that 91.8% is the figure that we have used, have referenced with regard to LM-80 testing for SSL luminaire qualification and that there would be some sampling requirements so that no more than say three samples could drop below a certain level.   We invited stakeholder feedback on that initial approach, that initial idea and asked the question: What requirements should be considered to minimize the likelihood of premature of failure of ENERGY STAR qualified integral LED lamps and what duration of testing is needed to verify long-term performance.  One of the big challenges with LEDs is that they can have very life times and within the integral LED lamp program, we're setting a minimum useful life or projected life of 25,000 hours to the 70% lumen maintenance level. Now 25,000 hours sort of precludes life testing.  It would take almost three years do life testing on these products.  We know that that is impractical and we need other ways to evaluate the life and reliability of these products.  We did get significant feedback from stakeholders on this topic. There is certainly concurrence that industry standard test procedures are needed. There is … There were suggestions that the electronics industry has long been doing accelerated life testing on various components and that we should consider the methods that are used in that industry, and of course we need to take into account: How does that apply to lighting products, and how do we mesh the two, the concerns for the electronics and the lighting performance? 

So just several of the suggestions that were thrown out by stakeholders in their comments.  One was to do some form of a kind of a burn-in test, and that is really to identify and weed out weak electronic components and avoid what would be early failures of the product. So this is a burn-in test that would be applied before products are put out for sale.  Several stakeholders suggested some form of HALT testing. This is highly accelerated life testing with acceleration factors for each component in the lamp.  HALT testing is not a specific test procedure, it's an umbrella term for accelerated life testing procedure so the specific procedures need to be identified or developed.  There was a suggestion that we look at immediate effects of elevated temperatures, say at 45C ambient temperature, how does that effect the light output of these lamps, and a suggestion for a longer-term testing at more normal ambient room temperature.

So what is DOE in doing response to this feedback.  Well as I said, lamp life, which is kind of the question we're trying to answer here, is—addresses both lumen maintenance.  We need to know how long is the lamp going to produce a useful amount of light, the expected amount of light, say above 70% lumen maintenance. That we do have a test procedure for the LED devices or modules used in the lamp and that is the LM-80 test procedure published by the IES last year; and so for lumen maintenance at a minimum, we will need the LM-80 test results for the LED devices or modules used in the lamp. That in combination with a temperature verification, and I use the acronym TMP, that means temperature measurement point on the LED device or module. This is a manufacturer designated point where a temperature, the temperature can be verified and that has a known thermal resistance to the LED junction temperature and so if the temperature at that temperature measurement point is known, we can use that to correlate back to the LM-80 data to see what the lumen maintenance, at least over a 6,000-hour period is for that temperature and assuming the same or lower drive current.  So we will ask for that information. We know that LM-80 data for the LED devices is not enough to ensure reliability of the integral lamp.  Think about these integral lamps have various electronic components, the power supply driver.  There could be other circuitry in the lamp for to provide feedback controls that regulates the color temperature, the light output of the lamp. These are all packaged into a relatively small lamp format and the testing of that overall lamp system needs to be done to test its overall reliability.  So currently the reliability test that DOE is considering are this burn-in test that I mentioned on the previous slide, and NEMA has proposed to just help define a procedure that would be an industry consensus procedure for how to do the burn-in test.  Something like four hours at 60-degree C, a short-term test.  Again, this is to prevent the near-term failures before they would go out into the marketplace.  That's one part of this.  We also know that we need longer-term testing, and so the question is:  What test procedures may be used to evaluate the longer-term performance of these lamps under conditions that may provide challenges to the LEDs and to the system as a whole?  Now we know LEDs are sensitive to high temperatures. There also sensitive to high humidity. There are a number of tests that are promulgated by the Electronic Industries Alliance, EIA, and JEDEC, which formally stood for the Joint Electronic Devices Engineer Council, now I think they just go by the name JEDEC. These are test procedures that are commonly used in the electronics industry to test reliability and to stress electronic components, and there's something called the Wet High Temperature Operating Life Test that provides for temperature, humidity, power cycling, and total time of the test, those parameters could be adapted for the use of testing these LED integral lamps.  At the same time, we are looking at the elevated temperature testing combined with some form of rapid cycling stress testing as used in the ENERGY STAR compact fluorescent lamp program and are looking at the application of those test procedures to LED integral lamps, and certainly we seek feedback from stakeholders on this reliability testing. 

