Solid-State Lighting 

Research and Development:

Multi Year 

Program Plan

March 2011 (Updated May 2011)

Prepared for:

Lighting Research and Development

Building Technologies Program
Solid-State Lighting 

Research and 

Development 

Prepared for: 

Lighting Research and Development 

Building Technologies Program 

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 

U.S. Department of Energy 

Prepared by: 

Bardsley Consulting, 

Navigant Consulting, Inc., 

Radcliffe Advisors, Inc., 

SB Consulting, 

and 

Solid State Lighting Services, Inc. 

March 2011 

(Updated May 2011)
Date: Updated May 2011 1 

DISCLAIMER

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States 

Government. Neither the United States Government, nor any agency thereof, nor any of their 

employees, nor any of their contractors, subcontractors, or their employees, makes any warranty, 

express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, 

or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its 

use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial 

product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not 

necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United 

States Government or any agency, contractor or subcontractor thereof. The views and opinions of 

authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government 

or any agency thereof.
Date: Updated May 2011 2 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The Department of Energy would like to acknowledge and thank all the participants for their 

valuable input and guidance provided to develop Section 5.0 of the Multi-Year Program Plan 

(MYPP). The DOE would like to thank those individuals who participated in the solid-state 

lighting roundtables of November 2010 in Washington, D.C: 

Jim Anderson Philips Color Kinetics

DOE LED and OLED Roundtable Participants

Dennis Bradley GE Lumination 

Bernd Clauberg Philips Advance 

Wendy Davis National Institute of Standards and Technology 

Nathan Gardner Philips Lumileds 

Michael Hack Universal Display Company 

John Hamer OLEDWorks LLC

Mark Hand Acuity Brands Lighting, Inc. 

Monica Hansen Cree, Inc.

David Hum Bridgelux 

Robert Karlicek Rensselaer Polytechnic University, Smart Lighting ERC

Mike Krames Soraa

Jian Li Arizona State University

Michael Lu Acuity Brands Lighting, Inc. 

Mathew Mathai PLEXtronics

Fred Maxik Lighting Science Group 

Asanga Padmaperuma Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

Paul Pickard Cree, Inc.

Mark Pugh Xicato

Vsevolod Rostovtsev DuPont Central Research and Development 

Joe Shiang GE Global Research Center

Franky So University of Florida

Ching Tang University of Rochester

Arnold Tamayo Colorado School of Mines 

Jeff Tsao Sandia National Laboratory 

Robert Jan Visser Applied Materials

Shelley Wang WAC Lighting

Claude Weisbuch University of California, Santa Barbara 

Bill Weiss Power Integrations 

COMMENTS

The Department of Energy is interested in feedback or comments on the materials presented in 

this document. Please write to James Brodrick, Lighting Program Manager:

James R. Brodrick, Ph.D. 

Lighting Program Manager

EE-2J 

U.S. Department of Energy 

1000 Independence Avenue SW 

Washington D.C. 20585-0121 
Date: Updated May 2011 3 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 I NT R ODUCT ION ....................................................................................................... 6

1.1 DOE Goals and Solid-State Lighting .......................................................... 7

1.1.1 Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy ....................... 8

1.1.2 Building Technologies Program ...................................................... 8

1.1.3 DOE Solid-State Lighting Program ................................................. 9

1.2 Significant SSL R&D Program Accomplishments to Date ...................... 11

1.2.1 Recent SSL R&D Program Highlights .......................................... 11

1.2.2 Recent Research Highlights ........................................................... 15

2.0 L IGHT ING M AR K E T AND E NE R GY USE ................................................................ 20

2.1 Lighting Market ........................................................................................ 20

2.2 Applications for Solid-State Lighting ....................................................... 22

2.3 SSL Growth and Projected Energy Savings ............................................. 23

3.0 SSL T E CHNOL OGY STATUS ................................................................................. 26

3.1 Light-Emitting Diodes .............................................................................. 26

3.2 Organic Light-Emitting Diodes ................................................................ 28

3.3 Worldwide R&D in SSL Technology ....................................................... 30

3.4 Comparison to Incumbent Technologies .................................................. 33

3.5 Cost of Light Sources................................................................................ 37

3.5.1 LED Lamp Prices ........................................................................... 39

3.5.2 LED Package Prices ....................................................................... 40

3.5.3 OLED Costs ................................................................................... 42

4.0 C UR R E NT SOL ID-STATE L IGHT ING PORTFOL IO ................................................. 43

4.1 Current SSL Project Portfolio ................................................................... 43

4.2 Congressional Appropriation and Current Portfolio ................................. 43

5.0 T E CHNOL OGY R E SE AR CH AND DE V E L OPME NT PLAN ........................................ 50

5.1 Light Emitting-Diodes .............................................................................. 50

5.1.1 Components of LED Luminaires ................................................... 51

5.1.2 LED Efficiency Metrics ................................................................. 53

5.1.3 LED Package Performance Targets ............................................... 60

5.1.4 LED Luminaire Performance Targets ............................................ 64

5.1.5 Barriers to adoption of LED-based lighting ................................... 64

5.2 LED Critical R&D Priorities .................................................................... 66

5.2.1 LED Priority Core Technology Tasks for 2011 ............................. 67

5.2.2 LED Priority Product Development Tasks for 2011...................... 69

5.3 LED Interim Product Goals ...................................................................... 72

5.4 Organic Light Emitting-Diodes ................................................................ 74

5.4.1 Components of OLED Luminaires ................................................ 75

5.4.2 OLED Efficiency Metrics .............................................................. 77

5.4.3 OLED Panel Performance Targets ................................................. 82

5.4.4 OLED Luminaire Performance Targets ......................................... 84

5.4.5 OLED Adoption Barriers ............................................................... 85

5.5 OLED Critical R&D Priorities.................................................................. 88

5.5.1 OLED Priority Core Technology Tasks for 2011 .......................... 89

5.5.2 OLED Priority Product Development Tasks for 2011 ................... 90

5.6 OLED Interim Product Goals ................................................................... 91
Date: Updated May 2011 4 

5.7 Unaddressed Opportunities for SSL ......................................................... 92

6.0 SOL ID-STATE L IGHT ING PORTFOL IO M ANAGE ME NT PLAN............................... 94

6.1 SSL R&D Strategy and Operational Plan ................................................. 96

6.2 Portfolio Decision-Making Process .......................................................... 98

6.2.1 Consultative Workshops ................................................................ 98

6.2.2 Competitive Solicitations ............................................................... 99

6.2.3 Consultation with the SSL Partnership .......................................... 99

6.3 Internal DOE Portfolio Evaluation Plan ................................................... 99

6.4 External DOE Portfolio Evaluation Plan ................................................ 100

Appendix A Legislative Directive: EPACT 2005 ..................................................... 103

Appendix B Legislative Directive: EISA 2007 ......................................................... 105

Appendix C Definition of Core Technology, Product Development, and 

Manufacturing R&D ............................................................................ 106

Appendix D MYPP Task Structure .......................................................................... 107

Appendix E List of Patents Awarded Through DOE-Funded Projects ................ 112

Appendix F Approval of Exceptional Circumstances Determination for Inventions 

Arising Under the SSL Program ......................................................... 116

Appendix G Memorandum of Understanding between the U.S. Department of 

Energy and the Next Generation Lighting Industry Alliance .......... 117

L IST OF FIGUR ES

FIGURE 2.1: ESTIMATE OF THE U.S. INSTALLED STOCK OF LAMPS (BASED ON CALIFORNIA DATA) ...............21

FIGURE 2.2: LED TECHNOLOGIES EMPLOYED DURING 2009 SOLAR DECATHLON .........................................23

FIGURE 2.3: 2010 ELECTRICITY SAVING FROM THE SELECTED NICHE APPLICATIONS ...................................24

FIGURE 3.1: GENERAL TYPES OF WHITE LIGHT LED PACKAGES ...................................................................26

FIGURE 3.2: THREE ARRANGEMENTS ON RED, GREEN, AND BLUE EMISSION LAYERS...................................28

FIGURE 3.3: ROADMAP FOR THE OLED LIGHTING PROJECT FUNDED BY NEDO............................................33

FIGURE 3.4: HISTORICAL AND PREDICTED EFFICACY OF LIGHT SOURCES......................................................34

FIGURE 3.5: WHITE LIGHT INTEGRATED LED LAMP PRICE PROJECTION (LOGARITHMIC SCALE)..................40

FIGURE 3.6: PRICE-EFFICACY TRADEOFF FOR LED PACKAGES AT 35 A/CM2 .................................................41

FIGURE 4.1: CONGRESSIONAL APPROPRIATION FOR SSL PORTFOLIO, 2003-2011..........................................44

FIGURE 4.2: FUNDING OF SSL R&D PROJECT PORTFOLIO BY FUNDER, MARCH 2011 ...................................44

FIGURE 4.3: CUMULATIVE SSL R&D PORTFOLIO FUNDING SOURCES, MARCH 2011 ....................................45

FIGURE 4.4: DOE SSL TOTAL PORTFOLIO SUMMARY, MARCH 2011.............................................................46

FIGURE 5.1: PHOTOS OF LED COMPONENTS, LAMP AND LUMINAIRE ............................................................53

FIGURE 5.2: PC-LED PACKAGE AND LUMINAIRE LOSS CHANNELS AND EFFICIENCIES ..................................57

FIGURE 5.3: COLOR-MIXED LED PACKAGE AND LUMINAIRE LOSS CHANNELS AND EFFICIENCIES................59

FIGURE 5.4: WHITE LIGHT LED PACKAGE EFFICACY TARGETS, LABORATORY AND COMMERCIAL ..............62

FIGURE 5.5: LUMINAIRE WITH 16 OLED PANELS ...........................................................................................74

FIGURE 5.6: DIAGRAM OF OLED DEVICE STRUCTURE AND PHOTO OF OLED PANEL ...................................76

FIGURE 5.7: PHOTO OF A TRANSPARENT OLED LIGHTING PANEL.................................................................76

FIGURE 5.8: PROTOTYPE LUMINAIRES CONTAINING MANY OLED PANELS.....................................................76

FIGURE 5.9: OLED PANEL AND LUMINAIRE LOSS CHANNELS AND EFFICIENCIES .........................................79

FIGURE 5.10: WHITE LIGHT OLED PANEL EFFICACY PROJECTIONS ..............................................................83

FIGURE 5.11: LUMINAIRE USING MULTIPLE PANELS WITH VARYING ORIENTATION ........................................87

FIGURE 6.1: INTERRELATIONSHIPS WITHIN DOE SSL ACTIVITIES .................................................................94

FIGURE 6.2: STRUCTURE OF DOE SSL R&D OPERATIONAL PLAN ................................................................97

FIGURE 6.3: SSL OPERATIONAL PLAN PROCESS ............................................................................................98
Date: Updated May 2011 5 

L IST OF T ABLES

TABLE 3.1: SSL PERFORMANCE COMPARED TO CONVENTIONAL LIGHTING TECHNOLOGIES IN 2010............37

TABLE 3.2: SUMMARY OF LED PACKAGE PRICE AND PERFORMANCE PROJECTIONS .....................................42

TABLE 4.1: SSL R&D PORTFOLIO: CORE TECHNOLOGY, MARCH 2011.........................................................47

TABLE 4.2: SSL R&D PORTFOLIO: PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT, MARCH 2011.................................................47

TABLE 4.3: SSL R&D PORTFOLIO: CURRENT LED RESEARCH PROJECTS, MARCH 2011...............................48

TABLE 4.4: SSL R&D PORTFOLIO: CURRENT OLED RESEARCH PROJECTS, MARCH 201152 .........................49

TABLE 5.1: SUMMARY OF WARM WHITE PC-LED LUMINAIRE EFFICIENCIES AND EFFICACIES......................58

TABLE 5.2: SUMMARY OF WARM WHITE COLOR-MIXED LED LUMINAIRE EFFICIENCIES AND EFFICACIES ..60

TABLE 5.3: ESTIMATED EFFICACIES AS A FUNCTION OF CCT AND CRI (RA) ..................................................61

TABLE 5.4: SUMMARY OF LED PACKAGE PERFORMANCE PROJECTIONS .......................................................63

TABLE 5.5: SUMMARY OF LED LUMINAIRE PERFORMANCE TARGETS (AT OPERATING TEMPERATURES).......64

TABLE 5.6: LED EMISSION WAVELENGTH AND COLOR DEFINITIONS FOR THIS SECTION .................................67

TABLE 5.7: LED PACKAGE AND LUMINAIRE MILESTONES.............................................................................74

TABLE 5.8: SUMMARY OF OLED PANEL PERFORMANCE PROJECTIONS .........................................................83

TABLE 5.9: SUMMARY OF OLED LUMINAIRE PERFORMANCE PROJECTIONS..................................................85

TABLE 5.10: OLED PANEL MILESTONES .......................................................................................................91
Date: Updated May 2011 6 

1.0 Introduction 

President Obama’s energy and environment agenda calls for deployment of “the 

Cheapest, Cleanest, Fastest Energy Source – Energy Efficiency.”1 The Department of 

Energy (DOE) Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) plays a 

critical role in advancing the President’s agenda by helping the United States advance 

toward an energy efficient future.2 

Lighting in the United States is estimated to 

have consumed nearly 10 quads of primary 

energy in 2010.3

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT 2005)

 A nationwide move toward 

solid-state lighting (SSL) for general 

illumination could save a total of 16 quads of 

primary energy between 2010 and 2030. No 

other lighting technology offers DOE and the 

nation so much potential to save energy and enhance the quality of our built environment. 

4

 and the Energy Independence and 

Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007)5

Appendix A

issued a directive to the Secretary of Energy to carry 

out a “Next Generation Lighting Initiative” (NGLI) to support the research and 

development (R&D) of SSL (see and Appendix B for relevant legislation). 

The legislation directs the Secretary of Energy to support research, development, 

demonstration, and commercial application activities related to advanced SSL 

technologies. In part, these laws specifically direct the Secretary to: 

• Support research and development through competitively awarded grants to 

researchers, including Industry Alliance participants, National Laboratories, and 

research institutions.

• Solicit comments to identify SSL research, needs, and progress. Develop 

roadmaps in consultation with the industry alliance. 

• Manage an ongoing development, demonstration, and commercial application 

program for the NGLIA through competitively selected awards. 

• Assist manufacturers of general service lamps in manufacturing lamps that, at a 

minimum, achieve the wattage requirements imposed by EISA 2007 for general 

service incandescent lamps.

 

1 The Agenda – Energy and Environment. Last Accessed February 26, 2009. Available at: 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/energy_and_environment/. 2 Fleck, J. “Bingaman Thinks LEDs a Bright Idea.” Albuquerque Journal. 10 November 2003.

3 Energy Savings Potential of Solid-State Lighting in General Illumination Applications 2010-2030. 

Prepared by Navigant Consulting, Inc. for the Department of Energy. Washington D.C. February 2010. 4 The legislation text for EPACT 2005 is available at - http://www.epa.gov/oust/fedlaws/publ_109-058.pdf 5 The legislation text for EISA 2007 is available at - http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgibin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ140.110 

“LEDs are an obvious area that we 

can achieve energy savings and we 

can also achieve economic benefits – 

job creation.” 

U.S. Senator Jeff Bingaman

 Chair, Senate Energy Committee

The March 2011 edition of the Multi-Year Program Plan updates the March 

2010 edition. 
Date: Updated May 2011 7 

In order to effectively fulfill the directives in EPACT 2005 and EISA 2007, DOE has set 

forth the following mission statement for the SSL R&D Portfolio: 

Guided by a Government-industry partnership, the mission is to create a new, 

U.S.-led market for high efficiency, general illumination products through the 

advancement of semiconductor technologies, to save energy, reduce costs and 

enhance the quality of the lighted environment. 

The follow sections describe the series of goals that DOE has established that relate to the 

development of the SSL R&D Program. 

1.1 DOE Goals and Solid-State Lighting

The overarching mission of DOE is to ensure America’s security and prosperity by 

addressing its energy, environmental, and nuclear challenges through transformative 

science and technology solutions. DOE has three goals toward achieving the mission, of 

which the first two align best with the SSL portfolio6: 

Goal 1: Catalyze the timely, material, and efficient transformation of the nation’s 

energy system and secure U.S. leadership in clean energy technologies. 

Goal 2: Maintain a vibrant U.S. effort in science and engineering as a cornerstone 

of our economic prosperity, with clear leadership in strategic areas. 

SSL is an emerging clean energy technology that promises to make a significant impact 

on solving our nation’s energy and environmental challenges. Within DOE there are 

several efforts focused on advancing SSL technology, products, and the underlying 

science: the Basic Energy Sciences Program, the Advanced Research Projects Agency – 

Energy (ARPA-E), and the EERE Building Technologies Program. 

The Basic Energy Sciences Program in the Office of Science supports fundamental 

research to understand, predict, and ultimately control matter and energy at the electronic, 

atomic, and molecular levels in order to provide the foundations for new energy 

technologies and to support the DOE missions in energy, environment, and national 

security. Projects funded under this program often have multiple applications, including 

SSL.

The ARPA-E mission is to fund projects that are considered high-risk, high-reward 

efforts with potential for significant energy saving impact. Currently, the agency is 

funding a high risk project on developing low cost, bulk gallium nitride substrates which 

could improve light emitting diode (LED) performance. ARPA-E is also supporting the 

development of advanced, energy efficient power supply technologies that could be 

applied to SSL. 

 

6 More information on Department of Energy strategic mission, vision, and themes available at:

http://www.energy.gov/media/DOE_StrategicPlan_Draft.pdf
Date: Updated May 2011 8 

The Building Technologies Program (BTP) in the Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy (EERE), under which this MYPP has been developed, funds applied 

research, product development, and manufacturing R&D to advance the technology of 

SSL and achieve energy savings. BTP SSL also works to provide the technical 

foundation, tools, education, and resources for informed product selections and maximum 

energy savings. Listed below are the goals of EERE, BTP, and the SSL Portfolio. 

1.1.1 Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

The Office of EERE at the U.S. DOE focuses on researching and accelerating 

technologies that promote a sustainable energy future. To that end, the strategic goals of 

EERE are to:

• Dramatically reduce, or even end, dependence on foreign oil; 

• Reduce the burden of energy prices on the disadvantaged; 

• Increase the viability and deployment of renewable energy technologies; 

• Increase the reliability and efficiency of electricity generation, delivery, and use; 

• Increase the energy efficiency of buildings and appliances; 

• Increase the energy efficiency of industry; 

• Spur the creation of a domestic bioindustry; and 

• Lead by example through government’s own actions. 

The EERE mission is to strengthen America’s energy security, environmental quality, 

and economic vitality through public-private partnerships that: 

• Enhance energy efficiency and productivity;

• Bring clean, reliable, and affordable energy production and delivery technologies 

to the marketplace; and 

• Make a difference in the everyday lives of Americans by enhancing their energy 

choices and their quality of life. 

1.1.2 Building Technologies Program

The mission of the DOE Building Technologies Program is: 

Develop and promote efficient and affordable, environmentally friendly, 

technologies, systems, and practices for our nation’s residential and commercial 

buildings that will foster economic prosperity, lower greenhouse gas emissions, 

and increase national energy security while providing the energy-related services 

and performance expected from our buildings 

In support of that mission the DOE Building Technologies Program has established a 

goal to innovate the development and deployment of energy efficient technologies and 

practices. To achieve this goal, it has developed the following strategies:

• Develop and implement technology roadmaps that drive market transformations; 

• Increase private sector collaboration in developing new technologies;
Date: Updated May 2011 9 

• Perform more open solicitations and cooperative research agreements;

• Focus on cost reduction and market opportunity, making the product more 

attractive to the market; and

• Develop innovations in key technology areas such as solid-state lighting, HVAC, 

working fluids and sensors/controls. 

1.1.3 DOE Solid-State Lighting Program 

Section 912 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 directs DOE to “support research, 

development, demonstration, and commercial application activities related to advanced 

solid-state lighting technologies based on white light emitting diodes.” In response, the 

DOE SSL Program has developed a comprehensive national strategy with three distinct, 

interrelated thrusts (and accompanying roadmaps): Core Technology Research and 

Product Development, Manufacturing R&D, and Commercialization Support. SSL R&D 

Program activities in all three areas support the BT vision of decreased energy demand of 

U.S. buildings. 

The goal of the DOE SSL Core Technology 

Research and Product Development

program area is to increase end-use efficiency 

in buildings by aggressively researching new 

and evolving lighting technologies. Working 

in close collaboration with partners, DOE 

aims to develop technologies that have the 

potential to significantly reduce energy consumption for lighting. To reach this goal, 

DOE has developed a portfolio of SSL R&D activities, shaped by input from industry 

leaders, research institutions, universities, trade associations, and national laboratories. 

The goal of the SSL R&D Program is:

By 2025, develop advanced solid-state lighting technologies that, compared to 

conventional lighting technologies, are much more energy efficient, longer 

lasting, and cost-competitive by targeting a product system efficiency of 50 

percent with lighting that closely reproduces the visible portions of the sunlight 

spectrum.

Advances in the efficiency of SSL will reduce the demand for new power plants and 

improve the reliability of the grid. This SSL portfolio goal also dovetails directly into the 

EERE strategic goal to “increase the energy efficiency of buildings and appliances.” 

This Multi-Year Program Plan (MYPP) guides SSL Core Technology Research and 

Product Development over the next few years and informs the development of annual 

SSL R&D funding opportunities. This plan is a living document, updated annually to 

incorporate new analyses, technological progress and new research priorities, as science 

evolves. 

The commercialized efficacy goal of 

DOE SSL R&D is to reach an order 

of magnitude increase in efficacy 

over incandescent luminaires and 

nearly a two-fold improvement over 

fluorescent luminaires.
Date: Updated May 2011 10 

In 2009, DOE added another segment to its R&D portfolio, a SSL Manufacturing 

Initiative, to accelerate SSL technology adoption through manufacturing improvements 

that reduce costs and enhance quality. The goals of the SSL Manufacturing Initiative are 

to: 

• Reduce costs of SSL sources and luminaires; 

• Improve product consistency while maintaining high quality products; and 

• Encourage a significant role for domestic U.S. based manufacturing in this 

industry. 

DOE believes that cooperation in understanding best practices, common equipment 

needs, process control, and other manufacturing methods and issues is the best path to 

achieve these goals. DOE and industry partners have developed a SSL Manufacturing 

R&D Roadmap,

7

 outlining the likely evolution of SSL manufacturing, best practices, and 

opportunities for improvement and collaboration. Like the MYPP, the Roadmap is 

updated annually with input from industry partners and workshop attendees and guides 

the development of annual SSL manufacturing R&D solicitations. 

To ensure that the DOE investments in Core Technology Research, Product 

Development, and Manufacturing R&D lead to successful market introduction of high 

quality, energy efficient SSL products for general illumination, DOE has also developed 

a Five Year SSL Commercialization Support Plan.

8

The purpose of the Plan is to set out a strategic, five year framework for guiding the DOE 

commercialization support activities for high performance SSL products for the U.S. 

general illumination market. The DOE commercialization support activities are 

strategically designed to create the conditions, specifications, standards, opportunities, 

and incentives that: 

The plan is shaped by input from a 

wide array of market side partners – standards setting organizations, energy efficiency 

groups, utilities, retailers, lighting designers, and others – as well as lessons learned from 

the past.

• Lead buyers to high performance SSL products that are most likely to reduce 

energy use and satisfy users;

• Accelerate commercial adoption of these products; and 

• Support appropriate application of these products to maximize energy savings. 

Together, these efforts are intended to reduce energy use by businesses and consumers, 

and to save them money. Like the MYPP and Manufacturing R&D Roadmap, the 

Commercialization Support Plan is updated regularly, drawing on input gathered from 

workshops and roundtable attendees, DOE partners, and market reconnaissance on 

products and issues. 

 

7 DOE’s SSL R&D Manufacturing Roadmap can be found at: 

http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/publications/pdfs/ssl/ssl_manuf-roadmap_july2010.pdf

8 DOE’s Five-Year SSL Commercialization Support Plan can be found at 

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ssl/pdfs/ssl_5year-plan_09-13.pdf
Date: Updated May 2011 11 

1.2 Significant SSL R&D Program Accomplishments to Date

1.2.1 Recent SSL R&D Program Highlights

February 2011 – DOE SSL R&D Workshop 

The eighth annual DOE SSL R&D Workshop was held February 1st to the 3rd, 2011, in 

San Diego, CA. With 350 attendees and three days of formal and informal discussion, the 

workshop provided a unique opportunity to share updates and to network with

stakeholders from industry, academia, research institutions, and government. Both 

speakers and attendees offered insights on key issues impeding SSL technology 

advances, and ideas to move past the current limits of SSL efficacy and performance. 

Attendees also provided input to guide updates to the SSL MYPP. 

Energy Savings Estimates of Light Emitting Diodes in Niche Lighting Applications 

In January 2011, DOE released an analysis which investigates the energy use for twelve 

different markets where LEDs are competing or are poised to compete with traditional 

light sources (e.g., incandescent and fluorescent). Estimates of the energy saved due to 

current levels of LED market penetration, as well as estimates of potential energy savings 

if these markets switched completely to top performing LEDs ‘overnight,’ are given. In 

addition, non-energy saving benefits of LEDs in each market are discussed. Annual 

energy savings from SSL in 2010 from the twelve markets analyzed was approximately 

3.9 terawatt-hours, equivalent to the electricity needed to power more than a quarter 

million average U.S. households. The complete report is available for download on the 

DOE SSL website at www.ssl.energy.gov/tech_reports.html. 

Number of Products Registered with Lighting Facts®

Continuing to grow rapidly, Lighting Facts is a voluntary pledge and labeling program to 

ensure accurate and consistent reporting of product performance claims. LED lighting 

manufacturers pledge to use the Lighting Facts label on their product packaging and 

materials, while retailers, distributors, lighting professionals, utilities, and energy 

efficiency organizations pledge to look for and use products bearing this label. There are 

now more than 2,300 products registered with Lighting Facts, and over 200 

manufacturers have signed on as Lighting Facts partners, along with 180 retailers and 

distributors and over 200 lighting professionals. Registered products are listed on the 

products page of the Lighting Facts website along with their Lighting Facts label data. 

The Lighting Facts label presents independently verified LM-79 performance data in an 

easy-to-understand way in order to facilitate accurate product comparison. It currently 

covers light output, power consumption, efficacy, correlated color temperature (CCT), 

and color rendering index (CRI). For more information, see 

 Surpasses 2,300 

www.lightingfacts.com. 
Date: Updated May 2011 12 

Lighting for Tomorrow Announces 2010 Competition Winners 

Winners of the eighth annual Lighting for Tomorrow competition were announced in 

September 2010 at the American Lighting Association (ALA) Annual Conference in Las 

Vegas. Organized by the ALA, the Consortium for Energy Efficiency (CEE), and DOE, 

the competition aims to increase market acceptance and awareness of energy efficient 

lighting by recognizing the best designed energy efficient lighting products on the 

market. This year, the competition was expanded beyond SSL fixtures to include LED 

replacement lamps as well as lighting control devices compatible with such energy 

efficient technologies as LED and fluorescent. Fifty companies submitted a total of 107 

products. Five SSL fixtures were selected as winners—Kichler’s Lighting Design Pro 

LED Broad Roof LED Path & Spread Light and Pro Design ProLED Modular and Disc 

System; Edge Lighting’s Scope LED Pendant and Scope LED Monorail/Track Light; and 

Philips Lighting’s EnduraLEDTM A19 replacement lamp. More information on all the 

winning entries is available at www.lightingfortomorrow.org. 

L PrizeSM

Sponsored by DOE, the L Prize competition challenges industry to develop LED 

replacements for two of the most widely used and inefficient types of light bulb—the 

common 60W bulb and the PAR-38 lamp. In September 2009, the competition received 

its first entry, a 60W replacement product from Philips Electronics. That entry is 

currently undergoing a rigorous evaluation process that began with photometric testing 

and continues with long term lumen maintenance testing and field assessments. The long 

term testing is conducted for a minimum of 6,000 hours at high temperatures and will 

continue through at least early 2011. The field assessments, completed in September 

2010, were conducted in a wide range of applications and settings by 14 L Prize Partners 

at more than 30 sites across the continent. In addition, four new partners have signed up 

to be L Prize Partners, bringing the total number to 31 and counting. The L Prize 

Technical Review Committee, a key element of the evaluation process, has been formed 

and is reviewing all reports, results, findings, and documentation for the Philips entry. 

