Text-Alternative Version: L Prize-PAR 38 Competition: A New Start
Below is the text-alternative version of the "L Prize-PAR 38 Competition: A New Start" webcast, held March 27, 2012.
Theresa Shoemaker: Welcome, ladies and gentleman. I'm Terry Shoemaker with the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. I'd like to welcome you to today's webcast: L Prize-PAR 38 Competition: A New Start. Today's webcast is brought to you by the U.S. Department of Energy Solid-State Lighting Program. We're happy to have as our speakers today Jim Brodrick, of the U.S. Department of Energy and Mark Ledbetter of the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. Marc Ledbetter manages the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Solid-State Lighting Commercialization Program. Jim Brodrick is the Manager of the U.S. Department of Energy Solid-State Lighting Program. After today's presentations, the questions received online will be addressed as the - - by the speakers as time allows. Jim, go ahead and begin.
Jim Brodrick: Okay, thank you, Terry; and welcome, everyone, to the webinar, L Prize-PAR 38 Competition, and thank you for taking some time out of your day to learn a little bit more about this competition. And I'm going to start off here on slide two with a little background, kind of like where it all came from.
The L Prize itself was created by EISA 2007. That's the Energy Independence & Security Act. This authorizes, or actually directs DOE, to do the contest, and it contains some of the performance criteria that you'll hear about later. This is quite a challenge. The L Prize is a technology competition and it's supposed to spur innovation and exceptional performance. We're really looking for top performance, grading very high in the lumen per watt, the CRI, the CCT, certainly an exceptional product. The next thing is it has a lot of energy savings, but also it has a lot of money savings, and part of that you'll see probably later is that it makes a difference maintenance-wise and so that increases the amount of money from actually applying an L Prize product. There are direct impacts, indirect impacts. The winner of course will be getting the use of the L Prize logo, and you'll hear about that, but also this sets a bar and market competition responses will certainly happen if this is up there and in the public's eye. A lot of people will be looking at it and it sort of stirs the pot out there in the market. And the last little item I mention is jobs. The L Prize is set up to create jobs in the United States as much as practical, and this is kind of a big item right at this point in time.
So the first two L Prizes are the 60-Watt incandescent and today the PAR 38. We're looking to make replacements for the incandescent and the halogen and eventually we'll have the 21st Century Lamp. That is not open for submittal and has not actually been formulated sufficiently to have any sort of a contest.
So what comes out the other side? Cash prizes. Each L Prize contest has a cash prize and, by the way, the 5 million for the PAR 38 has been set aside here at DOE. It's an account and will be there available for award here in the future. Also, and interestingly enough, is the federal purchasing. We've been in a lot of meetings with GSA about getting them rolling into the area of purchasing the L Prize products. We have utility program support, and you hear a little more about that too. And of course, we've already had one winner, which was awarded in 2011, and that's Philips and that is the A-19, but let's take a little quick jaunt to the past.
The A19 contest was open in May 2008 and our first submittal was fall 2009. I think this sort of shows the challenge and then eventually August of this past year the award was made, so this is roughly 18/20 months between the announcement of the contest and the award. And during that passing of time, we learned a lot about how to run the contest, how to have the guidance, how to set the performance criteria, and a lot of testing.
So let's switch now to Marc Ledbetter to learn a little more about the PAR 38.
Marc Ledbetter: Thank you, Jim. So I'm going to describe for the listeners the newly launched PAR 38 competition. This is a re-launch of the PAR 38 competition that was originally announced back in May of 2008, at the same time that we announced the 60-watt replacement lamp competition, but, as Jim said, a fair amount of time passed during the processing of the 60-watt replacement lamp competition and we decided during the course of that passage of time to close the PAR 38 competition for retooling and we took advantage of much of what we learned during the course of implementing the 60-watt competition and applied those lessons to the retooled 60-watt - - or excuse me, to the retooled PAR 38 competition, which I'm going to describe for you.