Now I'd like to move on to some of the other criteria in this second draft, and again changes or additions to the criteria are called out in blue font. With regard to correlated color temperature, in the first draft we restricted it to the three standard color temperatures towards the warmer end of the spectrum, 2700 K, 3000, and 3500 K.  The feedback from—primarily from the industry was:  Well we should all of the ANSI correlated color temperatures, and that goes up to 6500 K.  The … Our response is: We're going to …  We're proposing in the second draft to allow 4000 K, but not going above that.  Again, the intent of this criteria is for lamps that will replace incandescent and halogen and not the higher color temperature light sources.  We're also adding explicitly into the criteria, the Duv tolerances, and I'm so glad Bob walked through the definition of Duv in his talk. But basically this again gets at how white is the white light?  Where does it fall with regard to that—the blackbody radius on the chromaticity diagram and the ANSI chromaticity standard for solid-state lighting products does specify Duv tolerances for each of the nominal color temperatures, so this is—this was referenced before in Draft 1, but it's going to be explicitly called out in Draft 2.  In terms of color rendering index, we are staying with a minimum of 80 and that is consistent with the ENERGY STAR for compact fluorescent lamps.  We're also staying with the restriction  on product equivalency claims.  What it says here is if referencing a standard ANSI lamp type that cannot claim higher wattage equivalency than the level approved ENERGY STAR.  So for example, if you have an LED omnidirectional lamp that can replace up to a 40-watt lamp, that's what it will be evaluated against in terms of minimal light output and other performance characteristics and that's what it would earn the ENERGY STAR for, so then the manufacturer cannot in turn advertise it as a replacement for a 60-watt lamp. That's what that means. 

Let's talk about the requirements for the individual lamp categories.  First, the omnidirectional category, and again this is the traditional A-type lamps, globe lamps, pear shape lamps, et cetera.  In the first draft, the efficacy requirement was 55 lumens per watt for all lamps in this category.  In Draft 2, and this is in response to the stakeholder feedback, we are providing a little bit of differentiation here for the lower wattage lamps compared to the higher wattage lamps. So for less than 10 watts of LED lamp power, the requirement is 50 lumens per watt. For greater than or equal to 10 watts, it's 55 lumens per watt, and this is consistent with the requirements in the ENERGY STAR for compact fluorescent lamps, for bare lamps. 

In terms of the minimum lumens, we have not made changes to the requirements for the omnidirectional lamps. There is a table published, and it's the same table, as you can in the ENERGY STAR for compact fluorescent lamps.  Depending on wattage of the incandescent lamp you're intending to replace, there's minimum lumen level associated with that that would have to be met with the LED lamp.  The intensity distribution, we did make a change here.  So in Draft 1 it said, "In the zero-to-150-degree zone, the intensity shall not differ more than 10% from the mean intensity in that zone ; and what we mean by that zone is if the lamp were positioned with its base up and the lamp is pointing down, straight down is zero degrees. If you go up to the horizontal, that's 90 degrees, so then 150 is above that.  The feedback that we got from the comments is that the 10% difference is—was a little bit restrictive and so we have varied that to be now it's within the 0-to-135 zone, so it would still be 45 degrees above horizontal if the lamp is facing down.  It shall not differ more than 20% from the mean intensity in that fold, 0-to-135 zone.  20%, it may seem like a little more variability, but it's still going to be a relatively uniformed distribution throughout the zone without being overly restrictive.  Basically, we're trying to avoid the big spikes and not be more restrictive than that.

In the decorative lamp category, this is the candelabra type lamps or flame type lamps often used in decorative fixtures.  In Draft 1, we had this category at 44 lumens per watt. The feedback was that that was very high for this category, particularly where in the very low wattage and lumen package levels that were likely with lamps in this category and there would be good opportunities for energy savings for LED lamps used in this category earlier on with 40 lumens per watt.  We have lowered it to 40 lumens per watt and that again is still consistent with the requirements in the ENERGY STAR for compact fluorescent lamps for covered lamps of less than 7 watts, so 40 lumens per watt is the proposal here.  In terms of the minimum light output, in Draft 1, we had it set as a formula that would be the target wattage of the lamp you're intending to replace times 10 would set the minimum lumens for the LED lamp. There was feedback that that was perhaps too high a multiplier and some of our own CALiPER testing, benchmark testing concurred with that, so we have lowered the multiplier there to seven. So for example, if you have an LED decorative lamp and you're trying to replace a 20-watt incandescent, you would multiply that 20 watt times 7 is 140 lumens is what the LED replacement lamp would need to make at a minimum. There is no intensity, no specific intensity distribution requirement for this category. 