For more information, visit 

Evaluates First Entry, Welcomes New Partners

www.lightingprize.org. 

DOE Hosts Fifth Annual DOE SSL Market Introduction Workshop

In July 2010, more than 300 lighting leaders—including industry, government, efficiency 

organizations, utilities, municipalities, designers, specifiers, retailers, and distributors—

gathered in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, to share the latest insights, updates, and strategies 

for the successful market introduction of high quality SSL products. The workshop itself 

was preceded by a series of tutorials for those new to SSL and a webcast on evaluating 

LED street lighting solutions. The webcast, hosted by DOE's Solid-State Street Lighting 

Consortium, was attended by over 500 people who participated either in person or online. 

More information, including pre-conference and workshop highlights and presentations, 

is available on the SSL website at www.ssl.energy.gov/philadelphia10_highlights.html. 
Date: Updated May 2011 13 

DOE Hosts Workshop: SSL in Higher Education Facilities

In May 2010, DOE hosted a workshop in Portland, Oregon, to facilitate conversations 

between SSL luminaire manufacturers and end-users, focused on the complex lighting 

needs of colleges and universities, with an aim toward improving the design of SSL 

products. Colleges and universities collectively comprise an important market for lighting 

products, and they use almost every kind of luminaire. A college campus is like a small 

city, with lighting applications spanning classrooms and offices to theaters, labs, libraries, 

dining halls, dormitories, museums, chapels, walkways, parking lots, garages, lecture 

halls, arenas, and outdoor stadiums. 

Funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009, the Portland 

workshop provided SSL manufacturers an opportunity to go beyond the bottom line to 

understand the perspectives of those who specify, pay for, install, use, maintain, and 

dispose of lighting systems for nearly every type of application. Workshop presenters 

included lighting designers, engineers, and facilities managers. To encourage active 

participation, the audience was limited to 100 SSL manufacturers. Workshop materials 

are available at www.ssl.energy.gov/higher_ed_workshop2010_materials.html. 

DOE Educates at National Conferences

As part of the ongoing DOE commitment to SSL education, DOE hosted an 

informational booth and several educational seminars at the LIGHTFAIR®

In the DOE booth, staffers offered a series of free tutorials on a wide range of SSL topics, 

from “How to Reduce the Risk of Specifying LEDs” to “Recent SSL Installations: The 

Good, the Bad, and the Ugly” to “Dimming and LEDs: Can this be a Happy Marriage?” 

In addition, as part of the continuing education offerings prior to the show, DOE Lighting 

Program Manager Jim Brodrick gave a lunchtime keynote talk at the LIGHTFAIR 

Institute/LIGHTFAIR Daylighting Institute. More information on SSL activities at 

LIGHTFAIR is available at

 International 

Trade Show, May 12–14, 2010, in Las Vegas, Nevada. Cosponsored by the Illuminating 

Engineering Society of North America and the International Association of Lighting 

Designers, LIGHTFAIR is the world’s largest annual architectural and commercial 

lighting trade show and conference, attracting roughly 500 exhibitors and 20,000 lighting, 

design, architectural, and engineering professionals. 

 www.ssl.energy.gov/news_detail.html?news_id=16008. 

In FY2010, DOE SSL increased its educational activities with a broad based effort to 

reach out to a wide variety of audiences, each with its own level of understanding 

regarding LED education. In response to the growing number of invitations, DOE 

representatives have presented at multiple conferences across the country, with unique 

messages tailored for specific knowledge levels and expertise. As part of this effort, DOE 

SSL partnered with Jack Curran of LED Transformations to provide a number of 

workshops and seminars on behalf of DOE, including a half day workshop at GovEnergy 

in August. Attended by more than 100 Federal facility managers, designers, and 

manufacturers, the workshop provided a comprehensive introduction to LED technology, 

appropriate applications, and questions to consider when evaluating LED products. 
Date: Updated May 2011 14 

DOE Publishes Recommendations for Testing and Reporting LED Luminaire 

In May 2010, DOE published a new guide, LED Luminaire Lifetime: Recommendations 

for Testing and Reporting, developed by a working group created by DOE and the Next 

Generation Lighting Industry Alliance (NGLIA). The working group is under the 

guidance of the DOE SSL Quality Advocates program and is composed of a diverse 

group of experts in reliability, lighting, and LED technology. These recommendations are 

an important first step toward consistent, industry wide understanding of LED luminaire 

lifetime and will assist standards organizations in their work. The guide is a follow-up to 

an earlier publication, Reporting LED Luminaire Product Performance, which laid the 

groundwork for the Lighting Facts label. A PDF copy of the recommendations is 

available at http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/publications/pdfs/ssl/led_luminairelifetime-guide.pdf. A new, updated edition of this guide is planned for release later this 

year.

DOE Hosts Second Annual DOE SSL Manufacturing R&D Workshop 

In April 2010, more than 250 industry leaders from all steps of the supply chain—

including chip makers, luminaire manufacturers, material and equipment suppliers, 

packagers, luminaire testers, and makers of testing equipment—gathered in San Jose, 

California, to share insights, ideas, and updates related to manufacturing R&D. This 

workshop is a key part of an initiative launched by DOE in 2009 to enhance the quality 

and lower the cost of SSL products through improvements in manufacturing equipment 

and processes and to foster a significant manufacturing role in the U.S. This year, 

attendees explored a wide range of related topics and focused on reexamining and 

updating the SSL Manufacturing R&D Roadmap. More information, including workshop 

highlights and presentations, is available on the SSL website at 

www.ssl.energy.gov/san_jose10_highlights.html. 

DOE Launches Municipal Consortium on LED Street Lights 

To leverage the efforts of multiple cities pursuing evaluations of LED street lighting 

products, DOE launched a Municipal Solid-State Street Lighting Consortium in April 

2010. The goal is to build a repository of valuable field experience and data that will 

significantly accelerate the learning curve for buying and implementing high quality, 

energy efficient LED street lights. DOE selected Seattle City Light to lead the national 

effort to collect, analyze, and share information and lessons learned related to LED street 

lighting demonstrations. As the body of knowledge accrues, experience and best practices 

will be disseminated through national and regional meetings, webcasts, web-based 

discussion forums, and other means. Since its launch, the Consortium hosted a kickoff 

webcast in May and a second webcast prior to the Market Introduction Workshop in July. 

In September, the Consortium held its first annual meeting and joined with the City of Los 

Angeles to host its first southwest regional workshop. 

Membership is open to municipalities, utilities, and energy efficiency organizations, with 

participation at various levels from other interested parties with investments in LED street 

lighting. The DOE Municipal Lighting Consortium efforts are funded under the 2009 

ARRA. For more information, see www.ssl.energy.gov/consortium.html. 
Date: Updated May 2011 15 

First-Year Results Under the SSL Manufacturing R&D Initiative 

The SSL Manufacturing R&D Initiative (launched in FY2009) has two primary goals: to 

enhance product consistency and quality and to accelerate cost reductions through 

manufacturing improvements. A third objective is to encourage domestic U.S. based 

manufacturing of SSL products. In FY2010, DOE selected the first round of projects 

under the initial funding opportunity (see the R&D Highlights section of this report for 

more details). These first eight manufacturing R&D projects are funded under the 

Recovery Act. In June, DOE issued a second funding opportunity for manufacturing 

R&D projects; these project selections will take place in FY2011. 

Next Generation LuminairesT M

Winners of the second annual Next Generation Luminaires

Announces LED Design Competition Winners

TM awards were announced in 

February 2010 at the Strategies in Light Conference in Santa Clara, California. Sponsored 

by DOE, IES, and IALD, the competition recognizes excellence in the design of energy 

efficient LED commercial luminaires. A total of 126 entries were judged from 60 lighting 

companies. Of the entries, 47 were selected for recognition, with four of these products 

designated as Best in Class: Style Styk wall washing fixture from SPILIGHTING Inc.; 

VizorLED parking garage lighting from Wide-Lite; CURVE task lighting fixture from 

Finelite, Inc.; and EvolveTM LED R150 roadway luminaire lighting from GE Lighting 

Solutions. In addition, 43 products were recognized for excellence in a variety of indoor 

and outdoor categories. More information on all the winning entries is available at 

www.ngldc.org. 

1.2.2 Recent Research Highlights

Considerable progress has been made in the advancement of SSL technology since DOE 

initiated its support for SSL R&D in 2000. Researchers working on projects supported 

by the DOE’s SSL R&D Program have won several prestigious national research awards 

and have achieved several significant accomplishments in the area of SSL. The following 

list serves to highlight some of the significant achievements that have been reported for 

projects funded since March 2010. 

The University of North Texas Develops Record-Breaking OLED Materials

The University of North Texas, in conjunction with the University of Texas at Dallas, 

achieved record OLED performances using novel platinum based phosphorescent 

emitters. These include improvements in OLED efficacies by as much as 65% as 

compared to baseline devices (from 43 lm/W to 71 lm/W for turquoise blue OLED 

devices), and demonstrating high efficiency (70 lm/W without out-coupling; 100% IQE) 

doping free warm white OLEDs (DFW-WOLEDs) with unparalleled color stability (< 

0.1% change in CCT) using only one or two phosphors. Using these emitters to replace

the more commonly used iridium based emitters with ones based on more abundant 
Date: Updated May 2011 16 

elements in OLED devices, simpler device architectures (including efficient DFWWOLEDs containing only two or three thermally evaporated organic materials) and 

lower material and/or device fabrication costs may be achieved while also providing 

improvements in stability, efficacy, brightness and color quality of white OLEDs. 

(March 2011) 

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI) Advances Efficiency of Non-Polar LEDs 

RPI has demonstrated non-polar green emitting LEDs with 

good efficiency and reduced ‘droop.’ Typically, LEDs used for 

SSL are grown in a polar crystalline orientation, often thought 

to be the cause of efficiency ‘droop’ at high current densities. 

LEDs grown in a non-polar orientation are theorized to have 

very little droop, but so far have not demonstrated high 

efficiency. RPI has demonstrated non-polar green LEDs emitting at 510 nm with a peak 

IQE of 12%. Conventional polar LEDs emitting at this wavelength have IQE around 

40%, but demonstrate significantly reduced IQE at higher operating current (droop).The 

RPI result demonstrates that, with further work, non-polar green LEDs can expect to have

IQE comparable to that of conventional polar LEDs and minimal droop. Currently, the 

low efficiency and droop of green LEDs limits the performance of Red/Green/Blue 

(RGB) SSL systems. RGB approaches have the potential to be significantly more 

efficient, with enhanced color quality and tunability, than phosphor converted white light 

systems that currently dominate the LED-based lighting market.(January 2011) 

Sandia National Laboratory Develops Deep Level Optical Spectroscopy (DLOS) 

Technique to Identify Efficiency Killing Defects in LEDs

Sandia National Laboratory has developed a technique, unique in the world, to identify 

defect concentrations and energy levels in LEDs used for SSL. The technique enables the 

systematic understanding and minimization of defects in LED structures, which will 

result in the development of more efficient LEDs and LED-based light sources. The 

DLOS technique can also be used to determine the generation of defects over time and to 

better understand the physical mechanisms that lead to performance degradation over the 

life of the LED. This technique will aid future studies of how defects fundamentally

impact important LED challenges such as efficiency droop, blue versus green efficiency, 

and potential implications for LED reliability. (March 2011) 

Philips Lumileds Bests DOE FY2010 Performance Target 

Philips Lumileds has indicated that their LUXEON Rebel cool 

white LED will soon be able to achieve an efficacy of 139 lm/W. 

The top bin LED, developed with a single InGaN die and 

phosphor conversion, shows high performance characteristics: 

up to 138 lm at 350 mA, with a forward voltage of 2.83 V. The 

CCT of the device is 5,385K and the CRI is 70. The performance 

gain partially results from improvements in chip level electrical 

injection efficiency and optical extraction efficiency, developed with funding from DOE. 

(August 2010) 

 
Date: Updated May 2011 17 

Cree LEDs Deliver 121 lm/W 

Cree’s high power white LEDs can now deliver 121 lm/W at 35 

A/cm2

 current density. Laboratory results for Cree’s latest 

generation of devices based on their EZBright® LED chip 

platform have demonstrated an output of 267 lumens at a drive 

current of 700 mA and an operating voltage of 3.14 V. These 

devices generate white light with CCT of 6,850K and CRI of 72. 

The commercial version will be released as the XLamp XP-G 

product. The EZBright® LED chip platform was developed in part with funding from 

DOE. (August 2010) 

New Class of Quantum Dots Makes the Leap from SBIR Project to Small Business 

Market Success

Renaissance Lighting, a Virginia based start-up acquired by 

Acuity Brands Lighting in August 2010, showcased an 

innovative commercially available downlight at the May 2010 

LIGHTFAIR, applying a new phosphor-converted LED (pcLED) technology with superior lumen efficacy and color 

rendering and offering warm color temperatures with spectrally 

tunable output. This promising product introduction has roots in 

a Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) funded project initiated by Nanomaterials 

& Nanofabrication Laboratories in 2007, which improved the light extraction efficiency 

of pc-LEDs by incorporating high quantum efficiency doped nanocrystal quantum dots 

(D-dotsTM) into high index TiO2 using sol-gel techniques. The D-dots, manufactured in 

Arkansas, have been incorporated by NNCrystal into high quality colloidal nanocrystals 

called Qshift Lucid. Renaissance Lighting combined Qshift technology with its patented 

Constructive Occlusion® optical technology to produce a tunable optic emitter providing 

1,600 lumens, an output 30% greater than that achieved by comparable phosphor 

solutions, without the use of rare earth elements. (May 2010) 

Universal Display Corporation (UDC) and Other Industry Leaders Team Up to 

Demonstrate High Efficiency OLED Ceiling Luminaire

UDC, along with project partners Armstrong World Industries 

and the Universities of Michigan and Southern California, have 

successfully demonstrated two phosphorescent OLED 

(PHOLEDTM) luminaire systems—the first of their kind in the 

U.S. This achievement marks a critical step in the development 

of practical OLED lighting in a complete luminaire system, 

including decorative housing, power supply, mounting, and maintenance provisions. 

Each luminaire has overall dimensions of approximately 15 by 60 cm and comprises four 

15 by 15 cm phosphorescent OLED lamps. With a combined power supply and lamp 

efficacy of 51 lm/W, the prototype luminaire is about twice as efficient as the market 

leading halogen based systems. In addition, the OLED lighting system snaps into 

Armstrong's TechZoneTM Ceiling System, which is commercially available in the U.S. 

(August 2010) 
Date: Updated May 2011 18 

UDC Achieves World Records in OLED Performance

A pair of OLED projects funded under Phase II of DOE’s Small Business Innovation 

Research (SBIR) program have resulted in world record OLED performance 

achievements. In the first project, UDC and University of Michigan researchers 

successfully assembled a stacked phosphorescent OLED (SOLED). Using an industry 

accepted standard lifetime measuring method L70, they recorded the longest lifetime yet 

for an all phosphorescent white light SOLED pixel: 37,500 hours at an initial luminance 

of 2,000 cd/m2

. In the second project, UDC achieved a 15 cm2 phosphorescent OLED 

lighting panel with a measured efficacy of 66 lm/W at a luminance of 1,000 cd/m2 by 

utilizing a novel fluid lens extraction technique. This key milestone is believed to mark a 

world record achievement of efficacy for a large area OLED device. (August 2010) 

OSRAM SYLVANIA Demonstrates Downlight Luminaire with Light Output of 

1,439 Lumens 

OSRAM SYLVANIA researchers have demonstrated a 

downlight luminaire that achieves 1,439 lumens at an efficacy of 

82 lm/W in steady-state operation. The white light is generated 

by an array of blue LEDs covered by a phosphor-coated glass 

disk. These results exceed the project goals of achieving 1,300 

lumens and 70 lm/W at a CCT of 3,500K and CRI of 80. 

Improvements in LED chips, phosphors, optics, electronics, and 

thermal management at OSRAM all contributed to the higher than projected luminaire 

performance. (September 2010) 

OSRAM SYLVANIA Demonstrates Small LED Light Source with 80 lm/W Efficacy 

OSRAM SYLVANIA researchers are working to 

overcome the challenges of small form factor and high 

lumen output required to create a successful LED 

replacement for conventional halogen reflector lamps. 

Midway through the two year project, the team has 

demonstrated a small LED light source that achieves 350 

lumens at an efficacy of 80 lm/W. The ultimate goal is 

500 lumens with an efficacy of 100 lm/W. (August 2010) 

University of Florida and Lehigh University Improve Extraction Efficiency in 

OLED Devices 

Because of the mismatch of index of refraction between organic 

materials, glass substrate, and air, the efficiency of OLEDs is 

significantly limited by total internal reflection. To address this, 

researchers at the University of Florida and Lehigh University are 

developing a thin film microlens array. Preliminary results 

demonstrate an increase in of about 60%. With further optimization, 

it is expected that the efficiency enhancement can exceed 100%. 

The new process uses rapid convective deposition of a suspension, 
Date: Updated May 2011 19 

which is low cost and can be scaled for large area manufacturing. While other techniques 

can achieve similar results, they are either too costly or have limited scalability. (August 

2010) 

Georgia Institute of Technology Demonstrates Improved LED Electron Blocking

Layer 

Georgia Institute of Technology has demonstrated a new InAlN electron blocking layer 

within a GaN based LED structure. With no adverse effects on 

the LED active layers, the new electron blocking layer reduced 

efficiency droop by 14% compared to traditional AlGaN 

blocking layers when the LED was driven at higher current 

densities. Efficiency droop at high current density operation is 

an ongoing technical challenge within LED research. 

Understanding the underlying physical mechanisms of droop 

could lead to more efficient and lower cost LEDs. (August 

2010) 

Lightscape Materials, Inc. Improves the Efficiency of Phosphors for Use in LEDs 

Red and green phosphors are typically integrated with blue LEDs to create efficient white 

emitting LEDs with good color rendering. However, phosphor efficiency degrades as the 

LED heats up during normal operation, a phenomenon known as phosphor thermal 

quenching. Thermal quenching reduces light output from LEDs and can cause a color 

shift. Working to overcome this limitation, researchers at Lightscape Materials have 

developed high efficiency red and green phosphors with thermal quenching of less than 

10% at 150°C operation—less than half of the thermal quenching that occurs with 

conventional phosphor materials. These new phosphors may lead to white LEDs with 

better efficiency maintenance at higher temperatures and light output levels as well as 

improved color stability of the emitted light. (August 2010) 
Date: Updated May 2011 20 

2.0 Lighting Market and Energy Use

The Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates total U.S. primary electricity 

consumption to be 40 quadrillion BTU (quads) in 2010.9 DOE estimates that lighting 

technologies across all sectors (residential, commercial, industrial, and outdoor) were 

responsible for nearly 10 quads of primary electricity in 2010.10 In residential and 

commercial buildings, lighting is the second largest end-use of energy. DOE estimates 

that lighting constituted approximately 14% of residential building electricity 

consumption and 22% of commercial building electricity consumption in 2010. 11 New 

lighting technologies, especially solid-state sources, offer one of the greatest 

opportunities for electricity savings within the building sector and nationally. This 

chapter briefly summarizes the current state of the lighting market and the energy savings 

potential of SSL in various applications. 

2.1 Lighting Market

The global market for lighting is estimated to be approximately $110 billion, of which the 

U.S. market share is estimate to be approximately 25%, or $27 billion. The market has 

shown a gradual trend towards energy savings over the course of the last decade. Figure 

2.1 compares the 2001 commercial and residential breakdown of total lamp installations 

by technology type for the U.S. with similar data obtained for the state of California in 

2006 and 2008.12 Although California is not a perfect representation of the national 

trend, the data still serves to demonstrate a distinct transition from incandescent lamps to 

compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) and fluorescent lighting. 

In the residential sector, incandescent lamps have suffered a loss of market share as CFLs

have gained popularity. When CFLs were initially introduced to the market, there was 

much resistance from residential consumers because of their high initial cost and 

performance issues, such as slow turn-on time, poor color quality, and problems with 

dimmability. However, this resistance to adopt the technology is starting to dissipate due 

to significant performance and efficiency improvements, recognition of energy and cost 

savings, and utility subsidies. CFLs are now a major player in the market, accounting for 

over 25% of all residential lamp sales in 2009.13 As seen in Figure 2.1, though 

incandescent lighting still dominates the installed base, comprising approximately 60% of 

all lamps, the share of CFLs installed in homes has markedly increased from 

approximately 2% in 2001 to 22% in 2008. This trend is expected to continue with the 

implementation of EISA 2007 general service incandescent lamp standards. These 

 

9 Annual Energy Outlook 2011 Early Release. U.S. Energy Information Administration. Available at: 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/index.html

10 Energy Savings Potential of Solid-State Lighting in General Illumination Applications 2010-2030. 

Prepared by Navigant Consulting, Inc. for the Department of Energy. Washington D.C. February 2010. 11 2010 Building Energy Data Book, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Planning, Budget and Analysis, 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Prepared by D&R International, Ltd., October 2009 12 The residential installed stock is based on the number of sockets; however, it is assumed that the ratio of 

sockets-to-lamps is 1.

13 “CFL Market Share Rises During Second Quarter”, Association of Electrical and Medical Imaging 

Equipment Manufacturers, August 2009
Date: Updated May 2011 21 

maximum wattage standards will begin to go into effect in 2012, and effectively require 

the efficacy of general service incandescent lamps to increase approximately 25%. 

Halogen incandescent lamps that meet these standards are currently commercially 

available. In addition, EISA 2007 also states that by 2020, the efficacies of general 

service lamps must be at least 45 lm/W. Currently, the only technologies capable of 

meeting these second tier efficacy standards are fluorescent, high-intensity discharge 

(HID) and LED.

While in the commercial sector there has been a similar movement from incandescent 

sources toward fluorescent sources, there has also been a distinct trend from lower 

efficiency magnetic T12 linear fluorescent systems toward higher efficiency T8 and T5 

electronic systems. For example in 2001, T12 lamps constituted approximately 43% of 

the linear fluorescent installed base; in 2006, based on a California study, T12 lamps 

constituted only 12%. More recently, there has also been a trend toward an increased use 

of low wattage metal halide lamps as replacements for higher wattage halogen lamps in 

applications such as track and down lighting. 

 

It is also important to note that although incandescent lighting sources dominate lamp 

installations, this does not necessarily reflect the types of light that are used most 

frequently. Incandescent lamps are mainly used in residential applications, and over the 

course of a day tend to be in use much less compared to commercial fluorescent lamps. 

Therefore, in terms of lumen-hours per year, fluorescent lighting represents the greatest 

lighting demand even though the majority of installations are incandescent. 

Figure 2.1: Estimate of the U.S. Installed Stock of Lamps (based on California data)

Sources: Residential – Final Evaluation Report: Upstream Lighting Program, CPUC

Commercial – California Commercial End-Use Survey, CEC

HID lamps such as mercury vapor, high-pressure sodium and metal halide have been the 

most common lighting technologies in use for outdoor area lighting. Today, 

86%

61%

22%

8%

2%

22%

7%

7%

13%

12%

69%

79%

5%

5%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

U.S. - 2001

Calif. - 2008

U.S. - 2001

Calif. - 2006

Share of Installed Stock

Incandescent

CFL

Fluorescent

Other

HID

Residential Commercial
Date: Updated May 2011 22 

yellow/orange high-pressure sodium lamps are still very common across a variety of 

outdoor lighting applications including roadway and parking lot. However, more 

recently, metal halide lamps have become the light source of choice for outdoor 

applications where color rendering is of importance. For example in 2001, the outdoor 

sector was comprised of 17% mercury vapor, 47% high pressure sodium, and 6% metal 

halide lamps; however, a recent study on several outdoor applications indicates that metal 

halide now comprise over 26% of lamps installed in the outdoor sector.14 All 

conventional HID lamps, however, are also beginning to face significant competition 

from LED-based lamps. And in 2007 Raleigh, North Carolina became the first of a dozen 

U.S. cities to begin testing and replacing their conventional street and area lighting with 

LED fixtures. Currently, it is estimated that LED-based lamps account for roughly 1.5% 

of the total U.S. installed roadway, parking, area and flood outdoor lighting applications. 

Though there has been a clear migration toward energy efficient lighting technologies 

over the past decade, the lighting market faces several challenges in further shifting to 

even higher efficiency technologies, such as SSL. In some cases, people are unaware of 

newer, more efficient lighting technologies or they are opposed to the technology’s 

appearance and inherent characteristics. In other cases, the higher first cost will deter the 

consumer in spite of a lower total cost of ownership. In some instances the people who 

decide which lighting system to purchase (typically building contractors or landlords) are 

rarely those who pay the electricity of the building (building owners or renters). Because 

of these split incentives, building contractors, and thus lighting manufacturers, focus on 

low first-cost lighting instead of more expensive energy efficient lighting products with 

lower lifecycle costs. Therefore, the federal government can effectively take a leading 

role in supporting investments in energy efficient lighting. 

2.2 Applications for Solid-State Lighting

LED-based lighting forms a small, but rapidly growing segment of the lighting market, 

and technical advances have enabled LEDs to make significant strides toward cost 

competitiveness for several sizable applications in outdoor and interior lighting. LED 

technology is capturing these new applications because it cost effectively offers higher 

quality light than less efficient conventional light sources such as incandescent, halogen 

incandescent, and compact fluorescent. At the 2009 Solar Decathlon cosponsored by 

DOE,15

Figure 2.2

many of the universities’ solar homes featured LED-based lighting products. 

 shows photographs from this event of integrated LED lighting products that 

the university teams chose to incorporate into their designs. 

In addition, DOE cosponsors two design competitions called “Next Generation 

Luminaires” and “Lighting for Tomorrow” to encourage the use of SSL products in a 

variety of applications in the residential and commercial sectors.16

 

14 Includes roadway, parking, and area and flood lighting. Please refer to the report “Energy Savings 

Estimates of Light Emitting Diodes in Niche Lighting Applications,” which can be found at: 

The Next Generation 

http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/publications/pdfs/ssl/nichefinalreport_october2008.pdf. 15 For more information on this event, see http://www.solardecathlon.org/. 16 Details about the “Next Generation Luminaires” competition is available at: http://www.ngldc.org/. 

Details about “Lighting for Tomorrow” competition is available at: http://www.lightingfortomorrow.org/
Date: Updated May 2011 23 

LuminairesTM Solid State Lighting Design Competition seeks to encourage technical 

innovation and recognize and promote 

excellence in the design of energy 

efficient LED commercial lighting 

luminaires. Next Generation Luminaires 

encourages manufacturers to develop 

innovative commercial luminaires that 

are energy efficient and provide high 

lighting quality and consistency, glare 

control, lumen maintenance, and 

luminaire appearance needed to meet 

specification lighting requirements. In 

addition, Lighting for Tomorrow 

launched its 2011 competition on 

January 20, 2011 with a focus on 

lighting control devices and SSL fixtures 

and replacement lamps for the residential 

sector. 

Figure 2.2: LED Technologies Employed during 2009 Solar Decathlon 

In addition to numerous interior lighting applications and small outdoor applications, 

LED-based street lamps are currently competing favorably with HID lamps in street, 

roadway, parking and larger outdoor area lighting applications. Several cities including 

Raleigh, NC, Austin, TX, and Ann Arbor, MI, have installed LED-based roadway and 

area lights to save on energy and maintenance costs.

17 The DOE SSL GATEWAY 

program has demonstrated installations of outdoor SSL systems in several other areas 

across the country.18 

2.3 SSL Growth and Projected Energy Savings

Most of LED sales growth to date has come from high-brightness (HB) LEDs. Globally, 

sales of HB LEDs were $10.8 billion in 2010, and are estimated to grow to $18.9 billion 

in 2015.19 Of the HB LED revenues, approximately $890 million, or 8%, was attributable 

to lighting applications with the remaining 92% representing mobile displays, automotive 

lighting, signs and displays, signals, and other small indicator lighting applications. 