So the PAR 38 competition has some congressionally mandated requirements, but we've added additional requirements to help meet the purpose of the competition. So I'm going to go through a number of the key elements of this program; and I'm sure for most people, or a lot of people, the award is one of the key elements. So what do you get when you win the PAR 38 competition? As Jim mentioned, you get a cash prize. In the case of the PAR 38 competition, Congress specified that the cash prize would be $5 million and, as Jim mentioned, that money has already been identified and set aside at the Department of Energy. In addition to the $5 million cash prize, you get promotional support from the L Prize partners that DOE has lined up to work with this program. You'll see some of those partners in the next slide. And then last, you get purchasing support from the federal government. The Department of Energy works with the General Services Administration and, by extension, other federal agencies to promote the purchase of L Prize lamps. And then it should be mentioned, and this is fairly important, that the winner gets use of the L Prize logo. This is a valuable market mark that the winners are entitled to use at the conclusion of this - - of - - or excuse me, if their products qualify in the contest. So in addition to the winner that receives the cash prize, DOE will recognize up to two additional awardees. However, these two additional awardees are not eligible for the cash prize. They are eligible for all the other award elements. The promotional support from the L Prize partners as well as the government purchasing support and use of the L Prize logo, so all but the cash award is available to the other two winners in this contest.
This is a list of the current L Prize partners in this contest and, as you can see, they're spread geographically across quite a number of regions in the country. There's over 30 of them. These partners are able to help in any number of ways. They run energy efficiency programs, promoting energy efficient lighting, so they might offer support that would range from rebates, other types of financial incentives, marketing assistance, and other promotional activities.
So who is eligible for the L Prize PAR 38 competition? This slide addresses that. We've revised these requirements relative to the last time the competition was announced. So first, eligible entrance in this competition must offer a product who's LEDs, at least 50 percent of whose LEDs must be sourced from the United States. Now when I say, "LEDs," I'm referring to the die or the chip, including the epitaxial processing. Packaging can be offshore, but the die or chip production must be in the United States, at least 50 percent of that die or chip production must be in the United States. In addition to that, the assembly of the lamps must be done in the U.S. And then in addition to that, the third primary requirement is that the entities basically have to be domestic businesses, so you either have to hold a primary place of business in the U.S. or, in the case of an individual, you have to be a lawful citizen or permanent resident of the United States. Now this doesn't mean that the company, the entrant has to have a headquarters in the United States, it means a primary place of business. That's not just a sales office, but it is an office that carries on a substantial activity either in engineering or in manufacturing, so it does not mean that you have to have your headquarters in the U.S.
Addressing the structure of the competition, I'm just going to provide an overview here; I want to be clear that the L Prize competition is a horserace. There's not a due date for your proposals. Basically the first person, the first entrant that submits a product that meets all of the requirements is declared the winner and receives the cash and other awards that are made available. The entries after submitted are thoroughly tested by DOE, its contractors, and partners. And helping DOE with this extensive evaluation is an external panel of experts that we've called a "Technical Review Committee," and they review all the information and then they make a determination as to whether the product meets the requirements of the competition and then provide a recommendation to DOE, so they play an extremely important role in this competition. So once the DOE gets that recommendations from the Technical Review Committee, it then can made the award as recommended by the Technical Review Committee.
Jim Mentioned before that the first competition took about 18 months to complete and one of the lessons that we learned, and it's pretty obvious to us at least, was that it took too long. There were too many steps and the requirements that we had for the 60-watt competition just forced on us too long of a schedule, so we've made a number of modifications to greatly compress that schedule, while at the same time allowing very thorough testing of the lamps. I apologize for the small fonts that are on the row labels, but hopefully you'll be able to see them; and if you can't see them on your screen, you should be able to see them in the PDF handout that's available on the Live Meeting website. So this is our proposed schedule. Of course, issues can be encountered along the way that can delay this, but we're going to do everything we can within our power to hold to this schedule.
So what do you need to submit when you enter this competition? I'm not going to go through the entire list. The entire list is in the competition document, but I'm going to mention a few items here that are - - that deserve some special attention. One is on your entry form; I want to point out that entrants need to clearly mark all data in that - - in your entire entry that might be considered patentable or trade secret, proprietary, or sensitive in any way. You need to mark that so we can protect that information so it's not made available to the public. In addition, you need to provide - - with all of the information we've requested, we want you to provide 1,000 sample lamps. These are the lamps that we use for our lab testing and field testing. In addition, you need to provide lumen maintenance and in situ temperature test results. We use that information for evaluating how you have calculated whether you're going to meet the lumen maintenance requirement of L70 or - - or excuse me, of having an L70 of 2,500 hours or greater when operated in a 45-degree ambient environment. And then we also need in that entry packet a signed agreement from you saying that you are willing to pay for the photometric testing of 32 lamps. In the past, with the past competition, DOE paid for that photometric testing and as part of an effort to reduce the cost of the competition, we are now asking entrants to pay for that initial photometric testing. The other testing in this competition will be paid by DOE, but that initial photometric testing must be paid by the entrant.
