DOE Addresses EPA’s SSL Guidelines and Confusion; Organizations and Critics Respond Against EPA’s SSL Standards
Source/Type: Compound Semiconductors Online - Reported News

Author: Scott McMahan

June 17, 2008... The DOE has addresses SSL Guideline Confusion related to the EPA’s recently released SSL module standards, and several organizations and critics have come out against the guidelines. The Department of Energy’s SSL Program and SSLITA and OIDA have responded to the latest solid state lighting guidelines published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. While the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has worked with industry insiders and researchers for over four years to arrive at its recommended standards for LED Luminaires and Fixtures, one part to the DOE’s recommendations was not formally published, the standards for LED modules which combine into luminaires and fixtures.

For this reason apparently, the EPA published a new set of guidelines specifically for LED modules. Unfortunately, the specifications outlined in the EPA guidelines remain unclear, and seem to have left many technical questions unanswered. Critics of the EPA’s new SSL guidelines have charged that they are inaccurate, difficult to implement, and most likely harmful to the long-term adoption of LED luminaires around the country.

Tom Griffiths, publisher of LIGHTimes and a critic of the EPA’s SSL guidelines, stated in his recent column that the EPA guidelines in fact make the same mistakes that were made with the early guidelines of CFL technology. Tom argues that the early guidlines of CFL technology allowed dim and harsh lighted CFLs to be sold to the public with government approval, and this led to the slowed adoption of CFL technology. He contends that the EPA's guidelines allow the same mistake with solid state lighting technology. (Ref: Column).

David Rodgers, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy at the Department of Energy issued the following statement Friday regarding the release of the EPA’s LED module guidelines, "DOE is aware of the confusion created by EPA's release of the amended criteria. Efforts to resolve this confusion are on-going - in the meantime, the September 2007 guidance stands as the valid guidance for SSL." DOE News Release.

The Solid State Lighting Industry Trade Association, and the Optoelectronics Industry Development Association have also issued official statements regarding the guideline confusion. The Solid State Lighting Industry Trade Association (SSLITA) and the Optoelectronics Industry Development Association (OIDA) both of Washington D.C., announced their support for, “... a single minimum quality and performance requirement for Energy Star-approved solid state lighting (SSL).” SSLITA and OIDA acknowledged, “LEDs have the potential to be dramatically more effective at lighting spaces than current incandescent bulbs (standard bulbs) and even fluorescent and halogen bulbs.” However they explained that LED luminaires could also be made with unpleasant light qualities or could be made inefficient despite the high efficiency inherent in LED chips themselves. For this reason, the organizations, officially stated, “SSLITA and OIDA believe it is critical that high quality SSL products make it to market for U.S. consumers.”

SSLITA and OIDA said in a recent news release that “Numerous requirements appear to be in direct conflict between these two standards, which creates confusion in the marketplace In addition, the EPA version of these standards appears to have been developed without public comment or interaction with the SSL community.” SSLITA and OIDA also indicated that the EPA guidelines make the same mistakes that the CFL technology guidelines initially made CFLs were initially considered harsh, dim, and otherwise unappealing and thus consumers resisted adopting CFL technology. SSLITA and OIDA argued that, “As the CFL experience has taught us, if certain minimum expectations in the quality, reliability, apparent brightness, and directivity of the light produced are not met, the products will be considered of poor quality which has the potential of slowing adoption by the market of this critical energy-saving technology. With the critical impact SSL can have on both energy consumption and the production of green-house gasses, we consider this confusion a major detriment to the industry and to the nation.”SSLITA says it will support quality labeling, end-market promotion and education, and government initiatives to expand the use of SSL. SSLITA operates as a subsidiary of the OIDA. SSLITA and OIDA News Release.

Other trade associations and organizations have taken note of the new EPA policies and have issued official statements. One such organization, Efficiency Vermont, has come out strongly against the current version of the EPA’s SSL module standards stating, “As new solid-state lighting products come into the market, Efficiency Vermont is looking to use a comprehensive and rigorous specification that will maximize product quality and consumer satisfaction. With these objectives, Efficiency Vermont does not plan to use the currently proposed RLF 4.2 SSL specification developed by the EPA.”

See the Current Industry News Summary
See this article in its orginal context, with the other current news from the same week