Strategies Unlimited estimates that the global market for LEDs for lighting applications 

will increase to $4.5 billion by 2015. 

 

17 Details about the LED city program are available at: http://www.ledcity.org/. 18 DOE’s Solid-State Lighting GATEWAY program is at: 

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ssl/gatewaydemos.html 19 Business Wire, 2010 Worldwide High-Brightness Market Grew By 93 Percent According to Strategies 

Unlimited, http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20110223005343/en/2010-Worldwide-HighBrightness-LED-Market-Grew-93

Exterior hanging light

Track light Interior recessed can

Exterior porch light
Date: Updated May 2011 24 

A 2011 study20 analyzed the energy savings potential of LEDs in seven market segments 

that included outdoor and indoor general illumination.21 Figure 2.3 summarizes the onsite electricity savings of the seven applications, as well as the total. Also displayed is the 

energy savings equivalent in terms of household electricity consumption. As shown, 

LEDs are achieving significant energy savings for several applications. 

Figure 2.3: 2010 Electricity Saving from the Selected Niche Applications 

Source: Energy Savings Estimates of Light Emitting Diodes in Niche Lighting Applications. Prepared by 

Navigant Consulting, Inc. for the Department of Energy. Washington D.C. January 2011.

Figure 2.3 shows that in 2010, the penetration of LEDs in the seven general illumination 

and outdoor applications analyzed in this report resulted in a total realized electricity 

savings of 2.6 TWh per year, which is equivalent to the electricity needed to power over 

two hundred thousand average U.S. households. It also shows that the electricity savings 

attributable to LEDs in 2010 were dominated by outdoor parking lighting, where LEDs 

have achieved an estimated 4.3% market penetration. This application represents about 

56% of the total energy savings from the use of LEDs in 2010. After parking lighting,22

 

20 To review the complete analysis, please refer to the report “Energy Savings Estimates of Light Emitting 

Diodes in Niche Lighting Applications,” which can be found at: 

the market application with the second greatest energy savings in 2010 was area and 

http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/publications/pdfs/ssl/nichefinalreport_october2008.pdf. 21 In the 2011 “Energy Savings Estimates of Light Emitting Diodes in Niche Lighting Applications” report, 

outdoor lighting includes roadway, parking, area and flood and residential outdoor lighting. General 

illumination considered PAR, BR and ER lamps, MR16, 2-ft by 2-ft troffers and A-type replacement 

lamps.

22 Parking lighting only includes off-street parking and has been divided into covered parking garage 

lighting and parking lot lighting. 

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

2-ft by 2-ft 

Troffer 

A-type Roadway PAR, BR, 

R

MR16 Area and 

Flood 

Parking Total 

Thousands of Households

2010 Site Electricity Savings (TWh/yr)

0

50

100

150

200

 
Date: Updated May 2011 25 

flood lighting,23 which contributed to 27% of the total site electricity savings in 2010 and 

has an LED penetration of about 0.72%. LED MR16, PAR, BR and R, as well as 

roadway lamps, also demonstrated significant energy savings, in total representing 16% 

of the total 2010 savings. Other sectors such as 2-ft by 2-ft troffer fixtures and A-type 

replacement lamps have low levels of LED penetration, and thus contribute less than one 

percent to the 2010 savings, though energy savings in white light applications such as 

these are expected to increase in coming years. 

A 2010 study24 examined the national energy savings that could be realized through the 

market penetration of energy efficient SSL in general illumination applications if the 

technology achieves DOE forecasted price and performance objectives. Projections were 

made for three conventional technology improvement scenarios, which forecast efficacy, 

price, and other performance parameters for three different rates of technology 

improvement.25 These energy savings projections indicate that while SSL products have 

relatively low penetration in the general illumination market now, the energy savings is 

expected to reach 2.05 quads a year starting in 2030, or a 25% reduction in lighting 

energy use. That represents enough electricity to illuminate more than 95 million homes 

in the U.S. today. 

 

23 Within the lighting industry, area and flood lighting often includes both parking and roadway lighting, 

however, this analysis quantifies these applications separately. In this analysis area and flood lighting are 

defined as lights that illuminate various outdoor areas such as landscapes, walkways, and common spaces. 24 Energy Savings Potential of Solid-State Lighting in General Illumination Applications 2010-2030. 

Prepared by Navigant Consulting, Inc. for the Department of Energy. Washington D.C. February 2010.

25 For more information on these technology improvement scenarios, please see the DOE report at: 

http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/publications/pdfs/ssl/ssl_energy-savings-report_10-30.pdf
Date: Updated May 2011 26 

3.0 SSL Technology Status 

This chapter outlines the current status of LED and OLED technology, as well as a 

comparison of established incumbent lighting technologies, including incandescent, 

fluorescent and HID. Also provided is an overview of the typical initial and lifetime costs 

associated with SSL and incumbent commercially available replacement lamps.

3.1 Light-Emitting Diodes

LEDs are discrete semiconductor devices with a narrow-band optical emission that can be 

manufactured to emit in the ultraviolet (UV), visible or infrared regions of the spectrum. 

To generate white light for general illumination applications, multiple colors must be 

controllably mixed. White light LEDs components and luminaires are typically based on 

one of three approaches: (a) phosphor-conversion, (b) discrete color-mixed, and (c) a 

hybrid consisting of phosphor converted (white) and monochromatic packages (or 

different LEDs in a single package). Figure 3.1 shows two of these approaches to white 

light production. 

(a) Phosphor-Converted LED (b) Color-Mixed LED

Figure 3.1: General Types of White Light LED Packages

The phosphor-converted (pc) LEDs create white light by blending a portion of the blue 

light emitted directly from the LED die with light emission down-converted by a 

phosphor located either within the LED package or spaced from the LED light source 

(remote phosphor). Discrete color-mixed packages, on the other hand, blend together the 

light output from discrete LED sources with different emission wavelengths, creating 

white light. 

In the pc-LED approach, an LED die emits blue light, generally around 450 to 460nm. 

Some of this light is emitted directly, and some of it is down-converted by a phosphor 

from the 450 to 460nm wavelength (blue) to longer wavelengths (e.g., green, yellow, red) 

to produce white light. Some manufacturers have successfully lowered the CCT and 

increased the CRI by adding a second phosphor to the package. These warm white

packages are currently available with an efficacy of 87 lm/W and a CCT of 3000 K at a 

current density of 35 A/cm2. 

One of the challenges confronting manufacturers of pc-LED devices is the difficulty of 

maintaining consistent white light due to natural variations in the LED pump (blue) 

wavelength and in the deposition of the phosphors. The white light produced by pc-LEDs 

is susceptible to variations in LED optical power, peak emission wavelength, and 

Multi-colored LEDs

Color mixing optics

White

Light

Phosphors

White

Light

Blue or UV LED
Date: Updated May 2011 27 

operating temperature. Additionally, variations in phosphor thickness and thermal 

quenching of the phosphor at different operating conditions can lead to color shift, and 

phosphor stability can affect color over lifetime. Thus, noticeable variations in color 

appearance can occur from one pc-LED to another as well as lead to color shift over time, 

a potentially serious problem for many lighting applications. Both Philips Lumileds and 

Cree have recently announced much improved color accuracy.

26

Stokes’ loss, the energy difference between the LED pump wavelength and the phosphor 

emission wavelength, is a fundamental loss mechanism in the phosphor conversion 

process limiting the efficiency of pc- LEDs. In addition, some phosphors have relatively 

low quantum efficiencies. Most phosphors lead to optical scattering losses and phosphor 

emission spectra are generally very broad which can reduce the spectral efficiency by 

producing light outside the visible spectrum. This in turn reduces the maximum potential 

efficacy of the LED. 

 This has been 

accomplished through improvements in color uniformity of the LED chips and 

improvements in the color matching of the phosphors to the LED chip emission 

wavelength.

For these reasons, discrete color-mixed LEDs are thought to promise the highest 

theoretical efficacy for SSL. Color mixing combines emissions from two or more LED

dies to generate white light. Color mixing can also include a hybrid approach, wherein 

white pc-LEDs are used along with colored LEDs to achieve higher spectral efficiency 

improved color quality, and higher efficacy. Hybrid designs require new phosphor 

formulations to maximize efficiency and still result in some Stokes loss. Both approaches 

require controls for maintaining color stability as the different LEDs respond differently 

to temperature variations and ageing, and a means of blending the discrete colors may be 

necessary. Some excellent examples of hybrid LED designs are on the market today with 

very good color performance, and analysis has shown that with direct color-mixing a high 

luminous efficacy of radiation can be achieved for good color quality white light. 

However, the efficiency of the color-mixed approach is currently limited by the low 

efficiency of green and amber emitting LEDs, and may require an optical design to 

effectively and efficiently mix the light output from the multiple color LEDs. This 

approach can also require more complicated control circuitry to maintain the white color 

point. The different color LEDs respond differently to variations in temperature and 

current density, and degrade at different rates over their lifetime. The control circuitry is 

necessary to compensate for these effects and can reduce the efficiency of the system.

Another important attribute of LEDs is that they show a slow but significant depreciation 

of lumen output over time. However, the character of this depreciation varies widely with 

specific package designs, and depends on several mechanisms intrinsic to the LED chip, 

the phosphor material, lens material, and other assembly related package issues. 

Consequently, lumen depreciation of a given LED design is very difficult to project over 

 

26 Cree press release can be found at http://www.cree.com/press/press_detail.asp?i=1288616204417, and 

the Philips Lumileds press release can be found at 

http://www.philipslumileds.com/uploads/news/id136/PR148.pdf
Date: Updated May 2011 28 

long periods of time. The Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA) 

standard LM-8027 describes an accepted method for measurement of the change in light 

output over time for an LED package, but does not provide a method for extrapolating the 

change to longer time periods than measured. IES TM-21, which is soon to be released, 

does provide a method of estimating a time for a specific amount, typically 30% of lumen 

depreciation. Also, lumen depreciation is only one aspect of lifetime. Other failure 

mechanisms exist, including such things as connection or adhesion failures or optical lens 

failure, which may be caused by manufacturing defects, inadequate materials control, or 

moisture penetration. When incorporated into a luminaire, many additional failure 

mechanisms may further reduce product life. These issues are more fully discussed in the 

DOE/NGLIA document, LED LUMINAIRE LIFETIME: Recommendations for Testing 

and Reporting.

28

3.2 Organic Light-Emitting Diodes

 

OLEDs are thin-film multilayer devices based on organic molecules. As with inorganic 

LEDs, the objective is to convert energy from electrical current flowing between two 

electrodes into visible light resulting in light emitting into the external environment. The 

major distinction between inorganic and organic LEDs for the application of lighting is 

the form factor. OLEDs produce light at relatively low intensity spread over large areas, 

while LEDs are more compact sources.

In most OLEDs the current flows through organic materials confined between planar 

electrodes with a separation that is typically only about 100 nm. Multiple layers are 

required to assure balanced transport of electrons and holes and the production of light 

with the desired color qualities. Most devices use red, green and blue emitters that can be 

arranged in several configurations to produce white light, as illustrated in Figure 3.2. 

Figure 3.2: Three Arrangements on Red, Green, and Blue Emission Layers 

Source: UDC

In order for the light to escape from the device, at least one of the electrodes must be 

transparent. Because of the high sensitivity of organic materials and cathode metals to 

oxygen and water, the structure must be encapsulated using a non-porous substrate, cover 

 

27The LM-80 standard can be found at http://www.ies.org/store/site/search.cfm?search=lm-80 28 http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/publications/pdfs/ssl/led_luminaire-lifetime-guide.pdf
Date: Updated May 2011 29 

and edge seals. However, due to the index of refraction mismatches between the organic 

layers, transparent electrode, substrate and air, further light extraction surfaces must be 

added to reduce wave guiding of light in these layers. Finally, in all but the smallest 

devices, a current spreading structure must be provided to ensure uniform transmission of 

current from the edge of the device across the whole panel.

OLED technology for general illumination applications is in a critical stage of 

development. OLEDs have been very successful as display in handheld devices and show 

great promise for flat-panel televisions. Many challenges still remain in the adaptation of 

the technology to lighting applications, and in the reduction of the production cost to 

levels appropriate for general illumination. Despite continued development of this 

technology, OLED lighting panels have only been available as lighting design kits or in 

prototype luminaires with modest performance at very high prices for niche applications. 

Several aspects of OLED technology development have become clearer in the past year.

• Polymeric emitters have not yet demonstrated the efficacy necessary for general 

illumination applications; 

• It is possible to adapt small molecule emitters to processing in solution, with only 

small penalties in efficacy and lifetime, so that printing techniques can be used in 

material deposition and patterning; 

• The major obstacle to achieving efficacy targets is the trapping of light inside the 

OLED device. Some of the techniques suggested to enhance light extraction can 

be implemented on small laboratory devices, but may not be suitable for high 

volume production of large panels; 

• Phosphorescent red and green materials have demonstrated excellent lifetime and 

efficiency. The use of blue phosphorescent emitters would be desirable, but 

adequate lifetime has not yet been achieved. Some groups are investigating 

efficient hybrid systems in which fluorescent blue emitters are combined with 

phosphorescent red and green emitters. The energy that is initially trapped in 

triplet states of the blue emitters can be transferred to the red and green emitting 

molecules; 

• It seems very unlikely that transparent conductors can be developed with sheet 

resistances low enough to allow effective transport of current across a large panel 

using only a thin homogeneous sheet. Alternative architectures such as tandem 

OLED structures or additional current spreading mechanisms, such as wire grids, 

must be used. The use of a current spreading approach can allow for more 

flexibility for choice of the transparent conducting material; 

• Encapsulation remains a concern, even for devices fabricated on rigid substrates. 

Although multilayer barrier coatings have been developed that provide adequate 

protection for OLEDs on flexible substrates, it has yet to be demonstrated that 

defect free coatings can be fabricated at acceptable costs for lighting applications;

• Prototype panels have demonstrated performance levels acceptable for general 

illumination applications. Commercial production of these panels is anticipated 

within the next year, but the low manufacturing volumes and consequent high 

cost will still deter widespread adoption; and 
Date: Updated May 2011 30 

• The introductory manufacturing stage will rely heavily on equipment and 

production processes that have been developed for display applications, which are 

currently designed for small panels and produce relatively little light. Thus early 

OLED luminaires are likely to use tiled panels or chandelier like fixtures.

One special focus of current OLED lighting research is the development of materials and 

structures that are appropriate for large area panels. Pixel sized OLED devices have 

achieved efficacies as high as 124 lm/W, whereas the best commercially available OLED 

panels have efficacies of only 28 lm/W. It is projected that the performance gap between 

LED lamps and OLEDs with respect to the basic metrics, such as efficiency, lifetime, 

color quality and cost/kilolumen will be reduced significantly by 2020. Details of the 

anticipated savings in production costs will be provided in the 2011 update to the SSL 

Manufacturing Roadmap. 

3.3 Worldwide R&D in SSL Technology

LED-based SSL technology has its roots in the initial demonstration of a high 

performance blue LED-based using GaN by Nichia in 1993. More specifically, a few 

years later, the same group demonstrated a white LED through combining the blue LED 

with a YAG phosphor. This set the scene for SSL. Subsequent to these announcements 

there was an explosion of R&D activity worldwide culminating in the commercial 

availability of white HB LEDs from Nichia (Japan), Toyoda Gosei (Japan), Philips 

Lumileds (U.S.), Cree (U.S.), and OSRAM (Europe). These companies continue to be 

major players in this market, but patent cross licensing has opened up the market to other 

players and has broadened the R&D base. A 2009 analysis of worldwide patent activity29

recognized growing R&D activity in Asia, partly in Korea because of Samsung’s role, 

and partly in Taiwan and mainland China. LED manufacturing is now a global business 

and the supporting R&D activities are also located globally. 

R&D activity in Europe is generally coordinated through industry consortia such as the 

European Photonics Industry Consortium (EPIC)30 and voluntary cross-border 

associations such as Photonics21.31

 

29 “SSL technology development and commercialization in the global context”, Kenneth L. Simons and 

Susan Walsh Sanderson, EERE Programmatic Lighting Support program, award 570.01.05.007.

 Much of the government funding is channeled 

through European Union collaborative R&D projects. In the area of LED-based SSL 

technology there are a number of projects currently underway including SSL4EU, 

SMASH, SINOPLE, RAINBOW, ECOSTREETLIGHT and THERMOGRIND. These 

projects have a combined project cost of approximately $43 million with project funding 

of $31 million from the EU, and are typically three years in duration. The two largest 

programs (SSL4EU and SMASH) are fronted by OSRAM. In addition, IMEC (Belgium) 

launched an industrial affiliation program (IIAP) in 2009 that focuses on the development 

of GaN-on-Si process and equipment technologies for manufacturing LEDs and next 

generation power electronics components on eight inch Si wafers. This multi-partner 

GaN R&D program includes Micron Technology, Applied Materials and Ultratech. 

30 www.epic-assoc.com

31 www.photonics21.org. Note that their Strategic Research Agenda (SRA) "Lighting the way ahead" was 

published in January 2010.
Date: Updated May 2011 31 

In Taiwan, the primary source of R&D funding is the business sector, at around 70%, 

followed by the government, at around 30%. The main research institute for LED R&D is 

the Industrial Technology Research Institute (ITRI) which recently announced it was 

setting up a LED research center with Oxford Instruments, and has embarked on a three 

year project to develop cheaper, longer lasting LED backlights. Total investment in the 

LED industry was thought to top $600 million in 2010, the largest amount worldwide. 

Much of this will be for manufacturing equipment and infrastructure with key companies 

including Epistar, Everlight, TSMC, Excellence Opto, Unity Opto, etc. For example, 

TSMC is scheduled to complete the $170 million first phase engineering work for its 

LED R&D and manufacturing center by year-end and to begin mass production in the 

first quarter of 2011 with technology licensed from Philips. TSMC is reported to be 

planning to establish a vertically integrated activity covering epitaxy, packaging and 

module manufacture, and to release its own brand of LED lighting sources and light 

engines.

32

The private sector is a key player in Korean R&D activities, contributing around 74% of 

R&D funding in 2007. The major contributors to Korean R&D activity are Korean global 

companies in high tech industries, such as Samsung electronics, LG electronics, Hynix 

and Hyundai Automobile. In Korea the white LED activity has been driven primarily by 

the needs of the backlighting industry through major display and television manufacturers 

such as Samsung and LG Innotek. LED manufacturing and R&D capabilities are now 

well established at these and other companies such as Seoul Semiconductor, and that 

expertise is expected to be turned increasingly toward the production of lighting class 

LEDs as the demand for LED televisions begins to saturate and oversupply begins to 

erode prices.

China has identified LED manufacturing as an important strategic market and has 

provided significant financial incentives for companies to locate in China, including tax 

incentives, equipment subsidies, and funding for R&D. In particular the government has 

provided approximately $1.6 billion in subsidies for the purchase of MOCVD equipment 

(up to $1.8 million per machine). Consequently, China’s installed base of such equipment 

has risen from 135 in 2009 to around 300 at the end of 2010, and an anticipated 900 by 

2012 and 1500 by 2015. A total of thirteen industrial science parks have been established 

throughout the country for SSL R&D and manufacturing. Patent activity in China has 

increased significantly in the past few years with 28,912 LED related patents at the end of 

2009, including 59% on applications and 13% on packaging.33

Up until recently, R&D in OLED technologies has focused on display applications. The 

initial research in the 1980’s was performed in the U.S. and Europe, following the 

pioneering work on small molecule emitters by Eastman Kodak and on light emitting 

polymers at Cambridge University and Cambridge Display Technologies. The most 

significant discovery of the 1990’s was that of phosphorescent emitters at the University 

of Southern California and Princeton University, subsequently developed by UDC. 

 

32 Mutek International Co, http://www.mutek.com/news/industry-news/44-taiwan-led-investment-top.html

33 “China SSL Technology and Industry Development Strategies” Yuan-Fu, CSA Consulting, Jan 2011
Date: Updated May 2011 32 

Since 2000, the manufacturing of OLED displays has been pursued almost exclusively by 

Asian companies and the production has been supported by a broad range of R&D 

activities. The IP from Eastman Kodak was sold to LG Chemical (Korea) and that of 

Cambridge Display Technologies to Sumitomo Chemical (Japan). 

Research specific to lighting has been promoted through several government programs in 

Asia, Europe and the U.S. Several multinational projects have been supported through the 

European Union. The goal of the initial four year initiative (2004 to 2008) OLLA was a 

white OLED with efficacy of 50 lm/W and lifetime of 10,000 hours. This was followed 

by three projects in the period from 2008 to 2011. The targets for OLED100 include 

efficacy of 100lm/W, lifetime of 10,000 hours and manufacturing costs of €100/m2 on 

substrates of 1 m2

. Project COMBOLED is focused upon printing techniques and 

transparent devices, while Fast2light is exploring roll-to-roll production on flexible 

substrates. Total funding has been approximately $75 million, distributed over many 

countries. 

Among the several national consortia in Europe, the programs coordinated by the 

German Federal Ministry for Education and Research (BMBF) are the strongest, with 

total investment exceeding $200 million. The initial OPAL and Rollex projects (2006 to 

2009) led to four new programs. The goal of TOPAS 2012 is to produce a 1,000 lumen 

device based upon phosphorescent emitters. Light In-Line (LIli) is focused upon 

processes and equipment to reduce manufacturing costs, whilst NEMO and S-Light are 

exploring a broad range of new materials. The Rollex project has also been extended to 

include lighting applications.

OLED lighting research in Asia has been stimulated by government supported consortia 

in Taiwan, Korea and Japan. For example, in 2003 the New Energy and Industrial 

Technology Development Organization of Japan (NEDO) sponsored the formation of the 

Research Institute for Organic Electronics in Yamagata, with the following roadmap 

shown in Figure 3.3. 
Date: Updated May 2011 33 

Figure 3.3: Roadmap for the OLED Lighting Project funded by NEDO 

Source: Research Institute for Organic Electronics

Although many universities in Asia are now conducting research in OLED lighting, the 

largest efforts are in major companies who are pursuing material and equipment 

development as well as device design and manufacturing processes. Market competition 

is anticipated between companies in Korea and Taiwan that are trying to leverage their 

dominance of OLED display production into lighting products, as well as Japanese 

companies that are currently focusing on lighting applications. 

3.4 Comparison to Incumbent Technologies

Though replacement lamps currently only represent a small portion of the SSL market, 

due to the large installed base of medium screw base sockets, they are often targeted as 

the largest near term market opportunity for SSL. This section provides some 

comparisons of LED-based replacement lamps with various incumbent lamp 

technologies. LED-based replacement lamp technology has shown commercial products 

with more than twice the efficacy of some of today’s most efficacious white light 

sources. Figure 3.4, developed from historical lighting catalogues and the SSL 

projections discussed in Chapter 5.0, depicts this potential. 

 
Date: Updated May 2011 34 

Figure 3.4: Historical and Predicted Efficacy of Light Sources34

Source: Navigant Consulting, Inc - Updated Lumileds’ chart with data from product catalogues and press 

releases

Note: Efficacies for HID, fluorescent, and LED sources include driver or ballast losses.

The traditional three light sources – incandescent, fluorescent (which includes CFLs and 

linear fluorescent) and HID – have evolved to their present performance levels over the 

last 70 years. As LED and OLED research progresses, conventional energy efficient 

lighting technologies continue to improve in efficacy and cost through the efforts of the 

major manufacturers, further raising the bar for market penetration of SSL. This section 

outlines the research directions for conventional and SSL technologies and the potential 

for higher efficacy lamps from this research.

Current incandescent and halogen incandescent light sources range in efficacy from 3 to 

20 lm/W.

35

 

34 LED Luminaire and OLED panel projections based on Chapter 

 Research is being conducted on higher efficiency halogen incandescent light 

5.0. SSL data points have not been tested 

by independent sources. Luminous efficacies depicted are for lamps with lumen output similar to 

following technologies:

60 Watt incandescent lamp;

75 Watt halogen lamp;

100 Watt HID lamp (low Wattage);

400 Watt HID lamp (high Wattage);

15 Watt CFL; and

4-foot MBP 32 Watt T8 lamp.

35 U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Final Report: U.S. 

0

50

100

150

200

1940 1960 1980 2000 2020

Luminous Efficacy (Lumens per Watt)

Compact

Fluorescent

Incandescent

Halogen

White LED 

Lamp

HID 

Low

Wattage 

High 

Wattage

White

OLED 

Panel

Linear 

Fluorescent
Date: Updated May 2011 35 

sources and has the potential to incrementally raise the efficacy of these lamps. Basic and 

applied research and product development are being conducted on advanced infrared 

reflectors and selective radiators that tailor the spectrum of incandescent emissions to 

maximize emission in the visible spectrum. Some researchers claim that halogen 

incandescent sources may be able to achieve efficacies greater than 45 lm/W.

36 These 

efficacies are thought to be achievable through combinations of burner design, IR coating 

design and deposition process and, in some instances, filament temperature increase. The 

latter can be accompanied by reductions in operating lifetime. 

Efficacies for fluorescent lamps range from 25 to 118 lm/W, depending on length, 

wattage, and color temperature. However, this efficacy does not account for ballast 

losses, resulting in overall system efficacies for fluorescent systems as high as 108 lm/W 

(see Table 3.1). Recent improvements in linear fluorescent system efficacy have included 

a movement toward higher efficiency ballasts and T5 lamps. Other means to improve 

efficacy of fluorescent lamps include reducing the voltage drop at the electrodes, and use 

of a greater composition of higher efficacy rare earth phosphors. 

HID lamps (including mercury vapor, metal halide, and sodium vapor lamps) are the 

most efficacious lamps currently on the market, with efficacies ranging from 25 to 150 

lm/W, while efficacies for HID systems can be as high as 111 lm/W (see Table 3.1). 

However, the highest efficacies (found in sodium vapor sources) are often achieved at the 

expense of color quality. Ceramic metal halide lamps, some of which achieve color 

rendering comparable to incandescent and fluorescent sources, have achieved efficacies 

as high as 120 lm/W and laboratory results have reported efficacies exceeding 150 

lm/W.37 Further improvements in ceramic metal halide lamps are also expected through 

the use of electronic ballasts, improved driver efficiency and breakthroughs in microwave 

technology.38

Commercial LED-based light sources have the potential to surpass the efficacy of the 

most efficient conventional light sources, and in 2010 achieved efficacies of 93 and 130 

lm/W for commercially available warm and cool white LED packages.39

Figure 5.4

 Laboratory 

results have shown values as high as 208 lm/W (see ). In addition, ongoing 

R&D in a variety of areas, as outlined in this report, is expected to raise the efficacy of 

commercial warm and cool white LED packages to approximately 266 lm/W by 2020. 

Current LED performance and this potential sets LED-based SSL apart as, the most 

efficacious and promising lighting technology. 

 

Lighting Market Characterization, Volume I: National Lighting Inventory and Energy Consumption 

Estimate. 2002. Washington, D.C. Available at:

http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/publications/pdfs/ssl/lmc_vol1_final.pdf

36 Deposition Sciences Incorporated, 2010. 37 K. Stockwald, et al., Significant Efficacy Enhancement of Low Wattage Metal Halide HID Lamp Systems 

by Acoustically Induced Convection Configuration, ICOPS 2008, Karlsruhe, Germany, June 2008.