On to the next slide now, I want to go into just a little bit of detail on the commercial manufacturing plan, so included in that package that you're going to send us is what we're calling a "Commercial Manufacturing Plan." Very importantly this is not just a beauty contest. DOE wants to see these products that are entered into this contest be going into the market. We want to see them sold, so we want to see a commercial manufacturing plan that reflects the entrant's plans to take these products to market. You need to have plans for mass producing and distributing at least 250,000 units in the first year after award and we want a description of how that manufacturing will continue to comply with the technical requirement. So you're going to be sending us a thousand lamps that we're going to be evaluating and then those lamps presumably are not coming off of a mass production line, we want to understand how - - when you go to mass production how you're going to comply with those technical requirements. We are also looking for a description of how the product will be brought to market, descriptions of your pricing strategies, your distribution channels that you'll be using, and we want to see some evidence of your capability to direct that distribution capability. So in other words, we want to see some pretty strong evidence that the distribution channels that you're listing as being available are in fact available for this lamp. We want a description of your - - how you meet your - - the domestic content requirements. We'd like to know about your management team. And last, we'd like to know about your change control plan. It's clear, I think, that the lamp design will not be frozen in time. All kinds of changes occur. Suppliers occur. Small upgrades need to happen with the lamp, and those are allowable, but your description of those changes need to be submitted to DOE and approved if you want to continue to use the L Prize logo on those lamps.
So now I'm going to go into a description of the technical requirements for the lamp. The technical requirements are intended to make the L Prize PAR 38 lamp perform roughly as well as a 120-volt 70-watt halogen infrared or 90-watt halogen PAR 38 lamp, and these specifications are intended to make these products excellent replacements for these lamps. We don't want lamps that are an okay replacement, we want excellent replacements. This is a demanding market. PAR 38 lamps are typically high performance lamps. We want this product to be a high performing lamp in many, many ways, not just efficacy, as you'll learn in the - - when I describe some of the technical requirements. We want these lamps to be especially attractive to buyers and so we have specified a narrow beam and that partly comes from analyzing the market to see what's available in the market and also comes from many discussions that we've had with users and buyers of these lamps and we've learned in those discussions that there's a very high premium placed on having some narrow spotlight beam characteristics.
I'm not… I don't have time to address all the technical requirements in the competition. I'll highlight some for you. So you see some of the key requirements on this page and, in particular, I would like to point out the correlated color temperatures requirement. They may seem a little bit odd to you because we have asymmetric distributions defined about the color targets specified here. Just a brief explanation for why it occurs that way. Congress stated that these lamps had to have a color temperature in the 2750 to 3000 K range and those numbers are slightly off from the ANSI standard color targets for LED products and so the way we've addressed this is we've taken the congressional numbers and then we've built asymmetric distributions about them such that the center point of those asymmetric distributions are in fact the ANSI color targets.
Looking at another page of requirements, you can see that the base type needs to be a medium screw base. As we've mentioned before, lumen maintenance needs to be at least 25,000 hours. You need to have an L70 value of at least 25,000 hours. We have a rather tight requirement for color maintenance, so this product needs to be color stable over at least the 6,000 hours that we're going to be subjecting these lamps to for testing. Of course, there's not a method for projecting color maintenance out in the future, so we're not going to attempt that, but we will be looking at how stable the color has been over the 6,000 hours of testing that we'll be subjecting the lamps to. I have indicated on this slide the R9 requirement. This is a new requirement that we added after the first version of this competition, so, in addition to having a CRI requirement of 90, we're saying that you need to have an R9 value of at least 50.