Now let's talk about direction lamps.  This is where beam distribution becomes very important. These are what we would characterize as more specification grade lamps, lamps where the beam characteristics are very important.  Includes all of the reflector-type lamps.  For the PAR and MR lamps, we have specified certain lamp diameters.  For the PARs, it's 16, 20, 30, and 38 are included at this time.  For MR lamps, only the MR16 is addressed at this time.  In the first draft of the ENERGY STAR criteria, we had set this at 45 lumens per watt for all lamps in this category.  We've differentiated that a little bit in Draft 2 by lamp diameter. There was some convincing feedback from stakeholders that at the lower—the smaller diameter lamps, this would be a more difficult target to achieve due to the limitations of the smaller reflectors, so we've proposed 40 lumens per watt for less than or equal to 20/8s of an inch diameter. That means the—so PAR 20s and below would be 40 lumens per watt, 45 lumens per watt for greater than 20/8s of an inch diameter.  For the PAR and MR16 lamps, center beam intensity, there are center beam intensity minimum performance levels and this was based on statistical analysis of incandescent and halogen lamps. 

Just to review the thinking there, there is a relationship between beam angle on these directional lamps and center beam candle power and this graph has to do with halogen 20 watt MR16 lamps and some of the LED MR16s that we've tested in the CALiPER program.  Along the horizontal axis, you have beam angle and on the vertical, you have center beam candle power and it makes intuitive sense that as the beam angle, and recall beam angle is where the intensity drops off to 50% of its max.  As that beam angle shrinks down, you go from a flood lamp down to more of spot lamp. You see on the curves there, the center beam candle power or center beam intensity going up. Now what do these dots on the graph mean?  The halogen 20-watt ratings are the navy blue diamonds, so you see it really—it follows that trend very closely. The yellow triangles were the halogen 20-watts that we measured also consistent, although we had less than mid range beam angles there.  The solid-state lighting products that we had measured are the pink squares, and so you see there that as the beam angle goes down, they are not keeping up with the expected center beam candle power that you would get from halogen lamps, it's quite low.  But this is the relationship that we are talking about. 

And so the graph you see on this slide shows you the relationship between the predicted and actual center beam candle power for a sampling of 122 halogen MR16 lamps.  It's a very tight relationship between what would be predicted by that beam angle and center beam candle power model with the actual of those lamps, so we used this tight statistical relationship to develop a simple model that has as the input the target beam angle that you're trying to achieve, the target lamp wattage of the lamp that you seek to replace with an LED lamp.  In the case of PARs, the lamp diameter as well.  Then the model would predict the center beam candle power for that particular lamp type, and then the minimum required for ENERGY STAR is that the center beam candle power would be no less than two standard deviations below that predicted value of the model and that's to set a floor for performance that the LEDs would have to be at least within what would be predicted for halogen performance, again to meet expectations of users for these lamp types where the center beam intensity is very important.

Now some of the feedback that we received from industry indicated that:  Well couldn't allow for somebody to have an LED lamp that would provide just a—kind of like a laser like beam at the center that would technically meet that center beam intensity, but it could drop of very dramatically, almost immediately to say just above 50%, so we'd still need the beam angle requirements, but it would be very uneven and spiky beam.  Don't we want to avoid that?  Well that's a valid point, so we are looking at ways to address this and to provide for a relatively uniform gradient across that beam angle to avoid that spike or hotspot and then a steep drop-off.  We're seeking additional feedback on that.  We have presented in the second draft a means to address that, but again we don't want to be too prescriptive. There may be cases where a very high level of uniformity across the beam angle is desired for certain applications. There may be other cases where a more even degradation from center beam intensity out to 50% is desired and so we want to balance this concern about this the laser like hotspot with other design considerations and not be too restrictive.  We are also proposing a field angle requirement.  Field angle is where the intensity goes to 10% of maximum and so we've suggested that at 1.3 times the beam angle plus 3 degrees, that's where the intensity should be at least 10% of the max candela, and again we invite comment-and-feedback on that approach. 

So I've tried to recap for you some of the key changes between the first and the second draft of this ENERGY STAR criteria for integral LED lamps. There are other changes in the document. I would encourage you to read the document, read the cover letter that goes along with the criteria document that gives much of the rational and the background for the changes made.  Again, the Draft 2 comments will be due June 26 and there is an expectation that we would issue final criteria approximately in August. That does depend on the nature of the comments back and the additional analysis and work that is needed, particularly to address the issues around reliability testing and compatibility. 

For more information, you can always go to the energystar.gov website and get other updates at ssl.energy.gov, and I will leave you with these URLs.

And that concludes my presentation.

Terry Shoemaker: Thank you very much for an informative webcast, Rich, Bob, and Kelly, and thanks to all of you.  The U.S. Department of Energy appreciates your attendance.