38 NEMA, The Strengths and Potentials of Metal Halide Lighting Systems, Rosslyn, Virginia. 2010.

39 Philips Lumileds, 2010. CREE, 2010. Product Catalogs. 
Date: Updated May 2011 36 

LED replacement lamp products (as shown in Figure 3.4 and Table 3.1) generally offer 

efficacies that are lower than the LED package efficacy, due to losses in the luminaire 

and power supply. Commercially available LED lamps currently reach efficacies as high 

as 64 lm/W. An LED-based lamp refers to an integrated assembly comprised of LED 

packages (components) or LED arrays (modules), LED driver, ANSI standard base and 

other optical, thermal, mechanical and electrical components (see Section 5.1.1. for 

further definitions). LED replacement lamps are compared throughout the report due to 

their popularity and the likelihood that these products will be the largest near term market 

opportunity for LED lighting technology. LED lamps, since they include the electronic 

driver, should be compared to HID and linear fluorescent systems. However, LED 

luminaire products with optimized form factors are able to better utilize the inherent 

benefits of LED technology, and can produce efficacies that are significantly greater. 

While the performance of commercially available OLED panels has not yet met lumen 

output or cost targets, panels are available with efficacies up to 28 lm/W. Some 

laboratory OLED panels are surpassing efficacies of conventional technologies such as 

incandescent, halogen, and compact fluorescent lighting. The best laboratory efficacy for 

an OLED panel is currently around 66 lm/W. 

As indicated above SSL offers extraordinary potential, and offer efficacies far greater 

than traditional incumbent lighting sources. However, there are still factors that need to 

be improved in order to further accelerate adoption. In order to successfully compete with 

the most incumbent lighting technologies, lower first costs of LED and OLED products 

are necessary (see Section 3.5 for description of SSL and incumbent lighting technology 

costs). In addition, the efficiency of SSL products needs to continue to improve in order 

to fully compete with highly efficacious fluorescent and HID lamps. Ongoing research is 

still required to fully realize the potential of this technology for creating efficient white 

light.

Table 3.1 presents the performance of 2010 SSL products on the market40 in comparison 

to some of the most efficient conventional technologies. Additional performance 

attributes (such as lifetime and CRI) have been provided for context, and are not meant to 

represent the optimum levels of performance. As can be seen below, some of the SSL 

products available today have efficacies exceeding conventional light sources. 

 

40 It should be noted that LED laboratory prototypes reach much higher efficacies than those listed in Table 

3.1. 
Date: Updated May 2011 37 

Table 3.1: SSL Performance Compared to Conventional Lighting Technologies in 2010 

Product Type Luminous 

Efficacy

Luminous 

Output Wattage CCT CRI Lifetime

LED White 

Package (Cool) 130 lm/W 130 lm 1 W 5650 K 70 50k hours 

LED White 

Package (Warm) 93 lm/W 205 lm 2.2 W 3500 K 80 50k hours

LED A19 Lamp

(Warm White)41 64 lm/W 800 lm 12.5 W 2700 K 80 25k hours 

LED PAR38 Lamp

(Warm White)42 52.5 lm/W 1050 lm 20 W 3000 K 80 25k hours 

OLED Panel43 28 lm/W 50 lm 2W 2700-6500 K 80 8k hours 

HID (High Watt)

Lamp and Ballast

120 lm/W 

111 lm/W 37800 lm 315W 341W 3000 K 90 20k hours 

Linear Fluorescent 

Lamp and Ballast

118 lm/W

108 lm/W

3050 lm

6100 lm

26W 

56W 4100 K 85 25k hours 

HID (Low Watt)

Lamp and Ballast

104 lm/W 

97 lm/W 7300 lm 70W 75W 3000 K 90 12k hours 

CFL 63 lm/W 950 lm 15W 2700 K 82 12k hours 

Halogen 20 lm/W 970 lm 48 W 2750 K N/A 4k hours 

Incandescent 15 lm/W 900 lm 60W 3300 K 100 1k hours 

Notes: For LED packages (defined in Section 5.1.1) - drive current density = 35 A/cm2, Tj

Source: GE 2010, Cree 2010, Philips Lighting 2010, OSRAM Sylvania 2010 product catalogs, LED lamp 

based on Lighting Facts product registrations. 

=25°C., batwing 

distribution, lifetime measured at 70% lumen maintenance. Sodium lamps are not included in this table.

3.5 Cost of Light Sources

The prices of light sources are typically compared on a price per kilolumen basis. The 

first costs for principal replacement lamps indicate the degree of the challenge facing 

SSL in the marketplace in 2010: 

 

41 Based on Lighting Facts Label data for Osram SylvaniaUltra LED12A19/DIM/F/927 42 Based on Lighting Facts Label data for GE Energy Smart LED20P38S/FL

43 Verbatim, 2011 color tunable panel.
Date: Updated May 2011 38 

Incandescent Lamp (A19 60W high efficiency) $0.5 per kilolumen 

Compact Fluorescent Lamp (13W) $2 per kilolumen 

Compact Fluorescent Lamp (13W dimmable) $10 per kilolumen 

Fluorescent Lamp and Ballast System (F32T8) $4 per kilolumen44

LED Lamp (A19 60W dimmable) $50 per kilolumen45

OLED Panel43,46 $2,560 per kilolumen47

On a normalized light output basis (dollars per kilolumen), LED lamps remain around 

100 times the cost of the incandescent light bulb and around five times the cost of an 

equivalent dimmable CFL,48

The first OLED products are only now becoming commercially available, and as the table 

above shows these products are not yet cost competitive. However, these products serve 

to introduce the new light source to the market and prices are expected to decrease 

rapidly, similar to LEDs.

 but the price of LED lamps is expected to continue to fall 

rapidly and the performance is expected to continue to improve. As a consequence, LED 

light sources are projected to become increasingly competitive on a first cost basis. 

While the first cost of a lamp is an important parameter, it is the lifecycle cost that 

ultimately determines the overall economic benefit. The GATEWAY demonstration 

projects represent an excellent source of lifecycle cost analyses for a variety of LED lamp 

installations49

Not all lighting applications will experience this level of payback, but this example serves 

to illustrate the importance of considering lifecycle costs when evaluating the overall 

 in actual operating environments. These economic analyses use the 

National Institute of Standards and Technology’s Building Life-Cycle Cost (BLCC) 

software, which calculates the lifecycle costs for energy conservation projects that have 

significant upfront costs, but save energy over the long term. A good recent example is 

the assessment of LED retrofit lamps for the San Francisco Intercontinental Hotel. This 

study concerned the replacement of 287 existing 20 W premium halogen MR16 lamps 

and 40 W PAR30 lamps with LED equivalents rated at 6 W and 11 W respectively. On a 

first cost basis the LED lamps were between five and seven times more expensive than 

the halogen lamps. However an analysis of the capital, maintenance, and energy costs of 

the retrofit projected over a three year period concluded that the payback period was as 

short as 1.1 years. As the first cost of the LED lamps reduces, so will the payback period. 

 

44 Assumes 13 W self-ballasted compact fluorescent lamp, 2-lamp 32 W T8 linear fluorescent lamp-andballast system, and 60 W A19 incandescent lamp with 2010 prices. 

45 Philips EnduraLED A19 with a typical selling price of $39.97.

46 “LED lamp” and “OLED panel” are defined in Sections 5.1.1 and 5.4.1. 47 Lumiotec prototype at highest power level

48 Because LEDs can be more directional than conventional technologies, comparing them on a lumen per 

lumen basis based on the lamp may not be entirely accurate. For example, if a CFL and LED lamp emitted 

the same lumens, there could be more light from the LED luminaire reaching a specific surface than the 

light from the CFL luminaire.

49 GATEWAY reports are available at 

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ssl/gatewaydemos_results.html
Date: Updated May 2011 39 

economic feasibility of a lighting installation. As the price of LED sources comes down, 

more and more applications will experience viable payback periods. 

3.5.1 LED Lamp Prices

Lamp and luminaire prices can vary widely depending upon the application, decorative 

enhancements, and control features. To validate the progress on price reductions for 

LED-based lighting, a comparison of replacement lamps is both practical and 

appropriate. Figure 3.5 shows a comparison of an integrated white light LED replacement 

lamp to a 13 W compact fluorescent lamp, and to the revised MYPP targets. The price 

estimates represent the average retail purchase price. During 2010 we have seen a 

significant number of good quality replacement lamps emerge, often appearing on the 

shelves at big box retail stores. Prices for such products have decreased rapidly, with a 

typical retail price of $20 for a 400 lumen (40 W equivalent) warm white A19 

replacement lamp and around $40 for an 800 lumen (60 W equivalent) product. As a 

consequence, normalized prices in 2010 have dropped to around $50/klm, some two 

years ahead of the original schedule. In recognition of these more rapid cost reductions, 

the MYPP targets have been updated as illustrated in Figure 3.5. 

Directional PAR and MR16 style lamps have also become more competitive during 2010 

with prices in the $20 to $30 range for a 6 to 7 W MR16 lamp (250-350 lumens) and in 

the $40 to $60 range for a 17 to 18 W PAR38 lamp (750-850 lumens). Downlights have 

also benefited from significant price reductions with products now available in the $50 

range ($87/klm). It is important to keep in mind that energy savings, replacement cost, 

and labor costs factor into a lamp’s overall cost of ownership. LEDs are already cost 

competitive on that basis with incandescent products in certain applications as described 

in Section 3.5. 
Date: Updated May 2011 40 

Figure 3.5: White Light Integrated LED Lamp Price Projection (Logarithmic Scale)

Note: Assumes current prices for compact fluorescent price range (13 W self-ballasted compact 

fluorescent; non-dimmable at bottom, and dimmable at top).

3.5.2 LED Package Prices

The following price estimates represent typical retail prices for packaged LEDs 

purchased in quantities of 1000 from major commercial distributors such as Digi-Key, 

AVNET, Newport, and Future Electronics. Each LED manufacturer produces a number 

of variants for each package design covering a range of color temperatures and lumen 

output. The selected data represents devices in the highest efficacy bins, which fall within 

specified ranges of color temperature and CRI. In all cases the price is expressed in units 

of $/klm and has been determined at a fixed current density of 35 A/cm2

 at 25°C.
Date: Updated May 2011 41 

Prices have continued to fall in 2010, and performance has continued to improve. This 

behavior is illustrated in Figure 3.6. Note that there is a lot of scatter in the data so 

ellipses have been superimposed on the chart for each major time period in order to 

identify the mean and standard deviation of each distribution. For warm white LEDs we 

have seen significant improvements in both efficacy and price, with both parameters 

running ahead of the original 2010 MYPP projections. In particular, the normalized price 

($/klm) was nearly a factor of two lower than our original goal. The differential in the 

retail price between cool and warm white LED packages has essentially disappeared, and 

the normalized $/klm price for warm LED packages has therefore been updated to reflect 

this parity. For cool white LEDs the overall price efficacy performance closely matched 

the 2010 MYPP projections, although the highest efficacy devices were still able to 

command higher prices. The normalized price projection for cool white LED packages 

remains unchanged. 

The MYPP efficacy projections for warm and cool white LED packages has been revised 

in 2011 to reflect progress. The revised efficacy projections represents the fitted 

efficacies shown in Figure 5.4 and is superimposed on the price-efficacy chart below.

Figure 3.6: Price-Efficacy tradeoff for LED Packages at 35 A/cm

Note: 

2 

1. Cool white packages assume CCT=4746-7040K and CRI=70-80; warm white packages assume 

CCT=2580-3710K and CRI=80-90.

2. Ellipses represent the approximate mean and standard deviation of each distribution.

3. The revised MYPP projections have been included to demonstrate anticipated future trends.

Table 3.2 summarizes the LED package price and performance projections in tabular 

form. 
Date: Updated May 2011 42 

Table 3.2: Summary of LED Package Price and Performance Projections

Metric 2010 2012 2015 2020

Cool White 

Efficacy (lm/W) 134 176 224 258 

Cool White 

Price ($/klm) 13 6 2 1 

Warm White 

Efficacy (lm/W) 96 141 202 253 

Warm White 

Price ($/klm) 18 7.5 2.2 1 

Note: 

1. Projections for cool white packages assume CCT=4746-7040K and CRI=70-80, while projections 

for warm white packages assume CCT=2580-3710K and CRI=80-90. All efficacy projections 

assume that packages are measured at 25°C with a drive current density of 35 A/cm2

2. Package life is approximately 50,000 hours assuming 70% lumen maintenance at a drive current 

density of 35 A/cm

. 

2

. 

3.5.3

While samples of OLED lighting products have been available since 2009, commercial 

offerings have been limited to expensive luminaires for decorative applications and 

prototyping panel kits. Therefore, only limited price data is available for OLED panels 

and luminaire cost projections contain a high degree of uncertainty as these are not yet 

optimized or manufactured in volume. Similarly, lifetime values for OLED panels and 

luminaires are highly speculative at this point in time due to the lack of OLED general 

illumination products and uncertainties in protocols for accelerated life testing. The cost 

of materials and manufacturing equipment scales much more closely with the area of the 

panels that are produced than the light emitted from the lamps. Raising the brightness of 

the panels is thus a major factor in cost reduction, so long as the increased brightness 

does not lead to excessive heat requiring added costs for thermal management or reduced 

efficacy or lifetime. Further, the brightness increase should not be so great that the panel 

causes undue glare or has to be shielded from view by a shade or diffuser. 

OLED Costs

Making the lamps brighter by increasing the drive current generally leads to significant 

reduction in operating lifetime. Commercially available OLED products claim L70 

lifetimes ranging from around three to four thousand hours up to 15,000 hours at an 

initial luminous emittance of about 3,000 lm/m2

. Further reductions in lifetime caused by 

operation at high drive current would be unacceptable. 

One promising approach to the creation of more light is the use of tandem OLED 

structures, in which OLEDs are stacked vertically. In such structures, the light generated 

can be configured to scale with the number of units in the stack while the current density 

is kept constant. Whatever architecture is chosen, further basic research is needed to 

enable higher efficacy through materials advancements and improved light extraction 

techniques. With higher efficacy and brightness, the OLED cost per kilolumen can be 

dramatically reduced.
Date: Updated May 2011 43 

4.0 Current Solid-State Lighting Portfolio

This chapter offers a description of the SSL R&D Program’s current funding levels with 

an overview of the projects in the current project portfolio. This project portfolio includes 

all SSL projects active in the applied R&D funding programs. Further description of how 

the SSL project portfolio is determined is contained in Chapter 5.0. 

4.1 Current SSL Project Portfolio 

This section provides an overview of the current projects in the SSL portfolio (as of 

March 2011). The SSL Project Portfolio is grouped into six topic areas.50

Group 1: Inorganic SSL Core Technology Research 

Group 2: Inorganic SSL Product Development 

Group 3: Inorganic SSL Manufacturing R&D 

Group 4: Organic SSL Core Technology Research 

Group 5: Organic SSL Product Development 

Group 6: Organic SSL Manufacturing R&D 

Within each of the six grouped topic areas, the DOE SSL R&D agenda is divided into 

tasks. At the consultative workshops, participants discuss each of the tasks and provide 

recommendations for prioritizing R&D activities over the next one to two years. The 

overall structure of the tasks is outlined in Appendix D. Details on the current funded 

tasks are presented in the tables and charts in this section, while details on the newly 

prioritized subtasks are presented in Chapter 5.0. Under each subtask there are a number 

of metrics to guide specific efforts by researchers in addressing the goals of the task. 

4.2 Congressional Appropriation and Current Portfolio51

Figure 4.1 presents the congressional appropriation for the SSL portfolio from FY2003 

through FY2010 and the FY2011 appropriation request. The funding received for the 

2010 fiscal year (FY2010, which began in October 2009) totaled $27 million. In FY2009 

an additional, one time, funding of $50 million was provided through the ARRA of 2009 

to be used to accelerate the SSL R&D Program and jumpstart the manufacturing R&D 

initiative. The SSL R&D Program has requested $27 million in funding for FY2011. As 

of the date of this publication, the 2011 Federal budget is operating under a continuing 

resolution, while Congress completes negotiations on a final agreement for the remainder 

of fiscal year 2011.

 

50 The definitions of Core Technology Research, Product Development, and Manufacturing R&D are 

provided in Appendix C. In short, Core is applied research advancing the communal understanding of a 

specific subject; Product Development is research directed at a commercially viable SSL material, device, 

or luminaire; and Manufacturing R&D provides support for improved product quality and consistency and 

significant cost reduction.

51 Figures and charts in this section may not sum to stated cumulative values due independent rounding.
Date: Updated May 2011 44 

Figure 4.1: Congressional Appropriation for SSL Portfolio, 2003-2011 

The active DOE SSL R&D Portfolio as of March 2011 includes 47 projects, which 

address LED and OLED technologies. Projects balance long-term and short-term 

activities, as well as large and small business and university participation. The portfolio 

totals approximately $120.0 million in government and industry investment. 

Figure 4.2 provides a graphical breakdown of the funding for the current SSL project 

portfolio; this value represents funding levels for all active projects as of March 2011. 

DOE is currently providing $72.4 million in funding for the projects, and the remaining 

$47.6 million is cost-shared by project awardees. Of the 47 projects active in the SSL 

R&D portfolio, 28 are focused on LED technology and 19 are focused on OLEDs. 

Figure 4.2: Funding of SSL R&D Project Portfolio by Funder, March 2011 

Figure 4.3 shows the DOE funding sources and level of support contributing to the SSL 

$0.0 $20.0 $40.0 $60.0 $80.0 $100.0

OLED

LED

DOE Share

$27.7 million

Applicant 

Share

$12.5 million

DOE Share

$44.8 million

Applicant 

Share

$35.1 million
Date: Updated May 2011 45 

project portfolio. The Building Technologies Program in the Office of EERE, along with 

funding from the 2009 ARRA, provided the majority of the funding; 38 projects receive 

$116 million (including the cost share portion) in funding from this source, which is 

managed through the National Energy Technology Laboratory. The SBIR Program in the 

Office of Science funded the remaining nine projects for a total of $4.1 million. 

Figure 4.3: Cumulative SSL R&D Portfolio Funding Sources, March 2011 

DOE supports SSL R&D in partnership with industry, small business, academia, and 

national laboratories. Figure 4.4 provides the approximate level of R&D funding 

contained in the current SSL portfolio among the four general groups of SSL R&D 

partners. Industry participants receive approximately 64% of portfolio funding, with 

$76.3 million in R&D activities. Small businesses comprise the next largest category and 

receive 20%, or $24.1 million, in research funds. Finally, universities and national 

laboratories comprise 9% and 7% of the R&D portfolio and receive $10.7 million and 

$8.8 million, respectively. 
Date: Updated May 2011 46 

Figure 4.4: DOE SSL Total Portfolio Summary, March 2011 

Table 4.1 and Table 4.2 show the total number of SSL R&D Core Technology and 

Product Development projects and total project funding for each. Table 4.1shows the 

categories in which there are active projects that DOE funded or has selected for funding, 

keeping with the evolving priorities, under the Core Technology solicitations. Table 4.2

shows the categories in which there are projects that are currently funded in Product 

Development. Table 4.3 and Table 4.4 present the full listing of SSL Core Technology 

and Product Development projects funded by DOE. 

LED Core 

Technology

$19.8 million

17%

OLED Core 

Technology

$9.0 million

8%

LED Product 

Development, 

$17.7 million

15%

OLED Product 

Development

$14.9 million

12%

LED 

Manufacturing

$42.3 million

35%

OLED 

Manufacturing 

$16.2 million

13%

$120 million*
Date: Updated May 2011 47 

Table 4.1: SSL R&D Portfolio: Core Technology, March 2011 

Number of 

Projects

$ Funding 

(Million)

Light-Emitting Diodes 

Emitter Materials Research 6 $11.4 

Down-converters 3 $5.3 

Novel Emitter Materials and Architectures 1 $1.1 

Optical Component Materials 1 $2.0

Total LED 11 $19.8

Organic Light-Emitting Diodes

Novel Device Architecture 1 $1.1

Novel Materials 4 $5.2

Material Degradation 1 $0.8 

Electrode Research 1 $2.0 

Total OLED 7 $9.0

TOTAL 18 $28.8

Table 4.2: SSL R&D Portfolio: Product Development, March 2011 

Number of 

Projects

$ Funding 

(Million)

Light-Emitting Diodes

Semiconductor Materials 1 $2.3

Phosphors 2 $4.7

Emitter Thermal Control 1 $0.1

Luminaire Thermal Management Techniques 3 $5.7 

Electronic Components Research 3 $4.8

Off-Grid Lighting 1 $0.1 

Total LED 11 $17.7 

Organic Light-Emitting Diodes

Practical Implementation of Materials and Device 

Architectures 2 $6.6 

Substrate Materials 2 $2.2

Luminaire Mechanical Design 1 $2.4

Luminaire Thermal Management 1 $0.1

Large Area OLED 1 $2.0 

OLED Light Extraction 3 $1.6

Total OLED 10 $14.9

TOTAL 21 $32.6
Date: Updated May 2011 48 

Table 4.3: SSL R&D Portfolio: Current LED Research Projects, March 201152

Research 

Organization Project Title

Sandia National Lab Novel Defect Spectroscopy of InGaN Materials for Improved Green 

LEDs

Cree, Inc. SSL Luminaire with Novel Driver Architecture

PhosphorTech High Extraction Luminescent Materials for Solid State Lighting 

Georgia Tech Research 

Corporation

Fundamental Studies of Higher Efficiency III-N LEDs for HighEfficiency High-Power Solid-State Lighting

Yale University Multicolor, High Efficiency, Nanotextures LEDs

Osram

Highly Efficient Small Form Factor LED Retrofit Lamp

Philips High Efficiency Driving Electronics for General Illumination LED 

Luminaires

Soraa High Efficiency m-Plane LEDs on Low Defect Density Bulk GaN 

Substrates

Sandia National Lab Semi-polar GaN Materials Technology for High IQE Green LEDs 

Cree, Inc. Ultra-Compact High-Efficiency Luminaire for General Illumination 

GE Optimized Phosphors for Warm White LED Light Engines

Lightscape Materials Nitride- and Oxynitride-Based Phosphors for SSL

Osram High-Flux Commercial Illumination Solution with Intelligent Controls

Lumileds 130 Lm/W, 1000 Lm Warm White LED for Illumination

Rensselaer Polytechnic 

Institute

High Efficacy Green LEDs by Polarization Controlled Metalorganic 

Vapor Phase Epitaxy

U.S. ARMY Research 

Laboratory 

Exploiting Negative Polarization Charge at n-InGaN/p-GaN 

Heterointerfaces to Achieve High Power Green LEDs without 

Efficiency Droop

Eastman Kodak High Efficiency Colloidal Quantum Dot Phosphors

UCSD Phosphors for Near UV-Emitting LEDs for Efficacious Generation of 

White Light 

White Optics Low-Cost, Highly Lambertian Reflector Composite for Improved LED 

Fixture Efficiency and Lifetime

Sandia National Lab Novel Defect Spectroscopy of InGaN Materials for Improved Green 

LEDs

 

52 See Appendix E for a list of patents awarded through DOE funded projects.
Date: Updated May 2011 49 

Table 4.4: SSL R&D Portfolio: Current OLED Research Projects, March 2011

Research 

Organization Project Title

PNNL Charge Balance in Blue Electrophosphorescent Devices

UDC High Efficacy Integrated Under-Cabinet Phosphorescent OLED

Lighting Systems

Dupont Displays, Inc. Solution-Processed Small-Molecule OLED Luminaire for Interior 

Illumination

PPG Low-Cost Integrated Substrate for OLED Lighting 

PNNL Development of Stable Materials for High-Efficiency Blue OLEDs 

through Rational Design.

University of Florida Top-Emitting White OLEDs with Ultrahigh Light Extraction 

Efficiency

University of Florida High Efficiency Organic Light Emitting Devices for Lighting

University of Rochester Development and Utilization of Host Materials for White 

Phosphorescent OLEDs

Lawrence Berkley 

National Laboratory

Investigation of Long-Term OLED Device Stability via Transmission 

Electron Microscopy Imaging of Cross-Sectioned OLED Devices

Cambrios Solution-Processable Transparent Conductive Hole Injection Electrode 

for Organic Light-Emitting Diode (OLED) SSL

GE High Quantum Efficiency OLED Lighting Systems
Date: Updated May 2011 50 

5.0 Technology Research and Development Plan

The U.S. DOE supports domestic research, development, demonstration, and 

commercialization activities related to SSL to fulfill its objective of advancing energy 

efficient technologies. The DOE SSL R&D Portfolio focuses on meeting specific 

technological goals, as outlined in this document and also in the companion Solid-State 

Lighting Research and Development: Manufacturing Roadmap, 53

A part of the DOE SSL R&D Program mission, working through a government-industry 

partnership, is to facilitate new markets for high efficiency general illumination products 

that will enhance the quality of the illuminated environment as well as save energy. SSL 

sources are now available for the general illumination market, replacing some of today’s 

lighting technologies in specific applications. Strategies Unlimited estimates the LED 

lighting market grew from about $5.6 billion in 2009 to about $10.8 billion in 2010, 

representing a growth rate of 93%.

that will ultimately 

result in the development and accelerated adoption of commercial products that are 

significantly more energy efficient than conventional light sources. 

54

This chapter describes the objectives and work plan for future Core Technology and 

Product Development activities under the SSL R&D Program for the next few years, and 

some specific targets for 2020. A separate Manufacturing Roadmap provides similar 

guidance for manufacturing related R&D.

The DOE SSL R&D activities work to ensure that 

low cost, high quality, energy efficient lighting products are available and U.S. 

companies remain competitive in the new landscape of next generation lighting 

technology. 

55

5.2

 Advancements in the state of SSL technology 

have resulted in changes to the DOE SSL R&D plan over time and future revisions will 

continue to reflect the status of technology. The process of updating the content of this 

chapter for FY2011 began with a series of roundtable sessions convened in Washington, 

D.C. in November 2010. The industry experts invited to these sessions presented short 

talks on current topics of interest for LED and OLED technologies and then discussed the 

most critical R&D tasks based on the current status of the technology. The outcome of 

this meeting was a preliminary prioritization of the R&D tasks, which were presented at 

the DOE SSL R&D workshop in San Diego, California at the beginning of February 

2011. The workshop gave representatives of various sectors of the lighting industry an 

opportunity to review and comment on the proposed high priority R&D tasks for 2011. 

After subsequent review, and considering inputs received at the workshop, DOE has 

defined the task priorities for 2011 as listed in Sections (LEDs) and 5.4 (OLEDs).

5.1 Light Emitting-Diodes

Significant progress has been made in the development of LED-based SSL over the past 

 

53 The SSL Research and Development: Manufacturing Roadmap, can be found at 

http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/publications/pdfs/ssl/ssl_manuf-roadmap_july2010.pdf 

54 Business Wire, 2010 Worldwide High-Brightness Market Grew By 93 Percent According to Strategies 

Unlimited, http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20110223005343/en/2010-Worldwide-HighBrightness-LED-Market-Grew-93 55 
Date: Updated May 2011 51 

year, and many efficient replacement lamp and luminaire products have reached the 

market. Several of these products have established significant sales volumes. For 

example, Lighting Science Group, a U.S. manufacturer, produced over one million LED 

replacement lamps during 2010. Innovations in LED package design and manufacturing 

have continued to drive down LED package costs while offering increased lumen output, 

higher efficacy, and improved color consistency. Improvements in LED package efficacy 

and reductions in cost remain in line with the targets and milestones set by the SSL

MYPP. 

LED luminaires are now typically more efficient than incandescent sources and most 

CFL luminaires, although they still lag slightly behind linear fluorescent luminaires. As 

the efficiency has improved, the primary development focus has shifted from rapidly 

increasing efficacy to assuring that other lighting performance parameters such as color 

quality, color consistency, light distribution, and reliability are adequate for market 

acceptance. Increasing efficacy still remains a key goal and an important charter of the 

SSL Program. Continued innovation will lead to the development of LED-based lighting 

products with efficacies that can match or exceed linear fluorescent products and also 

retain excellent lighting performance in the other key parameters.

5.1.1 Components of LED Luminaires 

The subsequent sections of this MYPP describe LED white light general illumination 

luminaires. Understanding each component of a luminaire and its contribution to overall 

luminaire efficiency helps to highlight the opportunities for energy efficiency 

improvements and thereby to define priorities for DOE’s SSL R&D Portfolio. 

As SSL has evolved, a number of product configurations have appeared in the market. 