Several items that I want to point out on this slide. Number one is we're not requiring that the products be dimmable. If an entrant submits a product that they intend to market as dimmable, they need to inform us of that. We will test its dimming performance. We'll be using various qualitative measures, both in the laboratory and in the field to assess its dimmability. If during that testing we decide that the dimming performance is not acceptable, then the entrant must either revise the lamp design to make that product have acceptable dimming performance or change its designation to being a non-dimmable product. If the… And then when that product goes to market, in order to use the L Prize logo, it will not be allowed to be marketed as a dimmable product. So, as I think a lot of folks know, there's a lot of issues with dimming. In the standards' world, there's not a standardized means for characterizing or testing the dimmability of the product and further there's a lot of reporting of incompatibility between LED dimmable lamps and the installed stock of dimmers and so we are sidestepping these problems by not requiring dimmability for this product. In addition, I want to point that the distribution, the intensity distribution requirements are fairly tight. As I mentioned before, we're requiring a relatively tight beam angle between nine and 12 degrees. And then in order to prevent a lamp that basically has a very sharp edge on it, we are also requiring that no more than 60 percent of the total lumens be within the beam angle and further that the field angle be at least twice as big as the beam angle. So the combination of these requirements is a product that mimics a narrow beam, roughly a 10-degree halogen lamp with a rather smooth edge. We have found from our discussions with designers that that is a highly desired attribute of PAR 38 type lamps. And then the center beam intensity, as you can see, needs to be quite high, 18,000 candela. Again, that is benchmarked off of the halogen lamps that we've mentioned earlier.
We'll be subjecting the thousand lamps that you give to us for both field testing and lab testing, and I have a brief description of that testing here, so we'll be performing some photometric and electrical testing. And as I mentioned earlier, that will be paid by the entrant, and we'll also be subjecting at least - - I shouldn't say "at least," we'll be subjecting 32 of the lamps to long-term lumen and chromaticity maintenance testing. This is an automated apparatus and we verify the LM-80 data and the TM-21 calculations that we're asking you provide in the entry package, so we'll be verifying that with our own testing. We'll also be performing some stress testing. The stress testing will involve mechanical stress, such as vibration, elevated temperatures, very low temperatures, humidity, and electrical perturbations. So we'll be running the lamps through a number of stresses, some of fairly extreme to try to identify whether there's any potential problem for premature failure of these lamps. The field testing will be conducted by our partners and the intent of that is to identify problems not found in our lab testing, and we learned in the 60-watt competition that that was a very valuable round of tests. We may perform other testing as needed, just depending upon what we learn in the documentation that we're provided and what we learn in the field, we may subject the lamps to some additional testing.
Now with regard to some of the procedural requirements. Entrants need to submit what we are calling an "Intent to Submit" notice to DOE at least 30 days prior to providing your full submittal. That is basically our heads up that a lot of work is coming our way. And on the other hand, we're asking that the full entry arrive no later than 45 days after we've gotten that Intent to Submit. So we're giving you a two-week window after you've given us an intent to submit and that's so we don't get trapped in a situation where we have an intent to submit, we spin up, we make certain we have lots of time on the calendars for people that need to work on this and then nothing arrives and we've wasted a lot of time, so you have to get us an announcement - - or excuse me, you have to get us your full submittal within 30 days of first letting us know that you have an entry coming our way and then you have a maximum of 45 days to get us the full entry.
I'm going to go through a little bit of the timestamp rules. There are a little bit complicated and they're important, but I think entrants need to understand how we're going to be handling these. So we need - - to get things rolling, we need a full entry, and that consists of both the thousand lamps plus all the required documentation that is spelled out in the competition document. You will get a timestamp for the samples when they arrive on the loading dock and you'll get a timestamp for the email message containing all of the electronic material, and your official timestamp will be the latter of those two pieces of your entry that you'll be submitting to us. So what happens if we get an incomplete entry? Well we must notify you within 10 days of receipt of your full entry. We must notify you within 10 days whether we consider the entry to be full, and then you have up to 45 days to complete that - - to complete the entry that you've provided. So you provide the additional information within that 45 days. If you miss that 45 day window, then you will lose your original timestamp and, importantly, this process is only allowed once, and the reason we're only allowing this process to run the course once is because we don't want somebody rushing off and getting an entry out the door that has not been fully thought through, has not been carefully handled, and then basically make DOE part of the process of refining and figuring out exactly what information you need to submit, so you can be declared to have an incomplete entry once and we'll give you a process for having your timestamp adjusted. But if that happens more than once, you basically have to start all over. You're going to end up having to completely resubmit a new entry under the rules as if you were applying the - - or submitting the entry for the very first time.