Two essential levels of product can be identified based on whether or not the product 

includes a driver (defined in the list below), and a number of terms can be defined for 

each level. Please note that these definitions have been updated from prior editions of the 

MYPP to reflect the agreed definitions in IES Standard RP-1656 Addendum b, as updated 

and released in 2009. 

Component level (no power source or driver) 

• LED

•

refers to a pn junction semiconductor device (also referred to as chip) that 

emits incoherent UV, visible, or infrared radiation when forward biased. 

LED Package

•

 refers to an assembly of one or more LEDs that includes wire bond 

or other type of electrical connections (thermal, mechanical, or electrical 

interfaces) and optionally an optical element. Power source and ANSI 

standardized base are not incorporated into the device. The device cannot be 

connected directly to the branch circuit.

LED Array or Module

 

56 Definitions provided by ANSI/IES RP-16-10 Nomenclature and Definitions for Illuminating 

Engineering with permission from the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America

refers to an assembly of LED packages (components), or 

dies on a printed circuit board or substrate, possibly with optical elements and 
Date: Updated May 2011 52 

additional thermal, mechanical, and electrical interfaces that are intended to 

connect to the load side of a LED driver. Power source and ANSI standard base 

are not incorporated into the device. The device cannot be connected directly to 

the branch circuit.

Subassemblies and systems (including a driver)

• LED Lamp refers to an assembly with an ANSI standardized base designed for 

connection to an LED luminaire. There are two general categories of LED lamps:

o Integrated LED Lamp

o

 refers to an integrated assembly comprised of 

LED packages (components) or LED arrays (modules), LED driver, 

ANSI standard base and other optical, thermal, mechanical and 

electrical components. The device is intended to connect directly to the 

branch circuit through a corresponding ANSI standard lamp-holder 

(socket).

Non-Integrated LED Lamp refers to an assembly comprised of an LED 

array (module) or LED packages (components) and ANSI standard 

base. The device is intended to connect to the LED driver of an LED 

luminaire through an ANSI standard lamp-holder (socket). The device 

cannot be connected directly to the branch circuit. 

• LED Light Engine

•

 consists of an integrated assembly comprised of LED packages 

(components) or LED arrays (modules), LED driver, and other optical, thermal, 

mechanical and electrical components. The device is intended to connect directly 

to the branch circuit through a custom connector compatible with the LED 

luminaire for which it was designed and does not use an ANSI standard base. 

LED Driver refers to a device comprised of a power source and LED control 

circuitry designed to receive input from the branch circuit and operate a LED 

package (component), an LED array (module) or an LED lamp. 

o Power Supply

o

refers to an electronic device capable of providing and 

controlling current, voltage, or power within design limits. 

LED Control Circuitry refers to electronic components designed to control 

a power source by adjusting output voltage, current or duty cycle to switch 

or otherwise control the amount and characteristics of the electrical energy 

delivered to a LED package (component) or an LED array (module). LED 

control circuitry does not include a power source. 

• LED Luminaire refers to a complete lighting unit consisting of LED-based light 

emitting elements and a matched driver together with parts to distribute light, to 

position and protect the light emitting elements, and to connect the unit to a 

branch circuit. The LED luminaire is intended to connect directly to a branch 

circuit.
Date: Updated May 2011 53 

Figure 5.1, below, illustrates a few of these definitions. 

 

Figure 5.1: Photos of LED Components, Lamp and Luminaire

Sources: Cree (LED), Journée (Package), Philips (Light Engine and Lamp), The Lighting Quotient

(Luminaire – Cove Light)

5.1.2 LED Efficiency Metrics

To highlight specific opportunities for efficiency improvements, the various elements of 

power efficiency, both electrical and optical, can be identified within the LED package 

and for the luminaire as a whole. In addition, the efficiency of converting optical radiated 

power into useful light is derived from the optical responsiveness of the human eye. This 

source of inefficiency (the spectral or optical efficacy of the light) is the difference 

between an optimal spectrum for a given CCT and CRI (or color quality scale) and the 

spectrum of the light generated by the LED package or luminaire. 

The luminaire efficacy, a key metric for the DOE SSL R&D Program, is the ratio of 

lumen output to the electrical power applied to the luminaire. The LED package efficacy

refers to the ratio of lumens out of the LED package to the power applied to the LED 

package at room temperature, thus not including the driver, luminaire optical or thermal 

losses. This technology plan forecasts both LED package efficacy and luminaire efficacy 

improvements. It is important to keep in mind that it is the luminaire performance that 

ultimately determines the actual energy savings. 

LED Package

Lamp

Light Engine

Luminaire
Date: Updated May 2011 54 

Opportunities for improvement of the LED package include: reducing the operating 

voltage of the device (electrical efficiency); improving the efficiency of conversion of 

electrons into photons (IQE); maximizing the extraction of those photons from the 

material (extraction efficiency); and tailoring the spectrum of the radiated light to 

increase the eye response. Tailoring of the spectrum to the eye response is constrained by 

the need to provide light of appropriate color quality. 

The following sections compare efficiencies achieved in 2010 for individual luminaire 

and LED packages to the 2020 SSL R&D Program goals. These consensus goals were 

developed and updated at the LED Roundtable meetings and were further refined by 

contributions from the R&D Workshop. It is important to realize that there may be 

significantly different allocations of loss for any specific design, which may still result in 

an efficient luminaire. The following allocation of 2010 efficiency values and 2020 

targets serves as a guide for identifying the opportunities for improvement. This example 

allocation of efficiency is not intended to preclude novel developments, which may 

employ a different allocation of losses but results in superior luminaire performance. 

As described in Section 3.1, white light LED luminaires are typically based on one of 

three approaches: 

a) pc-LEDs; 

b) color-mixed LEDs; and

c) a hybrid consisting of a mix of pc-LEDs and monochromatic packages. 

Definitions 

The following definitions provide some clarification on the efficiency values presented in 

the figures and for the project objectives over time. 

Elements of the LED package power conversion efficiency are: 

• Electrical efficiency

•

accounts for the efficiency with which electrical charge 

carriers injected into the LED package find their way to the active region of the 

LED device. Ohmic (resistive) losses associated with the semiconductor layers 

and the LED package materials represent the most important loss mechanism. A 

reduction in electrical efficiency is associated with an increase in the energy 

(voltage) required to create photons over and above the intrinsic bandgap energy 

(voltage) of the semiconductor active region; 

Internal quantum efficiency, IQE, is the ratio of the photons emitted from the 

active region of the semiconductor chip to the number of electrons injected into 

the active region;57

• Light Extraction efficiency 

 

57 The internal quantum efficiency is difficult to measure, although it can be measured indirectly in various 

ways, for example using a methodology described by S. Saito, et al., Phys. Stat. Sol. (c) 5, 2195 (2008).

is the ratio of photons emitted from the semiconductor 

chip into the encapsulant to the total number of photons generated in the active 

region. This includes the effect of power reflected back into the chip because of 

index of refraction difference, but excludes losses related to phosphor conversion; 
Date: Updated May 2011 55 

• External quantum efficiency, EQE, is the ratio of extracted photons to injected 

electrons.58

• EQE Current Droop represents the difference in EQE (at 25°C) between the peak, 

very low current density, value and that reported as nominal, commonly 35A/cm

 It is the product of the IQE and the extraction efficiency; 

2

•

. 

Luminaires may operate at an even higher current density resulting in additional 

current droop, defined below. Current droop is considered to be a reduction in the 

IQE as current density is increased (light extraction efficiency is assumed to be 

constant), but can be most readily characterized through EQE measurement;

Phosphor conversion efficiency

Figure 5.2

 refers to the efficiency with which phosphors 

convert the wavelength of the absorbed light. The phosphor efficiency includes 

quantum efficiency of the phosphor and the Stokes loss of the conversion process. 

This efficiency is relevant only to the pc-LED described in ; 

• Color-mixing/Scattering efficiency

• Spectral efficiency is the ratio of the luminous efficacy of radiation (LER) of the 

actual spectrum to the maximum possible LER (LER

 refers to losses incurred while mixing colors in 

order to create white light (not the spectral efficacy, but just optical losses). This 

efficiency also accounts for the scattering and absorption losses in the phosphor 

and encapsulant of the package. The efficiency can be described as the ratio of the 

photons exiting the encapsulant to the photons injected into the encapsulant; and 

max), as determined by the 

modeling of an optimized spectrum with appropriate color quality. The actual 

spectrum may be limited by the response of the phosphor, or when optimal 

wavelengths for a color mixed or hybrid LED are not available.

Additional efficiency losses occur when the LED package and other subsystems are 

assembled into a luminaire. Some of them are straightforward new sources of loss 

associate with the luminaire itself. Some, however, are additional losses that occur as 

a result of operation of the LED package above room temperature or at higher current 

density than the nominal. 

• Driver efficiency represents the efficiency of the electronics in converting input 

power from 120 V alternating current to low-voltage direct current as well as any 

controls needed to adjust for changes in conditions (e.g. temperature or age) so as 

to maintain brightness and color or for active control of the lighting system; 

• Additional EQE current droop represents the ratio of EQE (at 25°C) at a current 

density of 100 A/cm2 as compared with 35 A/cm2

 

58 The external quantum efficiency can be measured experimentally using the expression ηex = (Popt / hν) / 

(I / q) where Popt is the absolute optical output power, hν is the photon energy, I is the injection current and 

q is the electron charge.

. Packages are often operated at 

higher current densities in order to minimize the number of packages required to 

achieve a specific lumen output. Increasing the current density currently results in 

reduced efficiency due to additional EQE current droop. Reducing the droop 

sensitivity of the LED can reduce this additional loss;
Date: Updated May 2011 56 

• Flux thermal stability is the ratio of the lumens emitted by the LED package in 

thermal equilibrium under continuous operation in a luminaire to the lumens 

emitted by the package as typically measured and reported in production at 

25°C.59

• Phosphor thermal stability is the ratio of phosphor conversion efficiency at 

thermal equilibrium under continuous operation in a luminaire to the phosphor 

conversion efficiency measure at 25°C. This additional cause of efficiency loss as 

the phosphor temperature increases is relevant only to the pc-LED; and

These thermal losses can be reduced by minimizing temperature rise 

through innovative thermal management strategies or perhaps by reducing the 

thermal sensitivity of the LED package itself; 

• Luminaire optical efficiency is the ratio of the lumens emitted by the luminaire to 

the lumens emitted by the LED package in thermal equilibrium. This efficiency 

loss arises from optical losses in diffusers, reflectors, beam shaping optics or 

shields or objects in the light path (for purposes of this analysis, spectral effects in 

the fixture and optics are ignored, although this may not always be appropriate). 

Phosphor-Converted LED 

Figure 5.2 summarizes an analysis of the various sources of efficiency loss, as defined 

above, in a pc-LED package and luminaire. The chart shows, for each loss channel, an 

estimate of the present efficiency of that channel and also an estimate of the potential 

headroom for improvement, that is, the difference between today's efficiency and the 

MYPP 2020 target. Table 5.1 shows the efficiencies (both status and target) as typically 

reported for packages, i.e. pulsed measurements taken at a 25°C package temperature and 

at a nominal current density of 35A/cm2

. Package loss channels are divided between the 

blue pump diode and the phosphor. Additional luminaire losses include degradation of 

both LED and phosphor due to higher temperatures and also optical and driver 

inefficiencies. For cost effectiveness, some luminaire designs use the diodes at a higher 

current density, which leads to additional loss due to current droop. That high current 

"penalty" is included in the last line of the chart. However, luminaire losses vary widely 

depending on application or design. 

The LED package efficacy is then the product of the electrical-to-optical conversion 

efficiency, the spectral efficiency, and LERmax, which is about 345 lm/W for this specific 

example.

 

59 Standard LED package measurements use relatively short pulses of current to eliminate thermal effects, 

keeping the device at 25°C (or other controlled point). In standard operation, however, the LED is driven 

under CW (continuous wave) conditions. Under these conditions, in thermal equilibrium the device 

operates at a case temperature typically 100 degrees or so higher than room temperature. 
Date: Updated May 2011 57 

Figure 5.2: pc-LED Package and Luminaire Loss Channels and Efficiencies

Notes: 

1. LED package efficiencies are as typically reported at 25°C and 35 A/cm2

2. The analysis assumes a CCT of 3000K and CRI of 85. Different choices of CCT/CRI will lead to 

slightly different results.

, although this is changing as 

some LED makers adopt hot binning to tighten up on color variations.

3. The phosphor conversion efficiency is an estimate over the spectrum including the loss due to the 

Stokes shift (90% quantum yield times the ratio of the average pumped wavelength and the average 

wavelength emitted). The value here is typical of a blue diode/yellow and red (for warm light) 

phosphor system. Other phosphor formulations will give different results. 

4. The current droop from the peak efficiency to that at the nominal current density is shown here as an 

opportunity for improvement, since there is still as much as a 15% gain in efficiency to be had by 

eliminating this loss for 35 A/cm2

, and much more if the diode is operated at higher currents.

Reducing the sensitivity to current density is a significant opportunity for improved 

efficacy and cost reduction, but there is room for improvement in many areas. 

Combining the estimates for the LED with those of the luminaire, and accounting for 

spectral efficiency allows an assessment of overall luminaire efficacy under normal 

operating conditions. For the case of the pc-LED this is summarized in Table 5.1. 

Although it is uncertain as to whether all of the proposed improvements can actually be 

realized in a commercial, marketable product, meeting these goals suggests that there is 

an impressive potential here for an improvement over today’s luminaire performance. 

90%

80%

80%

85%

66%

85%

90%

95%

90%

85%

85%

77%

5%

10%

10%

15%

3%

5%

10%

3%

5%

7%

7%

23%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Electrical Efficiency

Internal Quantum Efficiency (IQE, blue)

Extraction Efficiency

IQE stability ("Droop" 35A/cm2 vs peak)

Phosphor Conversion Efficiency

Scattering/absorption/color mixing

Package Spectral Efficiency

LED thermal stability (100C vs 25C)

Phosphor thermal stability (100C vs 25C)

LED driver (Power supply, controls)

Fixture and optical efficiency

High drive IQE droop 

(100A/cm2 vs 35A/cm2)

MYPP '11: 2010 Status @ 35A/cm2,25C Potential Improvement (2020 Target)
Date: Updated May 2011 58 

Table 5.1: Summary of Warm White pc-LED Luminaire Efficiencies and Efficacies

Metric 2010 Status 2020 Target

Optical Power Conversion Efficiency 49% 77% 

Phosphor Conversion/Scattering 56% 62%

Spectral Efficiency 90% 100%

LED Package Efficiency60

27% 48% 

LED Package Nominal Efficacy (lm/W) 92 165

Luminaire Efficiency 62% 79%

Luminaire Efficacy (lm/W) 57 130

High Current Luminaire Efficacy (lm/W) 44 130

Note: Luminaire efficiency only includes driver, fixture, and thermal effects. 

Color-Mixed LED 

Figure 5.3 provides a similar analysis to the above for a color-mixed LED luminaire 

solution. The performance is characterized using four colors red, green, blue and amber. 

Please note that this analysis has been updated from prior editions of the MYPP to 

include a fourth color line, which allows for further improvement to the color quality and 

spectral efficiency. The definitions for the various efficiencies are the same as listed for 

Figure 5.2. While this is a similar analysis to the pc-LED figure, the lack of commercial 

product of this type means that the current status is an estimate of what could be done 

today. As shown in the figure, the lack of efficient green and amber (direct emitting) 

LEDs limits the capability color-mixed LEDs today. 

Because the color-mixed LED does not suffer from Stokes loss, it is theoretically capable 

of slightly higher efficacies than the pc-LED, although the benefit may be offset by the 

need for color mixing optics. There may also be stability issues of color-mixed luminaires 

that must be taken into account, such as additional driver complexity and cost. Other 

options exist for obtaining different color temperatures or CRI using a hybrid approach. 

For example, a warm white color can be achieved by mixing white pc-LEDs with 

monochromatic red or amber LEDs. In fact, high efficacy warm white luminaires 

employing this hybrid approach are already on the market. 

 

60 This accounts for a portion of the blue pump not converted by the phosphor.
Date: Updated May 2011 59 

Figure 5.3: Color-mixed LED Package and Luminaire Loss Channels and Efficiencies Notes: 

1. Efficiencies are as typically reported at 25°C and 35 A/cm2

2. The analysis assumes a CCT of 3000K and CRI of 85. Different choices of CCT/CRI will lead to 

slightly different results.

. 

3. IQE statuses and targets assume wavelength ranges for each color as shown in Table 5.6, later in 

this chapter.

4. The efficiency allocation shown in this figure is only one example of how the luminaire efficiency 

target can be met.

Achieving the efficiency targets identified in Figure 5.3 will require more efficient 

emitters, particularly green and amber LEDs. The ultimate goal is to raise the IQE to 90% 

across the visible spectrum, bringing the total package conversion efficiency to 67%. As 

the LEDs become more efficient, there will necessarily be more emphasis on the other 

luminaire losses in order to maximize overall efficiency. 

Table 5.2, below, provides an overall summary of the efficiency and resulting efficacy for 

a color mixed LED. Present performance is only estimated, but is strongly affected by the 

low efficiency of green LEDs and by the lack of efficient LEDs at optimal wavelengths 

for maximum spectral efficiency. On the other hand, the potential is quite a bit higher 

than for the pc-LED: 202 lm/W for the luminaire.

90%

80%

85%

90%

20%

90%

80%

75%

85%

85%

77%

5%

10%

15%

5%

53%

5%

16%

15%

7%

7%

23%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Electrical Efficiency

Extraction Efficiency

IQE stability ("Droop" 35A/cm2 vs peak)

Scattering/absorption

Weighted Power Conversion 

Color mixing

Spectral efficiency

LED thermal stability (100C vs 25C)

LED driver (Power supply, controls)

Other fixture and optical losses

High drive IQE droop 

(100A/cm2 vs 35A/cm2)

MYPP '11: 2010 Status @ 35A/cm2,25C Potential Improvement (2020 Target)
Date: Updated May 2011 60 

Table 5.2: Summary of Warm White Color-Mixed LED Luminaire Efficiencies and 

Efficacies

Metric 2010 Status 2020 Target

Optical Power Conversion Efficiency 18% 69%

Spectral Efficiency 80% 96%

LED Package Efficiency 14% 67%

LED Package Nominal Efficacy 57 266

Luminaire Efficiency 54% 76%

Luminaire Efficacy 31 202

High Temperature Efficacy 24 202

Note: Luminaire efficiency only includes driver, fixture, and thermal effects. 

5.1.3 LED Package Performance Targets

The ultimate objectives of the SSL Program relate to luminaire efficacy and cost, so 

objectives for luminaire performance are also included along with device performance 

objectives. Innovative fixtures for LEDs can limit the luminaire impact on the efficacy of 

the LED. For example, package efficiencies (and operating lifetime) reported at 25°C and 

35 A/cm2

 can be degraded by 30% or more when operated at full temperature and higher 

operating currents in a luminaire. The simultaneous accommodation of aesthetic and 

marketing considerations along with the preservation of the energy saving advantages of 

SSL is an ongoing challenge for the commercialization of this technology.

The performance of white light LED packages depends on both the CCT of the package 

and, to a lesser extent, the CRI. Some changes have been made in this report with regard 

to the designation of color temperature ranges as cool, neutral and warm. These changes 

have been made to reflect newly defined ANSI binning ranges61

Single LED package efficacies over 200 lm/W have recently been reported in press 

releases, while commercial products also continue to improve. So a fair question to ask 

is, just what are the limits? 

and to correct earlier 

inconsistencies. CRI ranges have also been revised for similar reasons. While every case 

cannot be examined, efficacy projections have been shown for two choices: one for 

cooler CCT (4746 K to 7040 K) with CRI=70-80, and the other for warmer CCT (2580 K 

to 3710 K) with CRI = 80-90. 

A starting point is the theoretical maximum efficacies of an SSL product given perfect

conversion of electricity to light. This depends on the Luminous Efficacy of Radiation, or 

LER, which is the useful light in lumens obtained from a given spectrum. Work by NIST 

has shown that LED emission spectra with good color quality can be modeled that yield 

LERs in the range of 350 to 450 lm/Woptical. If we call these theoretical bests LERmax, 

then LER/LERmax

Table 5.3

is the spectral efficiency of a given source.

shows LERmax

 

61 ANSI C78.377-2008

 for a range of choices for CCT and CRI, and the resulting 

package efficacy for assumed overall package conversion efficiencies of 67%, the 
Date: Updated May 2011 61 

estimated potential maximum conversion efficiency. These figures assume a moderate 

(approximately 20nm) FWHM of the LED emission in a RGBA configuration. Under 

these conditions, the analysis suggests that warm white LEDs could have higher 

efficacies than cooler ones. This will not be the case with pc-LEDs, where broad spectra 

emit a considerable amount of the long wavelength energy in regions of low eye response 

and outside of the visible spectrum, and Stokes loss fundamentally limits efficiency. As 

noted in the footnotes to the tables and charts above, the targets assume a CCT of 3000 K 

and a CRI of 85, which results in an efficacy target for 67% conversion of about 266 

lm/W. This is considered to be a reasonable program goal. 

Table 5.3: Estimated efficacies as a function of CCT and CRI (Ra)

62

Maximum LER

(lm/W)

Efficacy for 67% Conversion

(lm/W)

CCT CRI 70 CRI 85 CRI 90 CRI 70 CRI 85 CRI 90

5000 380 365 356 255 245 239

3800 407 389 379 273 261 254

2700 428 407 394 287 273 264

Figure 5.4 shows revised package efficacy improvement forecasts over time. There are 

several items to note regarding the figure:

• Though each CRI/CCT permutation may result in a slightly difference theoretical 

maximum package efficacy, a common 266 lm/W practical limit has been chosen 

for both cool and warm white; 

• Data points are indicated as either qualified, i.e. within the parameters defined for 

the various curves, or not-qualified, meaning one or more parameters is either 

outside the indicated limits, or is unknown; and 

• In an attempt to clear up past confusion, this chart is intended to show results for a 

single package product or lab demonstration, but that package could include more 

than one LED, and more than one color. So, RGB solutions or hybrid R-W 

solutions, for example, might be shown, as long as they are packaged together. In 

fact, it may require such solutions to reach the higher levels of efficacy shown in 

this chart.

Press releases for lab results are often unclear about all of the parameters, making a true 

comparison difficult. They are almost always designed with a cool white CCT or close to 

it. Current densities may not be reported, and colors may be rather far off the black body 

curve. Nonetheless, they still provide a useful preview of actual products appearing a few 

years later.

Products generally are easier to characterize, although there are fewer fully qualified data 

points for cool white than for warm. Hopefully this will change going forward. It is 

probably worth noting that, having filtered what data we do have, the warm and cool 

 

62 Empirical approximation from: Tsao, Jeffrey Y., et. al., Solid State Lighting: An Integrated Human 

Factors, Technology and Economic Perspective, Proc. IEEE, August 2009.
Date: Updated May 2011 62 

curves appear to be tracking more closely than we had thought in the past, further 

supporting the idea that the ultimate limits may not be all that far apart. Several workshop 

participants and other stakeholders have noted that many products are not as close to the 

black body curve as one might prefer even though they may be within one of the ANSIdefined color bins. Some CALiPER testing has revealed products so far off the black 

body value as to call into question whether the product is producing truly white light. It 

has also been observed that colors above the black body curve (yellowish) are less 

acceptable in the marketplace than colors slightly below (pinkish). It may be worth 

additionally qualifying data on the basis of Duv, representing the departure of u', v' 

values from the black body line, but that will require more complete reporting by the 

industry than has generally been provided in past years. 

Figure 5.4: White Light LED Package Efficacy Targets63

Notes: 

, Laboratory and Commercial

1. Cool White: CRI 70-80; CCT 4746-7040 K

2. Warm White: CRI 80-90; CCT 2580-3710 K

3. Current density: 35A/cm2

4. These results are at 25°C package temperature, not steady state operating temperature. Thermal 

sensitivity will reduce efficacies by 24% or so in normal operation, depending on luminaire 

thermal management.

 

Based on progress over the last five years using data that can be qualified according to 

the criteria, the projections indicate that while improvements in warm white have been 

 

63 Projections are a simple logistical function fit to the qualified data points using a common asymptote of 

266 lm/W (3800K/CRI=85 in table 5.3). 

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020

Luminous Efficacy (lm/W)

Year

Lab Cool White - not qualified

Lab Cool White Projection

Commercial Cool White

Comm Cool White - not qualified

Commercial Cool White

Commercial Warm White

Comm Warm White - not qualified

Commercial Warm White
Date: Updated May 2011 63 

somewhat slower than for cool, our expectation is that this gap will close over time, as 

shown. The lab results may be reaching their limits fairly soon. Table 5.4 summarizes the 

LED package performance projections. The 2010 statuses in the table represent the fitted 

efficacies presented in Figure 5.4. 

Table 5.4: Summary of LED Package Performance Projections

Metric 2010 2012 2015 2020

Cool White 

Efficacy (lm/W) 134 176 224 258 

Warm White 

Efficacy (lm/W) 96 141 202 253 

Note: Projections for cool white packages assume CCT=4746-7040K and CRI=70-80, while projections for 

warm white packages assume CCT=2580-3710K and CRI=80-90. All efficacy projections assume that 

packages are measured at 25°C with a drive current density of 35 A/cm2

. 

The maximum LED package life, as commonly defined by 70% lumen maintenance, has 

increased steadily over the past few years and several manufacturers claim that lumen 

maintenance is currently at its target of an average of 50,000 hours (for specific products 

this should be verified by LM-80 test results). Also, lumen maintenance, while thought to 

dominate the useful life of an LED package, does not account for other failure 

mechanisms such as manufacturing defects. 

Lifetime of a luminaire may be shorter, sometimes much shorter, than an LED package

70% lumen maintenance metric. There are many other potential failure mechanisms. 

Additional components and subsystems such as the drivers or optical reflectors can fail 

independently of the LED. There may also be assembly defects or optics that can lead to 

a failure. Poor luminaire design can shorten the life of an LED package dramatically 

through overheating. Drivers may also limit the lifetime of an LED package, hastening 

lumen depreciation, by overstressing the LED. In the case of professional systems, a 

failure rate of perhaps 10% of product is probably the maximum acceptable value. 

Usually, these factors lead to a shorter useful life than that indicated by lumen 

maintenance. 

Especially for luminaires, where full product testing is very expensive, methods for 

characterizing lifetime, especially as changes in materials or processes are introduced, 

would greatly benefit from accelerated aging tests which so far have not been established 

for LED technologies. This is an important area of work, and there is an identified task 

for it (research task B.6.3) described in Section 0. 
Date: Updated May 2011 64 

5.1.4 LED Luminaire Performance Targets

As stated in Section 5.1.2, the LED package is only one component of an LED luminaire. 

To understand the true performance metrics of a SSL source, the efficiency of the driver 

the optical efficiency of the fixture, and the thermal impact of the assembly on the 

performance of the packaged LED must be considered. Provided below in Table 5.5 are 

luminaire performance projections to complement the package and lamp performance 

projections. 

Table 5.4 and Table 5.5 assume a linear progression over time from the current 2010 

fixture and driver efficiency performance levels to eventual fixture and driver efficiency 

2020 program targets as given in Section 5.1.1. Estimating the factors that affect the 

performance of an LED luminaire, it appears that a warm white luminaire in 2010 was 

capable of achieving 57 lm/W (which is corroborated by the performance of a few SSL 

products on the market). By 2020 warm white luminaire efficacies should reach a 

capability of 202 lm/W. 

Table 5.5: Summary of LED Luminaire Performance Targets (at operating temperatures)

Metric 2010 2012 2015 2020

Package Efficacy – Commercial 

Warm White (lm/W, 25°C) 92 141 202 266

Thermal Efficiency 86% 86% 88% 90%

Efficiency of Driver 85% 86% 89% 92% 

Efficiency of Fixture 85% 86% 89% 92% 

Resultant luminaire efficiency 62% 64% 69% 76%

Luminaire Efficacy – Commercial 

Warm White (lm/W) 57 91 139 202

High Current Luminaire Efficacy –

Commercial Warm White (lm/W) 44 74 123 202

Notes: 

1. Efficacy projections for warm white luminaires assume CCT=2580-3710K and CRI=80-90. 

2. All projections assume a drive current density of 35 A/cm2

3. Luminaire efficacies are obtained by multiplying the resultant luminaire efficiency by the package 

efficacy values. 

, reasonable package life and operating 

temperature.

5.1.5 Barriers to adoption of LED-based lighting

The following lists some of the technical, cost, and market barriers to LEDs. Overcoming 

these barriers is essential to the success of the SSL R&D Program. 

1. Cost: The initial cost of LED-based general illumination sources is too high, 

in comparison with conventional lighting technologies, (see Sections 3.4 and 

3.5). Since the lighting market has historically been strongly affected by first 

cost, lifetime benefits notwithstanding, lower cost LED package and 

luminaire materials are needed, as well as low-cost, high-volume, reliable 

manufacturing methods. In 2009, DOE initiated a SSL Manufacturing R&D 
Date: Updated May 2011 65 

program to address these issues. The DOE Manufacturing R&D Roadmap 

and a description of the program can be found at the DOE SSL website. 

2. Luminous Efficacy: As the primary measure of DOE’s goal of improved 

energy efficiency, the luminous efficacy (lm/W) of LEDs can still improve. 

Although the luminous efficacy of LED luminaires has surpassed that of the 

incandescent and compact fluorescent lamps, improvement is still needed to 

compete with other conventional lighting solutions and to maximize the 

energy savings from this technology. The efficacy of commercial LEDs is not 

yet near its fundamental limit and still has considerable room for 

improvement. Further improvements in LED efficacy can lead to even greater 

energy savings and can impact the cost of SSL sources, which can accelerate 

adoption of efficient LED products. For example, minimizing the amount of 

droop that occurs at high drive currents for LEDs can allow for the efficient 

use of fewer LEDs dramatically impacting cost. In general, improving the 

efficacy of the LED impacts the number of LEDs required for the lighting 

application as well as the thermal handling demands in the LED luminaire. 

3. Lifetime: A definition of lifetime that focuses on lumen maintenance is 

inadequate for luminaires. Lumen maintenance is only one component of the 

lifetime of a luminaire that may be subject to other failure mechanisms such 

as color shifts, optics degradation, or even catastrophic failure. How the LED 

is designed into the luminaire can also have considerable impact on the 

lifetime of the system, inadequate thermal handling can reduce the LED 

lifetime and the design of the power supply can also impact the lifetime of the 

LED. A better understanding of the luminaire system lifetime and reliability 

is necessary for accelerated adoption of energy saving LED-based light 

sources.

4. Testing: The reported lumen output and efficacies of LED products in the 

market do not always match laboratory tests of performance. While 

standardized testing protocols for performance metrics have been developed 

for light output, color, and efficacy there are still many products that do not 

match the stated performance claims. DOE has supported the development of 

the Lighting Facts label to standardize performance reporting. Still, an 

important barrier for luminaire integrators appears to be the difference in 

stated LED device specifications versus the actual LED performance at 

continuous operation in a luminaire. LED manufacturers have begun to 

address this problem by providing ‘hot’ performance data on the LEDs. 

Furthermore, accelerated reliability testing methods for systems and materials 

would greatly reduce costs and time-to-market. Such tests, capable of 

providing accurate projections of life, do not currently exist. Uncertainty in 

both device and luminaire lifetimes creates risk for manufacturers and 

consumers, potentially reducing adoption rates. 
Date: Updated May 2011 66 

5. Manufacturing: Lack of process and component uniformity will be an 

important issue for LEDs and is a barrier to reduced costs as well as a 

problem for uniform quality of light. 

5.2 LED Critical R&D Priorities

In order to achieve these projected performance advancements presented earlier, 

progress must be achieved in several research areas. The original R&D task 

structure and initial priorities were defined at a workshop in San Diego in 

February 2005. These priorities have been updated in subsequent editions of the 

MYPP. Because of continuing progress in the technology and better 

understanding of critical issues, DOE engaged members of the lighting field, from 

industry representatives to academic researchers, to revisit and substantially revise 

the task structure for the 2009 MYPP. In updating the 2011 MYPP, DOE first 

held SSL roundtable sessions in Washington, D.C. in November of 2010 (see 

Appendix D for the entire task list). The tasks were further discussed and refined 

at the February 2011 “Transformations in Lighting” workshop in San Diego, CA. 

Using these recommendations, and after further internal review, DOE defined a 

set of task priorities for 2011. It should be noted that the priority list includes one 

new task (B.6.4) but is generally more focused than in prior years to reflect 

anticipated budget limitations. The task priorities for 2011 are as follows: 

For LED Core Technology: 

• Subtask A.1.2 (Emitter Materials Research) addresses the need for an improved 

understanding of the critical materials issues impacting the development of more 

efficient LEDs. A key focus will be on identifying fundamental physical 

mechanisms underlying the phenomenon of current droop in high performance 

blue LEDs. Another focus will be on reducing the thermal sensitivity of LEDs, 

especially those in the red and amber spectral regions; and

• Subtask A.1.3 (Down Converters) emphasizes improvements in phosphor 

quantum yield and thermal stability, and targets phosphors compatible with 

improved conversion efficiency, spectral efficiency, and color quality for warm 

white LEDs.

For LED Product Development: 

• Subtask B.1.1 (Substrate Development) investigates the development of 

alternative substrate solutions that are compatible with the realization of state of 

the art LED performance, and are compatible with the production of low-cost 

high-efficacy LED packages that meet target performance and cost goals; 

• Subtask B.3.6 (Package Architecture) supports the development of novel LED 

package and module architectures that can be readily integrated into luminaries, 

and address issues such as efficacy, thermal management, cost, color, optical 

distribution, electrical integration, sensing, and reliability; 

• Subtask B.6.3 (System Reliability and Lifetime) encourages the collection and 

analysis of system reliability data for SSL luminaries and components to 
Date: Updated May 2011 67 

determine failure mechanisms, and the use of this data to develop and validate 

accelerated test methods leading to an openly available and widely usable 

software tool to model SSL reliability and lifetime; and

• Subtask B.6.4. (Novel Luminaire Systems) targets the development of truly novel 

luminaire system architectures and form factors that take advantage of the unique 

properties of LEDs to save energy, and present a pathway to enhanced market 

adoption. 

5.2.1 LED Priority Core Technology Tasks for 2011 

The following definitions are used throughout this section for LED emission wavelength 

and white LED color point: 

Table 5.6: LED emission wavelength and color definitions for this section

Color Wavelength/CCT range CRI

Blue 440-460 nm -

Green 520-540 nm -

Amber 585-595 nm -

Red 610-620 nm -

White

Warm 2580-3710 K

(ANSI 2700, 3000, 3500 K)

80-90

Neutral 3711-4745 K

(ANSI 4000, 4500 K)

70-80

Cool 4746-7040 K

(ANSI 5000, 5700, 6500 K)

70-80
Date: Updated May 2011 68 

A1.2 Emitter Materials Research 

Description: (1) Identify fundamental physical mechanisms of efficiency droop for blue 

LEDs through experimentation using state of the art epitaxial material and device 

structures in combination with theoretical analysis. (2) Identify and demonstrate means to 

reduce current droop and thermal sensitivity for all colors through both experimental and 

theoretical work. (3) Develop efficient red (610-620 nm) or amber (580-595 nm) LEDs 

which allow for optimization of spectral efficiency with high color quality over a range of 

CCT and which also exhibit color and efficiency stability with respect to operating 

temperature.

Metric(s) 2010 Status(s) 2020 Target(s)

IQE @ 35 A/cm

80% (Blue)

2 38% (Green)

75% (Red)

13% (Amber)

90% (Blue, Green, Red, 

Amber)

EQE @ 35 A/cm

64% (Blue)

2 30% (Green)

60% (Red)

10% (Amber)

81% (Blue, Green, Red, 

Amber)

Power Conversion 

Efficiency64 @ 35 A/cm

44% (Blue)

2

21% (Green) 

33% (Red)

7% (Amber)

73% (Blue, Green, Red, 

Amber)

Relative EQE at 100 A/cm2

vs. 35 A/cm2 77% (Droop) 100% 

Thermal Stability – Relative 

Optical Flux at 100°C vs. 

25°C 

95% (Blue, Green)

50% (Red) 

25% (Amber)65

98% (Blue, Green)

75% (Red, Amber) 

 

64 Optical power out divided by electrical power in.

65 This status is representative of direct emitters. Amber pc-LEDs can currently achieve thermal stability of 

up to 83%.
Date: Updated May 2011 69 

A1.3 Down Converters 

Description: Explore new non-toxic, high-efficiency wavelength conversion materials 

for improved quantum yield and phosphor conversion efficiency for the purposes of 

creating warm white LEDs, with a particular emphasis on improving spectral efficiency 

with high color quality and improved thermal stability. 

Metric(s) 2010 Status(s) 2020 Target(s)

Quantum Yield (25°C) 

across the visible spectrum 90% 95% 

Thermal Stability across the 

visible spectrum 

- Relative Quantum Yield at 

150°C vs. 25°C 

90% 95% 

Avg. Conversion 

Efficiency66 66% (pc-LED) 69% 

Spectral Full Width Half 

Max. (FWHM) 150 nm (Red) <50 nm (Red) 

Color Stability (pc-LED) Color Shift 0.012 u’

v’ over Color Shift < 0.002 u

life

’

v’

Spectral Efficiency relative 

to a maximum LER = 345 

lm/W

over life

90% 100% 

5.2.2 LED Priority Product Development Tasks for 2011 

See Table 5.6 for definitions that are used throughout this section for LED emission 

wavelength and white LED color point. 

 

66 Refers to the efficiency with which phosphors create white light using an LED pump. The phosphor 

efficiency includes quantum efficiency and the Stokes loss of the phosphor. 
Date: Updated May 2011 70 

B1.1 Substrate Development 

Description: Develop alternative substrate solutions that are compatible with the 

demonstration of low cost high efficacy LED packages. Suitable substrate solutions 

might include native GaN, GaN-on-Si, GaN templates, etc. Demonstrate state of the art 

LEDs on these substrates and establish a pathway to target performance and cost.

Metric(s) 2010 Status(s) 2020 Target(s)

Price of LED Package

@ target efficacy

$10-15/klm (cool)

$20-25/klm (warm) $1/klm 

Though the following metrics are examples for a GaN substrate, this task is not meant to 

be exclusive to GaN substrates. 

GaN Substrate Price >$2,000 (25-50 mm) <$500 (>200 mm)

Droop - Relative EQE at 

100A/cm2 vs. 35A/cm2 77% 100% 

Thermal Stability – Relative 

Optical Flux at 100oC vs. 

25oC

85% (Blue, Green) 95% (Blue, Green) 

GaN Transparency 

(absorption coefficient) 2-10 cm <0.5 cm -1 -1
Date: Updated May 2011 71 

B3.6 Package Architecture 

Description: Develop novel LED package and module architectures that can be readily 

integrated into luminaires. Architectures should address some of the following issues: 

Thermal management, cost, color, optical distribution, electrical integration, sensing, 

reliability, and ease of integration into the luminaire or replacement lamp while 

maintaining state of the art package efficiency. The novel packages could employ novel 

phosphor conversion approaches, RGB+ architectures, system in package, hybrid color, 

or other approaches to address these issues.

Metric(s) 2010 Status(s) 2020 Target(s)

Change in Chromaticity 

over time Duv < 0.012 Duv < 0.0014 over lifetime 

Price of LED Package $10-15/klm (cool)

$20-25/klm (warm) $1/klm 

Price of Luminaire or 

replacement lamp $50/klm $5/klm

System Efficiency 

System Price
Date: Updated May 2011 72 

B6.3 System Reliability and Lifetime 

Description: Collection and analysis of system reliability data for SSL luminaires and 

components to determine failure mechanisms and improve luminaire reliability and 

lifetime (including color stability). Develop and validate accelerated test methods taking 

into consideration component interactions. Develop an openly available and widely 

usable software tool to model SSL reliability and lifetime verified by experimental data.

This task includes projects that focus on specific subsystems such as LED package, 

driver, and optical and mechanical components.

Metric(s) 2010 Status(s) 2020 Target(s)

Mean Time to Failure 

(either catastrophic, lumen 

maintenance >70%, color 

shift, loss of controls)

Device Lumen Depreciation 

data

Tool to predict Luminaire 

lifetime within 10% 

accuracy

B6.4 Novel Luminaire Systems 

Description: Develop truly novel luminaire system architectures and form factors that 

take advantage of the unique properties of LEDs to save energy and represent a pathway 

toward greater market adoption. An important element of this task will be the integration 

of smart controls/sensors for digital controllability, optimized dimming, color tunability, 

self-commissioning, occupancy sensing, etc. Luminaire designs should be consistent with 

the use of materials and production methods that minimize any negative environmental 

impact. Key attributes will include low weight, compact size, directionality, and/or 

durability.

Metric(s) 2010 Status(s) 2020 Target(s)

System Energy 

Consumption

Controls

Environmental Impact

5.3 LED Interim Product Goals 

To provide some concrete measures of progress for the overall program, several targets 

and milestones have been identified that will mark progress over the next ten years. 

These milestones are updated annually, but are not exclusive of the progress graphs 

shown earlier. Rather, they are highlighted targets that reflect significant gains in 

performance. Where only one metric is targeted in the milestone description, it is 

assumed that progress on the others is proceeding, but the task priorities are chosen to 
Date: Updated May 2011 73 

emphasize the identified milestone. 

The FY10 LED package goal described in the 2010 MYPP was to produce a cool white 

LED package with an efficacy of 134 lm/W at 35 A/cm2

The FY10 goal for a warm white integrated LED lamp was an efficacy of 59 lm/W 

(assuming a luminaire efficiency of 62%), and an OEM price of $101/klm. During 2010 

we observed the introduction of increasing numbers of replacement lamps with rapidly 

improving performance (as confirmed by independent testing through programs such as 

CALiPER) and increasingly competitive prices. In particular, a large number of warm 

white A19 replacement lamps were introduced with retail prices as low as $17.97. The 

normalized price for such products during 2010 dropped into the $40 to $50/klm range 

with efficacies in the 50 to 70 lm/W range (CCT=2700-3000K, CRI~85). Consequently 

lamp performance comfortably meets the efficacy targets and lamp price is a factor of 2 

lower than the $/klm target.

, an OEM price of $13/klm, CRI 

of 70-80, and CCT between 4745 and 7040 K. The corresponding target for a warm 

white LED package was an efficacy of 88 lm/W, an OEM price of $25/klm, CRI of 80-

90, and CCT between 2580 and 3710K. These goals have been almost entirely met. The 

best commercial cool white LED products have demonstrated efficacies as high as 130 

lm/W and selling prices as low as $12/klm (1000-off quantity), although not for the same 

device. The best warm white products have achieved efficacies as high as 93 lm/W and 

selling prices as low as $13/klm. As described previously, efficacy goals have been 

revised and the 2011 targets for cool white and warm white LED packages are now set at 

156 and 118 lm/W respectively. The price targets for 2011 are $9/klm for cool white and 

$12/klm for warm white. 

The LED package and luminaire milestones in Table 5.6 have been revised to reflect 

recent progress. FY2010 and FY2015 milestones reflect efficacy and/or price targets for 

LED packages with lifetimes (lumen maintenance value) of 50,000 hours. The FY2010 

performance and cost targets for cool and warm white LED packages were essentially 

met, as described earlier. DOE expects to see a high efficiency luminaire on the market 

by 2012 that has an output of 1,000 lumens, efficacy of 100 lm/W, and warm white color 

temperature. By FY2015, costs should be in the neighborhood of $2/klm for LED 

packages while also meeting other performance goals. By 2017 (three years ahead of the 

original schedule), DOE expects the focus to shift toward realization of a commodity 

grade luminaire product with output exceeding 3,500 lumens and price below $100, while 

maintaining reasonable efficacy. By 2020 DOE anticipates the introduction of cost 

effective smart lighting in the form of luminaire troffers with integrated controls and a 

price below $85. 
Date: Updated May 2011 74 

Table 5.7: LED Package and Luminaire Milestones

Milestone Year Target

Milestone 1 FY10 LED Package: >140 lm/W cool white; >90 lm/W warm 

white; <$13/klm (cool white)

Milestone 2 FY12 Luminaire: 100 lm/W; ~1000 lumens; 3500 K; 80 CRI; 

50,000 hrs 

Milestone 3 FY15 LED package: ~$2/klm (cool white)

Milestone 4 FY17 Luminaire: >3500 lumens (neutral white); <$100; 

>140 lm/W

Milestone 5 FY20 <$85 Smart Luminaire Troffer 

Assumption: Packaged devices measured at 35 A/cm2

. 

The LED package and luminaire milestones represent well defined phases in the 

development of low cost high performance SSL luminaries. The first phase was to 

develop a reasonably efficient white LED package that is sufficient for the lighting 

market. This phase was completed a couple of years ago. The second phase, also 

essentially complete, is to further improve efficiency while decreasing price in order to 

realize the best possible energy savings. The availability of LED packages with efficacies 

in the 130+ lm/W range has begun to shift the focus toward the development of more 

efficient luminaries. This then becomes the thrust of the third phase, which is expected to 

last until about 2012. Finally, the fourth phase is to significantly reduce the cost of LED 

lighting to the point where it is competitive across the board. This phase, currently 

underway, is expected to continue past 2015 and will be further supported through the 

R&D Manufacturing Program. 

5.4 Organic Light Emitting-Diodes

Progress in the laboratory performance of OLED pixels 

and panels has confirmed that OLED-based lighting 

has the potential for higher efficacy than many of the 

traditional luminaires on the market today. However, 

although OLED panels from pilot lines in Europe and 

Japan have become available over the last three years, 

the performance of commercially available products is 

significantly below that attained in demo panels 

produced worldwide. Commercially available panels 

offer efficacies ranging from approximately 11 to 28 

lm/W and half-lives (L50) of around 5,000 to 30,000 

hours at initial luminance of 1,000 cd/m2

. Meanwhile, 

demo panels such as the ceiling light produced by UDC 

in cooperation with Armstrong Industries under the 

DOE SSL R&D Program have shown luminaire 

Figure 5.5: Luminaire with 

16 OLED panels 

Source: UDC
Date: Updated May 2011 75 

efficacy of 51 lm/W, color temperature of about 3320K, CRI of 84 and lifetime (L70) of 

10,000 hours.

5.4.1 Components of OLED Luminaires

A typical ceiling light fixture contains sixteen 6 by 6 inch panels, 

producing a total of 640 lumens within an area of 1 by 4 feet. Improved versions of these 

panels are expected to be commercially available by 2012. The panels will be 

manufactured on the prototype manufacturing line in Canandaigua, NY being developed 

by UDC and Moser Baer as part of the DOE SSL Manufacturing Initiative.

This section of the multiyear plan describes OLED luminaires for general illumination. 

Understanding each component of a luminaire and its contribution to overall luminaire 

efficiency highlights the opportunities for energy efficiency improvements and thereby 

helps to define priorities for DOE’s SSL R&D Portfolio. 

The core of a typical OLED light source is a stack of thin films with a total thickness of 

around100 to 200 nm, between two planar electrodes. The application of a voltage across 

the electrodes results in the transport of electrons and holes that combine in the emissive 

layers to create visible light. To form a luminaire, mechanisms must be provided to 

distribute the current uniformly across the electrodes and to protect the active layers from 

environmental damage. 

• OLED Pixel is a small area device (usually less than 1 cm2) used for R&D. The 

pixel contains the basic assembly of thin films, including the two electrodes, 

layers that facilitate the injection and transport of charge, and one or more 

emissive layers in the center. The emissive layers consist of organic materials 

while the conductive layers may contain a mixture of organic and inorganic 

materials. The pixel can also include minimal packaging for environmental 

protection and electrical connection points to the device. The pixel may create 

white or monochromatic light; 

• OLED Panel refers to an OLED with a minimum area of 50cm2

. In the 2010 

MYPP, the OLED Panel was defined to be at least 200cm2 in area. To keep 

terminology consistent with what OLED manufacturers are currently producing as 

panels, we have reduced the minimum size to 50cm2

. However, in the long term, 

it is still believed that for low cost, high light output luminaires, larger area OLED 

panels will be developed and the DOE projections and priority tasks call for 

development of panels with a minimum size of 200cm2

. OLED panels require 

current conducting structures to ensure uniform emission of light across the panel. 

They may also incorporate packaging, thermal management, and elements to 

enhance light extraction. It is expected that the OLED panel will serve as a 

building block component for OLED luminaires. 
Date: Updated May 2011 76 

Figure 5.6: Diagram of OLED Device Structure and Photo of OLED Panel 

Source: General Electric

When panels are fabricated on a glass or plastic substrate, the usual procedure is to 

employ a transparent anode next to the substrate through which the light escapes, as 

shown in Figure 5.6. The cathode can then be 

made from opaque metal and a foil cover can be 

used to encapsulate the device. It is also possible 

to manufacture an OLED with a highly transparent 

top electrode (typically with up to 80% 

transmission across the visible spectral region). 

These structures can emit upward from a reflective 

substrate, such as a reflective metal foil, or can be 

transparent devices. Figure 5.7 displays a 

transparent OLED panel employing a transparent 

substrate and transparent electrodes;

Figure 5.7: Photo of a Transparent OLED Lighting Panel

Source: Novaled

• OLED Luminaire

 

refers to the complete lighting system, intended to be directly 

connected to an electrical branch circuit. It consists of an assembly of one or more 

interconnected OLED panels along with the OLED electrical driver, mechanical 

fixture, and optics, if necessary, to deliver the appropriate distribution of light; 

Figure 5.8: Prototype luminaires containing many OLED panels

Source : Acuity
Date: Updated May 2011 77 

• The OLED Driver

5.4.2 OLED Efficiency Metrics

converts the available electrical power to the appropriate 

voltage, current and waveform for the device and includes any necessary 

electronic controls, for example to enable dimming or to modify the color of the 

emitted light. 

As with LEDs, one can identify various elements of power efficiency including electrical, 

optical, conversion, and spectral within the OLED panel and luminaire. These 

components of efficiency can be measured or characterized, and the most critical areas 

for improvement can be identified. 

Opportunities for improvement of the OLED Panel include: reducing electrical losses in 

the device; improving the efficiency of conversion of electrons into photons (IQE); 

maximizing the extraction of those photons from the material (extraction efficiency); and 

tailoring the spectrum of the radiated light to increase the eye response (spectral 

efficiency). Tailoring of the spectrum to the eye response is constrained by the need to 

provide light of appropriate color quality (CCT and CRI). Opportunities for improvement 

of the OLED Luminaire include reducing electrical and optical losses from the power 

supply, driver, controls, and fixture. 

The following sections compare efficiencies achieved by 2010 for individual OLED 

panels and luminaires to program goals for OLED technologies to be achieved by 2020. 

These consensus goals were developed by the OLED Roundtable group and further 

refined through contributions from the R&D Workshop. The allocation of the 2010 

efficiency values and the 2020 targets used in the sections to follow, however, serve only 

as a guide for identifying the opportunities for improvement. 

For ease of comparison, OLED efficiencies have typically been reported assuming an 

OLED pixel, as defined in Section 5.4.1, at a fixed luminous emittance of 3,000 lm/m2

. 

For cost and performance considerations, luminaire manufacturers have recommended 

that OLED performance data be reported for larger area devices operating at higher 

lumen density levels. Thus future performance targets will assume an OLED panel of at 

least 200 cm2

 with a luminous emittance of 6,000 lm/m2 for 2012 performance targets 

and then 10,000 lm/m2

Figure 5.9

for performance targets in 2015 and beyond. These values are 

used as a common reference for the comparison of OLED efficacy and performance 

levels. It is not the intention of DOE to dictate the brightness, size, or current drive of 

devices used in practice.

 shows the efficiency of an OLED panel and compares the typical values for 

the individual system elements to a set of suggested program targets.67

 

67 The particular values used in this chart correspond to simple devices using phosphorescent emitters for 

all three colors. Similar overall efficacy levels have been attained using tandem hybrid devices with 

segmented electrode structures. This leads to higher values of electrical efficiency that offset the lower 

values of IQE. 

 The breakdown of 

loss mechanisms may differ with alternative OLED architectures, but regardless of 

architecture the drive voltage and out-coupling enhancement show the most room for 
Date: Updated May 2011 78 

improvements. The elements in this chart are described below: 

• Electrical efficiency

• Internal

accounts for the efficiency with which electrical charge 

carriers injected into the OLED panel find their way to the active region of the 

OLED device. Ohmic (resistive) losses associated with current spreading across 

the panel electrodes and at interfaces as well as within the organic layers represent 

the most important loss mechanism. A reduction in electrical efficiency is 

associated with an increase in the energy (voltage) required to create photons over 

and above the optical energy gap; 

 quantum efficiency

•

, IQE, is the ratio of the photons created in the 

emissive region of the OLED to the number of electrons injected into the active 

region; 

Light extraction efficiency 

• Spectral efficiency is the ratio of the LER of the actual spectrum to the maximum 

luminous efficacy of radiation (LER

is the ratio of visible photons emitted from the panel to 

the photons generated in the emissive region. Absorption and trapping of photons 

in the electrodes, transparent substrate and inner layers lead to reductions in light 

extraction efficiency; 

max), as determined by the CCT and CRI and 

the intrinsic spectral properties of the source. The LER for some white OLEDs is 

now around 325 lm/W and the estimated LERmax is 375 lm/W;

68

• Driver efficiency represents the efficiency of the electronics in converting input 

power from external alternating current to low-voltage direct current as well as 

any controls needed to adjust for changes in conditions (e.g. temperature or age) 

so as to maintain brightness and color or for active control of the lighting system; 

and

 

• Fixture and Optical Efficiency is the ratio of the lumens emitted by the luminaire 

to the lumens emitted by the OLED panel. This efficiency loss arises from optical 

losses in diffusers, reflectors, beam shaping optics or shields or objects in the light 

path. 

 

68 The use of a lower value of LERmax for OLEDs than for LEDs reflects the broader spectrum associated 

with organic molecules. 
Date: Updated May 2011 79 

Figure 5.9: OLED Panel and Luminaire Loss Channels and Efficiencies 

Note: Assumptions for Target figures: CCT: 2580-3710 CRI> 85, 10,000 lm/m2, panel area ≥ 200 cm2

If all the improvements shown in Figure 5.9 are achieved, the efficiency of the OLED 

panel would rise from the current typical value of 18 to 51%. The corresponding panel 

efficacy would rise from 66 lm/W to as much as 190 lm/W. The following discussion 

summarizes opportunities for improvement in the above described loss channels. 

Opportunities for gains in electrical efficiency: 

Substantial gains in electrical efficiency can be made by lowering the drive voltage from 

current levels of around 3.5 volts closer to the threshold for photon creation. Using 

separate red, green and blue emissive layers, each with their own drive voltage, can 

potentially provide a highly efficient approach. In white OLED devices with a single 

drive voltage, there will be some unavoidable inefficiency due to driving the device at a 

voltage required for blue emission while producing a significant amount of lower energy 

red and green light. 

In addition to providing enough energy to create photons, the drive voltage must also 

ensure adequate current density across the device. The required current density in highly 

efficient devices with a single stack is approximately 2.5 mA/cm2

60%

85%

40%

86%

88%

85%

20%

10%

30%

9%

7%

10%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Electrical Efficiency

Internal Quantum Efficiency (IQE)

Extraction Efficiency

Package Spectral Efficiency

Driver (Power supply, controls)

Fixture and optical efficiency

MYP '11: 2010 Status Potential Improvement 

. Means to reduce the 

voltage between the electrodes include transport layers with lower resistance, for example 

through ion doping, and better interfaces, especially between the electrodes and injection 

layers.
Date: Updated May 2011 80 

Another major impact on the electrical efficiency of OLED panels comes from ohmic 

losses introduced in scaling the size of OLED devices from pixels to larger panels, which 

brings a significant challenge in ensuring efficient and uniform current spreading over the 

area of the panel. Analysis shows that good uniformity requires that voltage drops across 

the panel be limited to less than 0.1V. If this target is achieved, the ohmic losses in 

transporting current across the panel will be small (less than 4%). Accomplishment of 

this goal may require current spreading bus bars or metal grids and/or engineering of the 

transparent electrode, each of which have important secondary effects. The use of a grid 

or changes to the transparent electrode will impact light extraction from the panel. In 

addition, the current spreading approach needs to be low cost and must integrate with the 

light extraction approach and the entire OLED structure. 