So here's a graphic that may help you see how this will work. So you… Let's say you send in an entry that arrives at DOE on June 1st. We have 10 business days to notify you if the entry is incomplete, which means that we'll be notifying you on June 15th if your entry is incomplete. You have 45 days maximum to provide us the complete entry. So if you make it in that 45 days, you're in good shape. But let's say that you actually deliver it to us on July 16th, so what happens to your timestamp? You end up having your timestamp revised as a result of providing an incomplete entry, so your new timestamp is figured as follows: You sent us the original entry on June 1st. We do not include in the adjustment the 10 days that DOE consumed reviewing your entry to make certain that it is complete; however, we do add to your original timestamp the time that is on your side of the calendar that is spent in assembling the missing information that we need. So we add, in this example, 30 days to the original date we received the entry, so your revised timestamp is July 1st.
Now what happens if when you submit an entry that we discover there's a performance problem, so we declare your entry complete, but during the course of testing we discover that there's a performance problem. So we will notify you when that happens and you have up to 60 calendar days to submit a revised entry. And once again, after you have been notified, the time that you take to revise your entry will be counted against your timestamp, and we will be adding that time to your original timestamp. So just as in the previous example that I ran through, we'll allow you to do this only once.
So let's look at an example of how this might look if we have multiple entries. So if we have two companies that have entered into the competition at roughly the same time. In this example, we have Entry A that arrived June 1st and we have Entry B that arrived June 15th, so country - - or excuse me, Company A is in the lead here. If their lamp checks out, they would be eligible for the $5 million cash prize and the other awards. We have up to 10 days DOE can use to notify the entrant that their product or their entry is incomplete. We notify them on June 15th, and let's say they get their complete entry back to us within the 45-day window, so they consume that entire period, so their new or their - - excuse me, we recalculate their new timestamp and it ends up being January 1st plus the 45 days on their side of the calendar, so their new timestamp becomes July 15th. In this example, we have a second company, Entry B that has submitted their entry to DOE after the first company, so initially they are behind in the horserace, but because they take less time to revise their entry, their revised timestamp ends up putting them at the head of the horserace. So Company B in this example ends up with a revised timestamp that places them ahead in the race relative to Company A.
I'm going to quickly go through a short list of some of the revisions that were made to the competition after its first announcement back in 2008, so we revised the domestic content requirements. I went through those for you. We eliminated the dimming requirement. The first competition we put out required that the lamps be dimmable. We've eliminated that, and I addressed much of that. We have added allowable technical tolerances to be specific about the ranges that we will allow. These ranges allow for measurement error and manufacturing their variability. We've also revised the intensity distributions, tightening them up. We've added more definition, and required that the beam be nine to 12 degree, the beam angle be nine to 12 degrees. We've added a little bit more in the color quality area with the addition of the R9 requirement, and we have shifted initial photometric testing cost from DOE to the entrants. This is to help reduce the cost to DOE for implementing this competition. We've tried to reduce the cost to potential entrants by reducing the number of lamps. In the last competition, we required that the entrants provide 2,000 lamps. This time we're only requiring a thousand lamps. We need that number given the extent of field testing that goes on, in addition to the lab testing, and we've reduced the sample that we subject to lumen and chromaticity maintenance testing from 200 to 32. And then last we added much more specificity with regard to how we will handle multiple entries, and I just went through that for you.
So that covers my presentation and we're going to make ourselves available for answering some questions now.
Diane Allard: Hi, Marc. We do have a number of questions that have come in since the beginning of this webinar, and feel free to keep this coming. The first one, I believe you addressed, but if you'd like to add anything to this. Is the goal just to make the energy savings or is the quality of output also some of the criteria?
Marc Ledbetter: Is the… I'm sorry, is the goal just energy savings or is it: Do we also look at the quality of the…
Diane Allard: Output.
Marc Ledbetter: Output, in other words the performance of the lamp is then what I'm assuming that refers to.
Diane Allard: That sounds right.
Marc Ledbetter: So that is correct. That is correct. So you have to meet all of those requirements that I went through. There are additional requirements that are in the competition document that you need to be familiar with, so it's not strictly an energy saving oriented competition. We've added a lot of requirements that address other performance values other than the energy performance and all of those requirements need to be met.
Diane Allard: Great. Thank you. Another question that has come in: Is the 6,000 hours of LM-80 data for the LEDs alone or for the fully assembled lamp?