Opportunities for gains in internal quantum efficiency: 

The cited status (85%) and target (95%) for IQE assume the use of phosphorescent 

materials and rely on the accuracy of the methods used to estimate IQE. Some analysts 

believe that these values are overestimated and that a more reliable means of measuring 

IQE is needed. The existing data for IQE indicate that a three-fold increase in brightness 

need not lead to a large penalty in efficacy. However, there may be a major impact on the 

operating lifetime, which could be reduced by a factor of five or more, unless steps are 

taken to reduce degradation. Additionally, several leading researchers have suggested that 

it may be too difficult to achieve lifetime targets with phosphorescent blue emitters. Since 

less than 25% of the photons needed to produce white light are blue, adequate efficiency 

may be possible using fluorescent blue emitters. IQE losses are reduced if the stack is 

engineered such that the blue emitters transfer the energy from triplet states to red or 

green phosphorescent emitters. Recent experiments have shown that such hybrid systems 

can reach at least 85% of the efficiency of all phosphorescent devices.69

Opportunities for gains in light extraction efficiency: 

 

It is clear from Figure 5.9 that the greatest opportunity for efficacy gains lies in 

increasing extraction efficiency. Light trapping naturally occurs in a transition from one 

layer to another of lower refractive index. The index of refraction of the organic layers in 

which light is created is typically 1.8, as is that of the transparent anode (ITO). Most 

glass and plastic substrates have a lower index of about 1.5. The use of high index 

substrates is a demonstrated route to improving light extraction, but such substrates are 

too costly for use in large area panels. The loss of optical energy can be split into four 

components: 

• Reflection at the substrate-air interface – This can be reduced by adding texture to 

the substrate – air interface. This can comprise random texturing such as a 

scattering layer or a roughened glass surface or patterned texturing such as a 

micro-lens array. Gains in total light extraction of 50% are typical;

• Reflection at the inner surface of the substrate – This can be reduced by 

introducing a scattering layer or other internal structures between the transparent 

electrode and substrate or between the transparent electrode and organic layers. 

 

69 S. Reineke, SID Digest 25.3 (2009)
Date: Updated May 2011 81 

Such structures are incorporated to deflect the light towards the normal direction. 

Gains of over 100% have been reported; 

• Transfer of energy to the metal cathode – This is reduced by optimizing the 

reflectance of the cathode and adjusting the thickness of the organic layers. The 

severity of these losses is a matter of debate; and

• Absorption by all materials and internal reflections – there are many small effects, 

including absorption in the conducting materials, transport, scattering and 

substrate/encapsulation layers. 

It seems likely that all four components must be reduced if the efficacy targets are to be 

met. Although many techniques have been suggested to enhance the light extraction 

efficiency, it has proved to be extremely difficult to find a method that can be 

manufactured inexpensively in large area panels with thin profile and without interfering 

with the operation of the OLED (for instance, by increasing voltage, reducing efficiency, 

leading to angular dependence of color, etc.).

Opportunities for Gains in Spectral Efficiency 

Present OLED devices show a broad distribution in the red part of the spectrum that spills 

beyond the visible range. Designing or improving the emitters, changing their 

characteristics so as to have a tighter distribution in the red could lead to higher LERmax

Trade-offs in Improving Efficiency 

, 

and therefore higher efficacies. Additional gains could be made by optimizing the 

spectrum of the blue emitter. However, color quality must be maintained during 

adjustments to the spectra.

Analyses of efficacy improvements provide only part of the story. Meeting other targets 

for lifetime, color quality and manufacturing cost may mean that compromises are 

necessary. Short prevention is essential to ensuring reliable performance. Structures with 

thick injection layers provide added protection against shorting, but may also lead to 

increased drive voltage or reduced transmission. 

Shelf life is also important in commercially viable products. OLEDs are sensitive to 

oxygen, moisture, and other pollutants in the operating environment which necessitate 

effective encapsulation of the OLED panel. This is particularly challenging in the case of 

OLEDs on flexible substrates, since plastic materials are extremely porous. In addition, 

oxygen, moisture, and other contaminants can get embedded into the OLED in the 

fabrication process reducing the panel lifetime. Even for panels with rigid substrate and 

cover, sealing of the edges is not trivial and a thin layer of dessicant or getter may be 

needed to absorb water or oxygen that is trapped during encapsulation or enters later 

through the edge seal. 

As noted in Section 3.5.3, the cost of manufacturing panels with a specific light output 

can be reduced significantly by increasing the panel brightness. However, such increases 

in luminous emittance must be made without degradation of efficacy or operating 

lifetime. 
Date: Updated May 2011 82 

5.4.3 OLED Panel Performance Targets

As described in Section 3.2, UDC has reported an efficacy of 66 lm/W for an OLED 

panel, and OLED pixels have been reported with efficacies as high as 124 lm/W in the 

laboratory (Technical University of Dresden with Novaled AG). In consideration of the 

need to move beyond laboratory scale OLED pixel results and the need to develop 

practical building blocks for OLED lighting products, DOE bases future projections only 

on results obtained with panels. Reasons for disregarding some pixel data include: 

• Light extraction techniques are often not scalable to large areas within the 

physical constraints desirable for most lighting applications; 

• Some small devices incorporate materials that would be too expensive for large 

area panels; 

• Laboratory devices are sometimes too complex for affordable manufacturing or 

reliable performance; and

• Devices designed to maximize one characteristic often have unacceptable 

performance in other respects, for example in color quality. 

Performance targets for future years are based partly on extrapolations of past data on 

devices that are scalable. Analyses of efficacy, stability and light quality, such as those 

described above, are used in setting the asymptotes on efficacy and other performance 

metrics. The updated projection for efficacy is shown in Figure 5.10, incorporating an 

asymptote of 190 lm/W. 
Date: Updated May 2011 83 

Figure 5.10: White Light OLED Panel Efficacy Projections 

Figure 5.10 shows that the prototype panels that are commercially available fall far short 

of the performance levels achieved in the laboratory. Reducing that shortfall is one of the 

major goals of the SSL Manufacturing Initiative.

Intermediate targets for efficacy and lifetime are included in Table 5.8. 

Table 5.8: Summary of OLED Panel Performance Projections 

Metric 2010 2012 2015 2020

Panel Efficacy (lm/W) 62 86 125 168

Panel Life (L70) - (1000 

hours) 10 25 50 100 

Luminous emittance

(lm/m2

3,000

)

6,000 10,000 10,000

Notes: 1. Projections assume CRI > 85, 2580-3710 K

 2. Panel size of at least 200 cm2

Achieving efficiency gains alone will not be sufficient to reach viable commercial 

lighting products. The films must also be producible in large areas at low cost, which 

highlights the importance of minimizing substrate and electrode losses over a large area, 

as noted above and in the figure, and may also limit materials choices. 

0

50

100

150

200

2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020

Luminous Efficacy (lm/W)

Year

Lab Panel

Lab Panel not qualified

Lab Panel Projection

Lab Device

Commercial Product

Comm Product not qualified
Date: Updated May 2011 84 

Improvements to OLED panel and luminaire operating lifetime, as well as shelf life, also 

must be realized in order to ensure a commercially viable product. OLEDs are sensitive 

to oxygen, moisture, and other pollutants in the operating environment which necessitate 

extensive encapsulation of the OLED panel, particularly in the case of OLEDs on flexible 

substrates. In addition, oxygen, moisture, and other contaminants can get embedded into 

the OLED in the fabrication process reducing the panel lifetime. 

Operation at higher lumen outputs can also dramatically reduce the lifetime of OLED 

devices if the increase is achieved solely by raising the drive current rather than by 

improvements in efficacy. It is estimated that an increase in luminous emittance from 

3000 lm/m2 to 10,000 lm/m2

In summary, OLED panels have the potential to become much more efficient. There is 

significant headroom for improvement, particularly in light extraction efficiency and 

reduced operating voltage. There is also room for improvement in IQE and spectral 

efficiency of OLED panels and in driver and optical efficiency of the luminaire. If all of 

the improvements can be developed as planned then OLED panel performance can 

increase from 66 lm/W to 190 lm/W. However, all of these gains need to be developed 

while keeping the cost of the OLED panels and luminaires competitive with alternative 

lighting technologies. Increasing the lumen density of the OLED panels can have a large 

impact on the cost of OLED panels and luminaires. However, as the lumen density of 

OLED panels is increased, the lifetime of the OLED panels needs to remain competitive 

with other lighting technologies. This could be particularly challenging.

could reduce the lifetime of the OLED by as much as 80%. 

However, tandem OLED architectures or improvements to light extraction efficiency 

could lead to higher emittance without increased applied current, thus possibly avoiding 

this problem. Furthermore, it is important that efficacy is improved along with the

increase in brightness so that the addition of costly thermal management components will 

not be necessary. Most likely, some combination of improved light extraction efficiency 

and higher operating current will be required to increase the luminous emittance. 

5.4.4 OLED Luminaire Performance Targets

The conversion of an OLED panel to a luminaire is likely to be simpler than that of LED 

packages. At a minimum, one needs to add a driver to connect to the available power 

supply and mechanical structures to hold the panel in position, to afford physical 

protection against damage while in use, and to meet local building codes. Luminaires 

with multiple panels will need a framework to maintain the desired separation and 

relative orientation of each panel in a form that is pleasing to the eye.

The inclusion of the driving circuitry will certainly lead to electrical losses. It is possible 

to design luminaires with no additional optical losses. However if the distribution of light 

emerging from the panel(s) is not appropriate for the application, some form of optical 

lens may be needed. 

The progress anticipated in Figure 5.9 would raise the efficiency of an OLED luminaire 

from 13% (49 lm/W) up to a limit of about 46% (171 lm/W). It should be noted that 

while no fundamental roadblocks to the OLED efficacy performance projections have 
Date: Updated May 2011 85 

been identified, there is also very little performance data for large panels and luminaires. 

As more integration of OLEDs into panels and luminaires occurs, additional loss 

mechanisms may be identified similar to LED luminaires, such as current droop and 

sensitivity to the operating temperature.

Since OLED luminaires have only been manufactured as prototypes in small quantities, 

the values in this chart are estimates. Ongoing discussions between OLED developers 

and luminaire manufacturers are urgently needed to define the electrical, optical, 

mechanical, and possibly, thermal requirements of the OLED panel. For example, some 

OLED proponents believe that optical losses outside the panel will be minimal. However 

the Lambertian distribution of light emitted by OLEDs may be unacceptable for most 

general illumination applications and external optical elements will be needed to redirect 

the light, resulting in some losses.

Table 5.9, below, details a summary of the performance projections for OLED 

luminaires. The column for 2010 is based upon a prototype luminaire developed by UDC 

in collaboration with Armstrong Industries. The efficiency of the driver is 88% and there 

are no optical structures outside the panel. However, this luminaire has not been tested 

commercially and customers may judge that the light is spread too widely. So in the 

projections for years beyond 2015, allowance is made for beam shaping optics to 

redistribute the light.

Table 5.9: Summary of OLED Luminaire Performance Projections 

Metric 2010 2012 2015 2020 

Panel Efficacy (lm/W) 58 86 125 168 

Optical Efficiency of Luminaire 100% 100% 90% 95% 

Efficiency of Driver 88% 90% 93% 93% 

Total Efficiency from Device to Luminaire 88% 90% 84% 88% 

Luminaire emittance (lm/m2) 3,000 6,000 9,000 9,500 

Resulting Luminaire Efficacy (lm/W) 51 77 105 148 

Note: Efficacy projections assume CRI > 80, CCT 2580-3710

The values of optical efficiency quoted for 2010 and 2012 assume no light shaping optics 

 

Since no experience has been obtained concerning the reliability of OLED driver circuits, 

their effect on luminaire lifetime is unknown. Ensuring that driver failures do not lead to 

substantial reductions in luminaire lifetimes will be important to the success of OLED 

lighting technology.

5.4.5 OLED Adoption Barriers

The following lists some of the technical, cost, and market barriers to OLEDs. 

1. Cost: Although some cost savings can be achieved through device 

simplification and new fabrication processes, the most significant reductions 

will result from gaining experience in manufacturing and in scaling to higher 
Date: Updated May 2011 86 

production volumes. Especially in initial production, synergy with OLED 

production for display applications will be important as the leading 

manufacturers retool for large area television screens. As noted above, 

increases in luminous emittance will also be important in reducing material 

costs and increasing the yield of good products and waste minimization will 

be critical to reduce material cost.

OLED stakeholders have suggested that the cost of converting OLED light 

sources into luminaires may be less than for LEDs and many traditional light 

sources. This may be true, but panel makers and luminaire manufacturers will 

need to work closely together to develop designs that provide excellent 

functionality and an attractive appearance, without adding significant cost. 

2. Extraction efficiency: Reaching the targets listed above for extraction 

efficiency without significant increase in panel thickness or cost will be 

challenging. Extracting all the light that is currently lost to the metal electrode 

or is trapped between the electrodes is particularly difficult. 

3. Drive voltage: Another critical step in increasing efficacy is to reduce the 

drive voltage by reducing the effective resistance between the electrodes. It 

may be difficult to do this without increasing the risk of shorting across the 

electrodes. 

4. Lifetime: Substantial improvement will be needed in both shelf life and 

operating lifetime. Achieving long shelf life requires that all elements that 

may damage the active materials, such as oxygen and water, be removed in 

the fabrication process and that ingress is not possible after encapsulation. 

The use of a plastic substrate or cover exacerbates this problem. However, 

even if non-porous materials, such as glass or metal foils, are used to encase 

the device, the integrity of the edge seals must be assured.

Operating lifetime depends mainly on the total amount of current that flows 

through the device. The use of tandem structures helps to achieve high 

brightness and efficacy at low current density, but such architectures are 

rather complex. In addition to novel architectures, the development of more 

robust materials is essential. While red and green emitters have demonstrated 

exceptionally long lifetimes, systems involving blue phosphorescent emitters 

have relatively short lifetimes. Furthermore, deleterious interactions between 

neighboring layers can be just as harmful as the decay of individual 

components. 

5. Testing: The comments in Section 5.1.5 regarding testing of LEDs will apply 

also to OLEDs. Specific techniques will need to be developed for real-time 

testing of OLED panels during production, especially if roll-to-roll methods 

are used. For example, the cleanliness and smoothness of substrates and 

electrode layers must be assured before expensive organic materials are 

added. 
Date: Updated May 2011 87 

6. Lumen Output: In order for OLEDs to produce the lumen output required for 

most general illumination applications without creating excessive glare, large 

emission areas are needed. The implications of higher emittance must be 

studied in practice, for example with respect to thermal management, lifetime 

and decreased efficacy. Due to the relatively small substrates used in initial 

production and the difficulty of fabricating large panels with no defects, most 

luminaires produced in the next few years will contain multiple panels. 

7. Light Distribution: OLEDs 

produce light with a broad 

angular distribution.70

of floor space. Similar effects 

However, this is rarely 

appropriate for lighting 

applications. Many luminaires 

are designed to focus the light 

in specific areas. Others 

produce bat-wing like patterns 

in which the luminance peaks 

off-axis to give uniform 

illumination over a larger area 

may be attained in luminaires 

containing several OLED 

panels with different 

orientations. 

8. Investment in Manufacturing: Asian manufacturers of OLED displays may be 

able to adapt their fabrication lines to produce OLED light sources, but the 

lower cost constraints will require important modifications. For example, the 

borosilicate glass used in active matrix displays is too expensive for lighting 

applications. Alternative types of glass substrates may be required. Although 

European and American companies have shown considerable interest in 

OLED R&D, they have been reluctant to invest the $50 to $100 million 

necessary to produce light sources economically. 

9. Codes and Standards: The same problems will be faced as for LEDs. The path 

to commercialization for LEDs has required the development of numerous 

testing and performance standards. Many of these standards will be suitable 

for OLED-based light sources, but it is expected that some new standards will 

need to be developed specifically for OLEDs based on the technological 

differences between OLEDs and LEDs.

 

70 The distribution is usually close to Lambertian, which implies that the intensity is proportional to the 

cosine of the angle between the light ray and the normal direction

Figure 5.11: Luminaire using multiple panels 

with varying orientation

Source: WAC Lighting
Date: Updated May 2011 88 

10. Market Competition: OLED proponents have often assumed that although 

inorganic LEDs will dominate the markets for compact, bright light sources, 

OLEDs will capture a significant fraction of the market for diffuse sources. 

However, in many indoor environments it will be extremely difficult to 

compete with a combination of modern fluorescent fixtures combined with 

LED-based compact task lights or downlights. In addition, the success of 

LED backlights in replacing cold cathode fluorescent light sources as the 

primary light source for LCD screens may soon lead to a flood of large area 

LED-based light sources for general illumination. 

For more information about individual research tasks that address these technical, cost 

and market barriers, refer to the following Section 5.5. 

5.5 OLED Critical R&D Priorities

In order to achieve the projected target performance levels for OLED-based SSL, 

progress must be achieved in several research areas. The original task structure and initial 

priorities were defined at a workshop in San Diego in February 2005. These priorities 

have been updated in subsequent editions of the MYPP, based upon input from industry 

representatives and academic researchers. In creating the 2011 MYPP, one of the goals 

was to reduce the number of tasks to concentrate research on the most urgent issues. 

DOE first held SSL roundtable sessions Washington, D.C. in November of 2010 to gather 

input on task prioritization from industry stakeholders (see Appendix D for the entire task 

list). The tasks were further discussed and refined at the February 2011 “Transformations 

in Lighting” workshop in San Diego, CA. Using these recommendations, and after 

further internal review, the DOE defined the task priorities for 2011 as follows: 

For OLED Core Technology: 

• Subtask C1.2 (Novel materials and structures) will support the development of 

stable white light OLED materials and structures to reduce voltage, increase EQE, 

and improve lifetime that have the potential for large scale, low-cost production 

and processing. The principal function of the new materials can be to create light 

or transport charge, but they must be compatible with all other elements of an 

efficient, long-lived OLED. The purpose of structural changes may be to improve 

the performance of the device or to provide a better match with the requirements 

of luminaire manufacturers; and 

• Subtask C.6.3 (Light extraction approaches) supports the development of new 

optical designs within the OLED device structure and in the panel to improve 

OLED panel light extraction. The structures should not lead to significant 

increases in the thickness or the cost of large area panels.

For OLED Product Development: 

• Subtask D.6.1 (Large area OLED) will support efforts to tackle the significant 

challenges transitioning OLED pixel performance to larger area OLED panels; 

and 
Date: Updated May 2011 89 

• Subtask D.6.3 (Panel light extraction) supports development of low cost, scalable 

light extraction approaches that can be applied to OLED panels. 

The sections that follow provide a description of the tasks and defined metrics. There is 

also an estimate of the current status and a target for year 2020. 

5.5.1 OLED Priority Core Technology Tasks for 2011 

C1.2 Novel OLED Materials and Structures 

Description: Develop novel materials and structures that demonstrate a significant 

improvement in at least one of the following areas: a) More efficient and balanced charge 

injection and white light emission; b) improved EQE; c) voltage reduction; d) longer 

lifetime; e) radically reduced cost (for example through increased material robustness or 

through materials and architectures that enable simpler device fabrication); f) greater 

control of the color or directionality of light. Materials/structures developed should be 

demonstrated in OLED devices which are characterized to ascertain the performance as 

compared to the metrics below. Novel materials/structures should demonstrate a 

significant improvement in at least one area while maintaining or improving upon all 

other metrics. 

Metric(s) 2010 Status(s) 2020 Target(s)

EQE without external 

extraction enhancement ~22% 25-30% 

Lifetime (L70) 10,000 hrs 

at 3000 lm/m

>50,000 hrs

2 at 10,000 lm/m

Voltage

2

71 @ 2mA/cm ~3.4V 2 <3V

CRI 84 >9072

Cost Factor of 10 reduction in 

cost of OLED panel

Light Distribution N/A Directional beam shaping

 

71 This value assumes the use of a single voltage to drive each of the emitters. It should be regarded as an 

average value for tandem structures or those with separate drive for the RGB components.

72 CCT 2580 to 3710K; CIE coordinates within 2-step MacAdam ellipse
Date: Updated May 2011 90 

C6.3 Light Extraction Approaches 

Description: Devise new optical and device designs for improving OLED light extraction 

while retaining the thin profile and state of the art performance of OLED panels (for 

example, extraction layers should not lead to voltage increases, reduction in device 

efficacy, angular dependence of color). The proposed solution could involve 

modifications within the OLED stack, within or adjacent to the transparent electrode, and 

external to the device. The approach should provide potential for low cost and should be 

demonstrated in a device of at least 1 cm2

Metric(s)

 in size to demonstrate applicability and 

scalability to large area (panel size) devices. 

2010 Status(s) 2020 Target(s)

Extraction Efficiency 40% (laboratory, small area) 70%

Angular Dependence of 

Color

2 step MacAdam ellipse

5.5.2 OLED Priority Product Development Tasks for 2011 

D6.1 Large Area OLED 

Description: Demonstrate a high efficiency OLED panel, with a white light output of at 

least 200 lm and an area of at least 200 cm2

Metric(s)

. The OLED panel should have high 

brightness and color uniformity as well as a long operating lifetime. The panel should 

employ low cost designs, processes, and materials and demonstrate a potential for highvolume manufacturing.

2010 Status(s) 2020 Target(s)

Lumen Output 300 lm > 200 lm

Efficacy 50 lm/W >150 lm/W

Lifetime (L70) 7,000 hrs >50,000 hrs

Color uniformity 2 step MacAdam ellipse

Brightness uniformity 10% over a small sample 10% over 200 cm

Cost of panel

2

N/A <$10/klm
Date: Updated May 2011 91 

D6.3 Light extraction 

Description: Demonstrate manufacturable approaches to improve light extraction 

efficiency and possibly directionality for OLED panels while retaining the thin profile 

and state of the art performance of OLED panels (for example, extraction layers should 

not lead to voltage increases, reduction in device efficacy, angular dependence of color). 

The proposed solution could involve modifications within the OLED stack, within or 

adjacent to the transparent electrode, and/or external to the device. The approach should 

be demonstrated over large areas (> 25cm2) and provide potential for low costs. 

Metric(s) 2010 Status(s) 2020 Target(s)

Extraction Efficiency 40% 70%

Incremental Cost <$10/m2

5.6 OLED Interim Product Goals

Table 5.10 shows the overarching DOE milestones for OLED-based SSL. DOE 

milestones for OLEDs have transitioned from OLED pixel results to OLED panel results. 

OLED panels are expected to be building block components of OLED luminaires and it is 

necessary to advance the performance of these larger area emitters to demonstrate the 

feasibility of OLED-based luminaires. Although particular characteristics are highlighted 

at each stage, it is assumed that progress continues in all respects and specific targets are 

not met through unacceptable compromises in other parameters. 

Table 5.10: OLED Panel Milestones

Milestone Year Target

Milestone 1 FY08 > 25 lm/W, < $100/klm, 5,000 hrs pixel

Milestone 2 FY10 > 60 lm/W panel 

Milestone 3 FY12 < $45/klm panel 

Milestone 4 FY15 > 100 lm/W panel @ 10,000 lm/m

Milestone 5

2

FY18 50,000 hour lifetime; 10,000 lm/m2 

Assumptions: CRI > 80, CCT < 2580-3710 K for an OLED panel >200 cm

panel

2

. All milestones assume 

continuing progress in the other overarching parameters - lifetime and cost.

The FY2008 OLED milestone was to produce an OLED niche product with an efficacy 

of 25 lm/W, an OEM price of $100/klm (device only), lifetime of 5,000 hours from 

1000cd/m2

, CRI greater than 80, CCT between 2,700K and 4,100K and total output of at 

least 500 lumens. 
Date: Updated May 2011 92 

In 2008 UDC produced a 225 cm2 prototype panel, with efficacy of 39lm/W, CRI of 86 

and CCT below 3000K. Lifetime tests were not reported for this panel, but all similar 

devices produced by UDC at that time exhibited lifetimes (L70) over 10,000 hours. When 

operated at the nominal luminance of 1000 cd/m2

By 2010, the efficacy of UDC panels reached 58 lm/W, with CRI of 84, CCT of 3320K 

and lifetime (L70) of 10,000 hours. The output was still small and the cost unspecified. 

UDC also produced a panel with efficacy of 66 lm/W, but with CRI relaxed to 79. The 

commercial panels offered by foreign suppliers were produced in small volume on 

laboratory lines and their price was well above the SSL cost target for 2008. 

, the light output of this panel was only 

about 60 lumens, but UDC’s intention was to use multiple panels in luminaires. There 

was no commercial production of OLED panels in 2008 and so no cost data was 

available.

Since large volume manufacturing has still not been established, it seems unlikely that the 

2012 cost target of $45/klm will be met. Low volume production from the prototype line 

in Canandaigua, New York should commence before the end of FY2012. The goal will 

be to ensure that the incremental cost of production will be less than $45/klm, but 

depreciation of fixed costs will be larger than this amount. 

5.7 Unaddressed Opportunities for SSL

DOE's support of SSL R&D has largely kept the focus on high efficiency in SSL lighting. 

The inclusion of the manufacturing initiative in 2009 was a welcome addition to the 

portfolio, but has increased the competition for limited funding among submitted project 

proposals. Unfortunately, since the manufacturing initiative was initially funded by the 

ARRA of 2009, which has expired, additional support is needed just to continue the 

manufacturing effort and maintain our previous levels of funding of Core and Product 

Development, at a time when the number of applications has increased. There are also 

always new topics that could benefit from additional funding. 

Reliability and color quality have received increasing attention recently, as we move 

beyond efficacy as the primary driver. Some work in these areas is now among the 

priority tasks, but in order to avoid compromising efficiency for the benefit of these other 

performance criteria, significant invention and creativity is required and would be a good 

use of DOE investment in R&D. 

Some of these opportunities are as follows, and are similar to those cited last year: 

1. Funding of additional projects. As the DOE SSL R&D Program has grown in size and 

prominence, the number of applicants for funding R&D projects continues to increase. 

While selection is a good thing, and a number of unsuccessful projects have even ended 

early, there is always room to explore additional directions. Now, with the addition of the 

manufacturing initiative it will become even more difficult to fund all of the worthwhile 

projects proposed. This could be a very large lost opportunity. 

2. Devise methods to accelerate life testing of luminaires. This remains a problem with

no evident means of solution. While methods of testing normal lumen depreciation in 
Date: Updated May 2011 93 

SSL packages have advanced, there is no substitute for testing SSL lighting products in 

operation as a complete luminaire. Thermal, chemical, and electrical differences in steady 

state operation can accelerate lumen depreciation or even cause premature failures. For 

small luminaire makers, especially, testing complete luminaires for a long period of time 

may be prohibitively expensive, not to mention delaying product introduction in a rapidly 

evolving market. There is not a good method to accelerate this testing. Many standard 

approaches such as high temperatures, for example, may actually introduce new failure 

mechanisms. Because of the expense and difficulty, this is an area where industry could 

use significant support. 

3. Understanding of failure mechanisms. This topic is of rapidly increasing importance. 

The use of chemicals in luminaire assembly that are incompatible with SSL and 

overstress of SSL due to improper driver design or aging of electronic controls have been 

cited as prime causes of catastrophic or accelerated SSL failures, to name some specific 

examples. However, we do not have a clear understanding of all of the types or frequency 

of premature failures. 