Marc Ledbetter: Okay, it applies to the fully assembled lamp. We have an automated test apparatus set up where we maintain a 45-degree C ambient environment. The lamps are mounted in the apparatus base up. The full lamp, not just the LEDs, but the full lamps are mounted base up in that apparatus and then we subject those lamps to 6,000 hours of continuous operation in that apparatus. We will be regularly and frequently taking photometric measurements. That's the automated side of this testing. We have an apparatus set up where we have a sphere on an XYZ table that moves around and takes all these measurements in an automated way for us. Now just to be clear, though, we're asking that in your initial entry, we want you to also provide LM-80 data for the LED packages that you're using in your lamps and we want to see your calculations that verify how your design can meet the L-70 requirement of 25,000 hours or greater. So we first want to rely on LM-80 data and calculations and then, secondly, we're going to verify that with this testing that will perform in this elevated temperature environment.
Diane Allard: Okay, thank you. Another question is a good one about dimmability. In deciding whether to eliminate dimmability requirements, how does dimmability rank in the market's preferences? And they put consumers - - customers' acceptance for the PAR 38 market.
Marc Ledbetter: We have not performed any kind of ranking of how dimming ranks relative to other performance attributes. Dimming is clearly desired in this market, but, as I described earlier, there are significant problems with dimming, at least with respect to its application in this contest. We do not have a standardized way of measuring dimming performance. There aren't standard dimmers. There's not a standard test procedure. Fortunately, NEMA is working on development of a new dimming standard that will very much help address this shortcoming, but that sort of standard does not exist now, and so we've had to sidestep the problem by leaving it a dimming requirement out of this competition. And as I described earlier, if you decide that dimmability is an important feature for the market success of your PAR 38 lamp, you can design your lamp to be dimmable. You need to inform DOE of that design and then we will apply qualitative measurements in the laboratory and in the field to assess its dimming performance; and if the dimming performance does not meet our requirements, then you will be informed and, as I said earlier, you'll have the option of either re-designating your lamp as non-dimmable and thereby still be able to use the L Prize logo or you can revise the lamp. You can make revisions to the lamp to improve its dimming performance to meet our requirements.
Diane Allard: Okay, thank you. There's a California specific question here that we may have to get back to the people asking this one, but it's regarding testing and it suggests that we place include collection of temperature interactive effects' data, as these are particularly important to impact evaluation in California.
Marc Ledbetter: Okay. I'm guessing that the questioner is concerned about operation of this lamp in high temperature environments, given that - - well California has a wide range of ambient temperatures it could be exposed to, but I'm just guessing that they're more concerned about the lamp operating in a very high and temperature environment. The 45 degree C that we use for our ambient or LI beta temperature testing is the estimated ambient temperature at which these lamps would operate at if they were installed in an airtight recessed can in an insulated ceiling, and the definition of that environment is contained in UL 1598, so this is a highly insulating environment. The lamp has very limited opportunity for heat rejection in that sort of environment, so the 45 degree C that it'll be subjected to will stress the lamp in a significant way. In addition to that, in the stress testing that we'll be performing, we will operate the lamps at even much higher temperatures. There is a possibility that in the field testing, some of our partners may wish to make some ambient temperature measurements. Although as of now, none of the field partners have indicated that they want to do that. We have a number of partners from California, so that is a possibility, but right now we don't have a commitment from the partners to investigate that with temperature measurements.
Diane Allard: Okay, thank you. We've got a couple of questions about price. Is there a price target? Do we have any ideas about where that might go?
Marc Ledbetter: We're remaining silent on that in this competition. We do not have a price target, but what we want to see in that commercial manufacturing plan is a convincing case for why the price that is going to be offered by the entrant why, that price is going to allow them to sell this product in mass quantities. So it's basically up to the entrant to figure out how they want to price the lamp. It's up to them to figure out how much help they will be getting from electric utilities in helping them reduce their retail prices and then they need to develop a business strategy for selling these products in significant numbers. So the short answer is: No, we do not have a target price.
Diane Allard: Okay, thank you. We've gotten a number of questions about ENERGY STAR and also just I know that there's some of the questions that have come up about this have to do with certification body requirements and testing in parallel, so I think maybe you want to comment on some suggestions on that.
Marc Ledbetter: Ah, okay. So this process is separate from and outside of ENERGY STAR. I think, as most folks know, that program is now run by the EPA and this is separate from ENERGY STAR, so the entrance in this competition will need to separately apply for and obtain ENERGY STAR qualification. And in order to have that qualification achieved at roughly the same time as you would be winning an award from DOE, I would think that in most instances when entrants have moved down the path after they've submitted an entry to DOE and if things are looking pretty good and we're in regular communication with you, but if things are looking pretty good, you might before we make a final decision on your award, you might want to go ahead and apply for ENERGY STAR qualification for that lamp so that there isn't a delay between the time you get an award from DOE and you receive your ENERGY STAR qualification. So I hope that gets at the intent of that question.
Diane Allard: Thank you. I think so. Another technical question: Why are there no minimum power factor or max THD requirements?
Marc Ledbetter: There is a minimum power factor requirement. It's 0.7. I'm sorry, I did not have in it my slides. But if you look in the competition document, there is a requirement for having a minimum power factor of 0.7. There is not a separate THD requirement, but, by definition, a power factor requirement does limit THD. I wish I had the number in front of me, but there is a mathematical relationship. So setting a maximum power factor also sets a maximum THD performance value. It doesn't dictate what that THD will be, but it does dictate what the maximum THD will be, so THD is indirectly limited with our power factor requirement.
Diane Allard: One of the questions is: What are the stress tests? Are they listed anywhere in the requirements? Do they follow UL, ANSI, et cetera?
Marc Ledbetter: We do list a number of the types of stresses that the lamps will be subjected to. We have not been highly specific because it will partly depend upon what kind of problems we're discovering in the field testing, but our tentative plan is to subject these lamps to simultaneous stresses of temperature cycling, cycling back and forth between very low temperatures and very high temperatures, while they're subjected to mechanical vibration, while they're subjected to different types of electric power forms. We'll be distorting the electric power in various ways. Oh, and we also will be subjecting the lamps to high humidity. You can get some information about our tentative plans for stress testing if you go to the L Prize website and look at some of the information posted there on the stress test testing that we performed on the 60-watt replacement lamp.
Diane Allard: All right, that's using the failure mode application?
Marc Ledbetter: Yes.
Diane Allard: Yes.
Marc Ledbetter: Yes, but I just want to be clear that at this time, we haven't locked in the exact procedure. That's our tentative plan. But depending upon what we learn about this lamp, we may alter the procedure that we're going to be using.
Diane Allard: Okay, thank you. Are there any restrictions on lamp weight and shape, other than fitting in the ANSI profile?
Marc Ledbetter: That's right. So for lamp shape, it just has to fit within that envelope that's defined by ANSI, and there is not a restriction on lamp weight.
Diane Allard: Okay. And I believe this may be our final question. Do you have any suggestions for smaller companies? That's one of the comments that this seems to be geared for larger companies.
Marc Ledbetter: Well, no, it's not geared for larger companies. I suppose one could look at this and say, "Oh, I have to produce a thousand lamps. That's very expensive." We understand that that makes it difficult for a smaller companies, but we also need to know that we're dealing with small companies that have the resources to be able to quickly move this product into the market. This is not just a technology demonstration. It's not just, as I said earlier, a beauty contest. This is a serious attempt to move a very high performance product into the marketplace, so we need a thousand lamps at the beginning, not only to perform the test, but also to basically demonstrate that the entrant has the financial resources available to participate in this kind of a contest. We have specifically made some of the requirements with small companies in mind. For example, with regard to the initial photometric testing that is required, we have asked all entrants to deliver the lamps to DOE and then we turn around almost immediately and ship those lamps back to test laboratories for the initial photometric and electric testing that will be paid by the entrants. We chose to do it that way rather than having the entrants perform their own photometric testing and electric testing and submitting it to DOE because the large, the majors, have their own in-house testing facilities and that might give them a slight advantage because they wouldn't have to wait in a queue at an independent laboratory. But by requiring that everybody has to get their lamps to us and then we turn around and send them to independent laboratories, that takes away any bias there might be in that element for larger companies, so we have tried to design this wherever possible to make it possible for a wide range of company sizes to participate.
Diane Allard: Okay, terrific. That appears to be the last of our questions, but I'd like to note that there is a possibility for following up with questions that there's an email address on that slide there, firstname.lastname@example.org, but, furthermore, there are - - there's a location on the lightingprize.org website. Once you click onto the PAR 38 section on the right-hand side, there are questions and answers so that everyone can see the questions and answers that have been submitted.
Marc Ledbetter: There a number of questions that have already been submitted prior to this webcast, so you can get additional information there.
Diane Allard: Yes. Okay, I think that's it. Thank you for participating in today's webcast brought to you by the U.S. Department of Energy. You may all disconnect.