4. Efficient driver and control subsystems. With the appearance of hybrid chip solutions 

to improve color, especially for warm color temperatures, control of the diodes has 

become more complex, in some cases compromising overall system efficacy. At the same 

time, considerable interest has been developing for the idea of using the unique control 

capabilities for LEDs to add significant energy savings. These two issues are not 

unrelated as similar controls can be applied for both purposes. It is difficult in periods of 

tight funding to have such projects rise to the level of a priority project, as there is 

considerable work being done without DOE's intervention, and the technology is 

somewhat beyond the scope of solicitations normally undertaken by the program. 

Nonetheless, with the significant potential savings, it would be worth deeper study to 

determine exactly what types of controls and what tradeoffs might result in the highest 

system energy savings and reliability.
Date: Updated May 2011 94 

6.0 Solid-State Lighting Portfolio Management Plan

The U.S. DOE’s SSL Portfolio draws on DOE’s long-term relationships with the SSL 

industry and research community to guide SSL technology from laboratory to 

marketplace. DOE’s comprehensive approach includes Basic Energy Sciences, Core 

Technology Research, Product Development, Manufacturing R&D, Commercialization 

Support, and an SSL Partnership. Figure 6.1 shows the connections and interrelationships 

between these elements of the program.

Figure 6.1: Interrelationships within DOE SSL Activities 

Basic Energy Sciences research advances fundamental understanding. Projects 

conducted by the Basic Energy Sciences Program focus on answering basic scientific 

questions that underlie DOE mission needs. These projects target principles of physics, 

chemistry, and materials sciences, including knowledge of electronic and optical 

processes that enable development of new synthesis techniques and novel materials.

The SBIR Program sets aside funding solely for competitions among small 

businesses. Small businesses that win awards in these programs keep the rights to any 

technology s developed and are encouraged to commercialize the 

Core Technology Research fills knowledge gaps. Conducted primarily by academia, 

national laboratories, and research institutions, Core Technology research involves 

scientific research efforts to seek more comprehensive knowledge or understanding of a 

subject. These projects fill technology gaps, provide enabling knowledge or data, and 

represent a significant advancmente in our knowledge base. They focus on applied 

research for technology development, with particular emphasis on meeting technical 

targets for performance and cost.

technology. Each year 

DOE issues a solicitation inviting small businesses to apply for SBIR Phase I grants. It 

contains technical topics in such research areas as energy production, fundamental energy 

sciences, Environmental Management, and Nuclear Nonproliferation. For research 

projects encompassing SSL technology, funding is provided by the Office of Science, and 

projects are then managed by DOE’s SSL R&D Program.

Participants in the Core Technology program perform work subject to what is termed an 

“exceptional circumstance” to the Bayh-Dole Act, and any resultant intellectual property 

is open, with negotiated royalties, to all Partnership members with a non-exclusive 
Date: Updated May 2011 95 

license. At DOE’s discretion, Core Technology projects are peer-reviewed by 

government personnel, independent organizations, and consultants. 

Product Development utilizes knowledge gains. Conducted primarily by industry, 

Product Development is the systematic use of knowledge gained from basic or applied 

research to develop or improve commercially viable materials, devices, or systems. 

Technical activities focus on a targeted market application with fully defined price, 

efficacy, and other performance parameters necessary for success of the proposed 

product. Project activities range from product concept modeling through development of 

test models and field ready prototypes. 

DOE expects these proposals to include comprehensive work plans to develop a specific 

SSL product or product family. Because the ultimate goal is to manufacture energy 

efficient, high performance SSL products, each work plan should address the abilities of 

each participant or manufacturer throughout the development process. These participants 

must not only have all the technical requirements to develop the desired SSL technology, 

but also must also have reasonable access to U.S. manufacturing capabilities73

Manufacturing R&D addresses the challenges of a maturing market. Also conducted 

primarily by industry, these projects work to improve product consistency and quality 

and to accelerate cost reduction by improving manufacturing processes. A secondary 

objective is to maintain, in the case of LEDs, or establish, in the case of OLEDs, the 

manufacturing and technology base within the U.S. Pre-competitive cooperation in 

understanding best practices, common equipment needs, process control, and other 

manufacturing methods and issues can yield great rewards for all. 

 and 

targeted markets to quickly move their SSL product from the industry laboratory to the 

marketplace.

Commercialization Support activities facilitate market readiness. To ensure that the 

DOE investments in Core Technology and Product Development lead to SSL technology 

commercialization, DOE has also developed the Federal government commercialization 

support strategy. Working with the SSL Partnership and other industry and energy 

organizations, DOE is implementing a full range of activities, including:

• Design competitions for lighting fixtures and systems using SSL; 

• Technical information resources on SSL technology issues, test procedures, and 

standards; 

• Testing of commercially available SSL products for general illumination;

• Technology demonstrations to showcase high performance SSL products in 

appropriate applications;

• Technology procurement programs that encourage manufacturers to bring high 

quality, energy efficient SSL products to the market and that link these products 

to volume buyers; and 

 

73 The Patent and Trademark Law Amendments Act, more commonly known as the Bayh-Dole Act, 

requires that federally funded inventions and resulting products to be manufactured in the U.S. 

http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_01/37cfr401_01.html
Date: Updated May 2011 96 

• Coordination with utility, regional, and national market transformation 

programs. 

SSL Partnership provides manufacturing and commercialization focus. Supporting 

the DOE SSL Portfolio is the SSL Partnership between DOE and the NGLIA, an alliance 

of for-profit lighting manufacturers administered by NEMA. DOE’s Memorandum of 

Agreement with NGLIA, signed in 2005, details a strategy to enhance the manufacturing 

and commercialization focus of the DOE Portfolio by utilizing the expertise of this 

organization of SSL manufacturers. The Partnership members confer among themselves 

and communicate their R&D needs to the DOE program managers, who in turn, shape 

these needs into the project solicitations. A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was 

recently sign to extend the partnership into 2012 (for a complete version of the MOU, see 

Appendix G).

The SSL Partnership provides input to shape R&D priorities, and accelerates 

implementation of SSL technologies by:

• Communicating SSL program accomplishments;

• Encouraging development of metrics, codes, and standards; 

• Promoting demonstration of SSL technologies for general lighting applications; 

and

• Supporting DOE voluntary market oriented programs. 

As of October 2010, the NGLIA comprised of seventeen corporations 3M, Acuity 

Brands Lighting, Applied Materials Inc., Bayer Material Science LLC, CAO Group Inc., 

Corning Inc., Cree Inc., Eastman Kodak Company, GE-Lumination, Light Prescriptions 

Innovators, LLC (LPI, LLC), LSI Industries, Luminus Devices Inc., OSRAM Sylvania 

Inc., Philips SSL Solutions, QuNano Inc., Ruud Lighting Inc., and UDC74  though 

NEMA is actively seeking to extend membership to any firms active in SSL R&D.

For more information on NGLIA, see their website at: http://www.nglia.org. 

6.1 SSL R&D Strategy and Operational Plan 

DOE’s SSL R&D Program is guided by the seven principles of a government – SSL 

Industry Partnership. Working through the competitive solicitation process, these seven 

guiding principles position DOE’s research partners and projects for success through: 

• Emphasis on competition for research funds; 

• Cost (and risk) sharing between Government and research partners, exceeding 

Energy Policy Act of 1992 cost-share requirements;

• SSL industry partners involved in planning and funding; 

• Targeted research for focused R&D needs;

• Innovative intellectual property provisions; 

• Open information and process; and 

 

74 Current NGLIA Members.October 19, 2010. Available at: http://www.nglia.org/membership.html 
Date: Updated May 2011 97 

• Success determined by milestones met and energy efficient, long-life, and cost 

competitive products developed. 

DOE has structured an operational plan for SSL R&D, depicted in Figure 6.2 that 

outlines the various activities in which DOE, industry, and researchers engage in order to 

facilitate the commercialization of SSL products. Each of these activities is discussed in 

further detail in the following sections. First, through collaboration with the SSL 

Partnership and a series of workshops and roundtables, DOE identifies and prioritizes 

core technology, product development, and manufacturing needs. Based on the priority 

areas, DOE then issues competitive solicitations to industry, academia, national 

laboratories, and research institutions. Subject to an “exceptional circumstance” to the 

Bayh-Dole Act (discussed in the previous section), intellectual property and royalties can 

be exchanged between core technology researchers and the SSL Partnership. DOE 

annually tracks the status of SSL technology and reports progress toward program 

milestones to the United States Congress. See Appendix F for a full version of the 

Exceptional Circumstances Determination.

Figure 6.2: Structure of DOE SSL R&D Operational Plan

Figure 6.2 details the high-level timeline for the SSL R&D operational plan. Each year, 

DOE expects to issue at least three competitive solicitations: the Core Technology 

Solicitation, the Product Development Solicitation, and the Manufacturing R&D 

Solicitation. A number of annual meetings are held to provide regular DOE management 

and review checks and to keep all interested parties adequately informed. More 

specifically, these meetings:

• Provide a general review of progress on the individual projects (open meeting); 

• Review/update the R&D plan for upcoming “statement of needs” in future 

solicitations (open meeting);
Date: Updated May 2011 98 

• At DOE’s discretion, provide a peer review of Core Technology, Product 

Development, and Manufacturing R&D projects; and 

• Provide individual project reviews by DOE. 

Figure 6.3: SSL Operational Plan Process 

6.2 Portfolio Decision-Making Process

DOE establishes its SSL R&D priorities and projects through a consultative process with 

industry, expert technical reviewers and other interested parties and then adjusts them 

based on the existing portfolio of projects. The portfolio decision-making process is 

based upon: (1) the output of consultative workshops; (2) a competitive solicitation 

process based on the seven guiding principles of the SSL R&D Program; and (3) 

consultation with the SSL partnership. Each of these three components of the portfolio 

decision making process is discussed below.

6.2.1 Consultative Workshops 

The SSL R&D program relies heavily on stakeholder consultation and participation in the 

R&D agenda planning process. DOE hosted several consultative workshops to solicit 

input from stakeholders representing industry, national laboratories, and academia in 

order to prioritize near-term R&D activities:75

• Basic Energy Sciences Workshop: This workshop was jointly held by the 

DOE’s Basic Energy Sciences Program and the Building Technologies Program 

in Bethesda, Maryland in 2006. The workshop focused on basic research needs 

for SSL and provided the forum for a coordinated approach to R&D between the 

two programs that include Core Technology Research, Product Development, 

Commercialization Support, DOE ENERGY STAR® criteria for SSL, Standards 

Development, and the SSL Partnership with industry. 

• Manufacturing Workshops: The manufacturing workshops, preceded by 

roundtable sessions convened in Washington, D.C., gathers SSL manufacturers in 

order to seek guidance on updates to the SSL Manufacturing Roadmap and a 

DOE Manufacturing R&D initiative. This guidance leads to the priority tasks 

which are then used to shape the competitive solicitations in the Manufacturing 

R&D Program. The last manufacturing workshop took place in San Jose, 

California in April 2010. 

 

75 A listing of past DOE consultative workshops can be found at: 

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ssl/past_conferences.html
Date: Updated May 2011 99 

• R&D Planning Workshops: The R&D planning workshops, preceded by 

roundtable sessions in Washington, D.C., bring together lighting industry leaders, 

chip makers, fixture manufacturers, researchers, academia, lighting designers, 

architects, trade associations, energy efficiency organizations, and utilities in 

order to share insights and updates on technology advances and market 

developments. The workshops give attendees an opportunity to provide input and 

research areas in need of DOE funding which then guides updates to this R&D 

MYPP. The last R&D planning workshop took place in February 2011, in San 

Diego, California. 

6.2.2 Competitive Solicitations

Since FY2009, three competitive solicitations have been released in accordance with the 

three operational pathways: Core Technology, Product Development, and Manufacturing 

Support. These solicitations are conducted by the National Energy Technology 

Laboratory (NETL) and are open to all industry participants. 

Proposals received through the solicitation process are reviewed by expert reviewers and 

DOE staff. DOE expects product proposals to include comprehensive work plans to 

develop a specific SSL product or product family. Core Technology proposals should 

support the SSL R&D Program by providing problem solving research to overcome 

barriers identified by the SSL Partnership. 

6.2.3 Consultation with the SSL Partnership

The NGLIA’s mission involves public advocacy on issues related to SSL, promotion and 

support of SSL technology and DOE’s SSL R&D Program, and facilitation of 

communications among members and other organizations with substantial interest in the 

NGLIA activities. In selecting the NGLIA to serve as its partner, DOE improved its 

access to the technical expertise of the organization’s members. The Alliance participates 

in a variety of the joint activities with DOE, including: 

• Providing input to shape DOE’s SSL R&D Program priorities.

• Providing technical expertise for proposal reviews and individual project reviews

for research projects in DOE’s SSL Core Technology Program, as well as 

participating in project review meetings; and

• Providing recommendations from individual NGLIA members on the direction of 

research, development, and demonstration of SSL technologies for general 

illumination.

6.3 Internal DOE Portfolio Evaluation Plan

The SSL R&D Portfolio evaluation plan must support the establishment of performance 

goals, measures, and expectations as required by GPRA. To develop this evaluative plan, 

the BT Program Manager performs a Situation Analysis (the context for planning), 

identifies and makes explicit all planning assumptions (constants), and identifies and 

assesses the impact of current and emerging market trends (variables).

Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) 
Date: Updated May 2011 100 

PNNL estimates the fiscal year energy, environmental, and financial benefits (i.e., 

metrics) of the technologies and practices for DOE’s Office of Building Technologies. 

This effort is referred to as GPRA Metrics because the Government Performance and 

Results Act of 1993 mandates such estimates of benefits, which are submitted to EE’s 

Office of Planning, Budget, and Management as part of EE’s budget request. The metrics 

effort was initiated by EE in 1994 to develop quantitative measures of program benefits 

and costs. 

The BTS GPRA estimates are calculated using the National Energy Modeling System

(NEMS). NEMS can link the cost and benefit characteristics of a technology and its 

market penetration. The NEMS commercial and residential demand modules generate 

forecasts of energy demand (energy consumption) for those sectors. The commercial 

demand module generates fuel consumption forecasts for electricity, natural gas, and 

distillate fuel oil. These forecasts are based on energy prices and macroeconomic 

variables from the NEMS system, combined with external data sources. The residential 

model uses energy prices and macroeconomic indicators to generate energy consumption 

by fuel type and census division in the residential sector. NEMS selects specific 

technologies to meet the energy services demands by choosing among a discrete set of 

technologies that are exogenously characterized by commercial availability, capital costs, 

operating and maintenance costs, efficiencies, and lifetime. NEMS is coded to allow 

several possible assumptions to be used about consumer behavior to model this selection 

process. For the GPRA effort, the menu of equipment was changed to include relevant 

BTS program equipment, technological innovations, and standards.76

Peer Review 

 

A formal review of the twenty one FY2010 funded projects was conducted in the summer 

of 2010, the fifth in an annual series since 2005. These reviews are conducted by panels 

of highly qualified scientists, engineers, and independent technical consultants who 

evaluate each project based on technical approach, accomplishments, productivity, and 

relevance of the work to DOE’s goals. The panels identify areas of concern and areas to 

be commended, and the results of the peer review process are shared with the project 

team and DOE. 

6.4 External DOE Portfolio Evaluation Plan 

National Academies of Science Review 

EPACT, passed in August 2005, requires the SSL R&D Program enter into an agreement 

with the National Academy of Sciences to conduct periodic reviews of the Solid-State 

Lighting Initiative. In addition, section 321(h)(3) of EISA 2007 requires the SSL R&D 

Program to enter into an agreement with the National Academy of Sciences to conduct 

two additional peer reviews of the Solid-State Lighting Initiative to be completed by 

December 31, 2013, and July 31, 2015 (See Appendix B). The first review is beginning 

in FY2011. The report should include the following: 

 

76 Documentation for FY2003 BTS GPRA Metrics, Building Technology, State and Community Programs, 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy.
Date: Updated May 2011 101 

• The status of advanced SSL research, development, demonstration, and 

commercialization;

• The impact on the types of lighting available to consumers of an energy 

conservation standard requiring a minimum of 45 lm/W for general service 

lighting effective in 2020; and 

• The time frame for the commercialization of lighting that could replace current 

incandescent and halogen incandescent lamp technology and any other new 

technologies developed to meet the minimum standards required under section 

321(a)(3).

However, even before the passage of EPACT 2005 and EISA 2007, the National 

Research Council (NRC) was tasked by Congress with developing a methodology for the 

prospective assessment of DOE program impacts. Starting in December 2003, the NRC 

developed a conceptual framework and applied it to a review of three DOE programs as 

the first step in developing a recommendation for a methodology for future program 

reviews. The committee appointed expert panels to apply the methodology to these 

programs as case studies. 

One of these programs was the LR&D program, and in particular the SSL R&D Program. 

Although the intent of the NRC study was not specifically to review these programs, 

some of the reported findings point to the benefits of investing in SSL R&D. The NRC 

published a report, Prospective Evaluation of Applied Research and Development at 

DOE (PHASE ONE): A First Look Forward 77

• The committee found that, if successful, the program would yield a projected 

national economic benefit of $84 billion through 2050, discounted to 2005 

dollars. This is for annual DOE funding of $25 million for 20 years ($500 million, 

undiscounted). Even allowing for program risk, the projected risk-adjusted benefit 

is $50 billion. This benefit is above projections for private and foreign R&D 

funding during these years, which itself is twice the assumed DOE funding. 

with the following findings. 

• The panel noted that the large projected benefits were for a relatively conservative 

reference scenario and that the scenarios not analyzed would have shown even 

larger benefits. It noted that the projected benefits, even under baseline 

conditions, are high enough to justify the authorized $500 million DOE SSL R&D 

Program.

• The panel concluded that the achievement of DOE’s technical goal depends on an 

increase in funding from $10 million per year at the time of the study to $50 

million per year. Without DOE funding, the panel believed the technical goals 

will not be achieved. 

The panel believed that DOE funding is an important catalyst to other R&D funding and 

is a catalyst to spur non-DOE funding. The panel estimated that huge environmental 

benefits would also flow from the program results, once implemented. Estimates of these 

 

77 To download a PDF version of this report, please visit http://www.nap.edu/books/0309096049/html. 
Date: Updated May 2011 102 

benefits are given in the report, though they were not the focus of the study, and they are 

not included in the $50 billion economic benefits cited above. 
Date: Updated May 2011 103

Appendix A Legislative Directive: EPACT 2005

Subtitle A – Energy Efficiency

Sec. 911. Energy Efficiency. 

(c) Allocations. – From amounts authorized under subsection (a), the following sums are 

authorized: 

(1) For activities under section 912, $50,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2007 through 

2009. 

(d) Extended Authorization. – They are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary to 

carry out section 912 $50,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2010 through 2013. 

Sec. 912. Next Generation Lighting Initiative. 

(a) Definitions. – In this section: 

(1) Advance Solid-State Lighting. – The term “advanced solid-state lighting” means a 

semiconducting device package and delivery system that produces white light 

using externally applied voltage. 

(2) Industry Alliance. – The term “Industry Alliance” means an entity selected by the 

Secretary under subsection (d). 

(3) Initiative. – The term “Initiative” means the Next Generation Lighting Initiative 

carried out under this section. 

(4) Research. – The term “research” includes research on the technologies, materials, 

and manufacturing processes required for white light emitting diodes. 

(5) White Light Emitting Diode. – The term “white light emitting diode” means a 

semiconducting package, using either organic or inorganic materials, that 

produces white light using externally applied voltage. 

(b) Initiative. – The Secretary shall carry out a Next Generation Lighting Initiative in 

accordance with this section to support research, development, demonstration, and 

commercial application activities related to advanced solid-state lighting technologies 

based on white light emitting diodes.

(c) Objectives. – The objectives of the Initiative shall be to develop advanced solid-state 

organic and inorganic lighting technologies based on white light emitting diodes that, 

compared to incandescent and fluorescent lighting technologies, are longer lasting, are 

more energy-efficient and cost competitive, and have less environmental impact.

(d) Industry Alliance. – Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the 

Secretary shall competitively select an Industry Alliance to represent participants who are 

private, for-profit firms that, as a group, are broadly representative of the United States 

SSL research, development, infrastructure, and manufacturing expertise as a whole. 

(e) Research. – 

(1) Grants. – The Secretary shall carry out the research activities of the Initiative 

through competitively awarded grants to – 

(A) researchers, including Industry Alliance participants; 

(B) National Laboratories; and

(C) institutions of higher education. 
Date: Updated May 2011 104

(2) Industry Alliance. – The Secretary shall annually solicit from the Industry 

Alliance – 

(A) comments to identify solid-state lighting technology needs;

(B) an assessment of the progress of the research activities of the Initiative; 

and

(C) assistance in annually updating solid-state lighting technology 

roadmaps. 

(3) Availability to Public. – The information and roadmaps under paragraph (2) shall 

be available to the public. 

(f) Development, Demonstration, and Commercial Application. – 

(1) In General. – The Secretary shall carry out a development, demonstration, and 

commercial application program for the Initiative through competitively selected 

awards.

(2) Preference. – In making the awards, the Secretary may give preference to 

participants in the Industry Alliance. 

(g) Cost Sharing. – In carrying out this section the Secretary shall require cost sharing in 

accordance with section 988. 

(h) Intellectual Property. – The Secretary may require (in accordance with section 202(a)(ii) 

of title 35, United States Code, section 152 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 ( 42 U.S.C. 

2182), and section 9 of the Federal Nonnuclear Energy Research and Development Act of 

1974 ( 42 U.S.C. 5908)) that for any new invention developed under subsection (e) – 

(1) that the Industry Alliance participants who are active participants in research, 

development, and demonstration activities related to the advanced solid-state 

lighting technologies that are covered by this section shall be granted the first 

option to negotiate with the invention owner, at least in the field of solid-state 

lighting, nonexclusive licenses and royalties on terms that are reasonable under 

the circumstances;

(2) (A that, for 1 year after a United States patent is issued for the invention, the 

patent holder shall not negotiate any license or royalty with any entity that is not a 

participant in the Industry Alliance described in paragraph (1); and 

 (B) that, during the year described in clause (i), the patent holder shall negotiate 

nonexclusive licenses and royalties in good faith with any interested participants in 

the Industry Alliance described in paragraph (1); and 

(3) such other terms as the Secretary determines are required to promote accelerated 

commercialization of inventions made under the Initiative.

(i) National Academy Review. – The Secretary shall enter into an arrangement with the 

National Academy of Sciences to conduct periodic reviews of the Initiative.
Date: Updated May 2011 105

Appendix B Legislative Directive: EISA 2007

Subtitle B – Lighting Energy Efficiency

Sec. 321. Lighting Energy Efficiency. 

(g) Research and Development Program. – 

(1) In General. —The Secretary may carry out a lighting technology research and 

development program — 

(A) to support the research, development, demonstration, and commercial 

application of lamps and related technologies sold, offered for sale, or otherwise made 

available in the United States; and

(B) to assist manufacturers of general service lamps in the manufacturing of 

general service lamps that, at a minimum, achieve the wattage requirements imposed as a 

result of the amendments made by subsection (a). 

(2) Authorization of Appropriations. —There are authorized to be appropriated to carry 

out this subsection $10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 through 2013. 

(3) Termination of Authority. —The program under this subsection shall terminate on 

September 30, 2015. 

(h) Reports to Congress. – 

(3) National Academy Review. — 

(A) IN GENERAL. — Not later than December 31, 2009, the Secretary shall 

enter into an arrangement with the National Academy of Sciences to provide a report by

December 31, 2013, and an updated report by July 31, 2015. The report should include 

— 

(i) the status of advanced SSL research, development, demonstration and 

commercialization;

(ii) the impact on the types of lighting available to consumers of an energy 

conservation standard requiring a minimum of 45 lumens per watt for general 

service lighting effective in 2020; and 

(iii) the time frame for the commercialization of lighting that could replace 

current incandescent and halogen incandescent lamp technology and any other 

new technologies developed to meet the minimum standards required under 

subsection (a)(3) of this section. 

(B) Reports. —The reports shall be transmitted to the Committee on Energy and 

Commerce of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural 

Resources of the Senate.
Date: Updated May 2011 106

Appendix C Definition of Core Technology, Product 

Development, and Manufacturing R&D

DOE defines Core Technology, Product Development, and Manufacturing R&D as follows: 

Core Technology – Core Technology is applied research encompassing scientific efforts that 

focus on comprehensive knowledge or understanding of the subject under study, with specific 

application to SSL. Within Core Technology research areas, scientific principles are 

demonstrated, technical pathways to SSL applications are identified, and price or performance 

advantages over previously available science/engineering are evaluated. T asks in Core 

Technology fill technology gaps, provide enabling knowledge or data, and represent a significant 

advancement in the SSL knowledge base. C ore Technology research focuses on ga ining precompetitive knowledge for future application to products by other organizations. Therefore, the 

findings are generally made available to the community at large to apply and benefit from as it 

works collectively towards attainment of DOE’s SSL R&D Program goals. 

Product Development – Product Development involves using basic and applied research 

(including Core Technology research) for the development of commercially viable SSL 

materials, devices, or luminaires. Product Development activities typically include evaluation of 

new products through market and fiscal studies, with a fully defined price, efficacy, and other 

performance parameters necessary for success of the proposed product. Product Development 

encompasses the technical activities of product concept modeling through to the development of 

test models and field ready prototypes. 

Manufacturing R&D – Manufacturing R&D provides support for manufacturing projects that 

target improved product quality and consistency, and accelerated cost reduction. The idea is to 

take LEDs and OLEDs developed under product development and provide a means to 

manufacture these products. This could include development of material production, subsystems, 

tools, processes, and assembly methods specific to SSL manufacturing 
Date: Updated May 2011 107

Appendix D MYPP Task Structure

Priority tasks for 2011 shown in red.

LED Core Research Tasks

A.1.0 Emitter Materials

A.1.1 Alternative substrates

A.1.2 Emitter materials research

A.1.3 Down converters

A.2.0 Device Materials and Architectures

A.2.1 Light extraction approaches

A.2.2 Novel emitter materials and architectures

A.3.0 Device Packaging

A.3.4 Thermal control research

A.4.0 LED Fabrication

A.4.4 Manufacturing simulation

A.5.0 Optical Components 

A.5.1 Optical component materials

A.6.0 Luminaire Integration

A.6.2 Thermal components research

A.6.3 System reliability methods

A.7.0 Electronic Components

A.7.4 Driver electronics

A.7.5 Electronics reliability research

LED Product Development Tasks

B.1.0 Emitter Materials

B.1.1 Substrate development 

B.1.2 Semiconductor materials

B.1.3 Phosphors

B.2.0 Device Materials and Architectures

B.2.3 Electrical

B.3.0 Device Packaging

B.3.1 LED package optics

B.3.2 Encapsulation

B.3.4 Emitter thermal control

B.3.5 Environmental sensitivity

B.3.6 Package architecture

B.4.0 LED Fabrication

B.4.1 Yield and manufacturability

B.4.2 Epitaxial growth

 B.4.3 Manufacturing tools

B.5.0 Optical Components

B.5.1 Light utilization

B.5.2 Color maintenance

B.5.3 Diffusion and beam shaping

B.6.0 Luminaire Integration

B.6.1 Luminaire mechanical design

B.6.2 Luminaire thermal management

B.6.3 System reliability and Lifetime

B6.4 Novel Luminaire Systems

B.7.0 Electronic Components

B.7.1 Color maintenance

B.7.2 Color tuning

B.7.3 Smart controls

B.7.4 Electronics component research

OLED Core Research Tasks

C.1.0 Materials and Device Architectures

C.1.1 Novel device architectures

C.1.2 Novel OLED materials and 

 structures

C.1.3 Material and device architecture 

modeling

C.1.4 Material degradation

C.1.5 Thermal characterization of 

materials and devices

C.2.0 Substrate and Electrode

C.2.2 Electrode research

C.3.0 Fabrication

C.3.1 Fabrication technology research

C.4.0 Luminaire Integration 

C.4.3 Optimizing system reliability

C.5.0 Electronic Components

C.6.0 Panel Architecture

C.6.3 Light extraction approaches

OLED Product Development Tasks

D.1.0 Materials and Device Architectures

D.1.1 Implementation of materials and 

device architectures

D.1.5 Device failure

D.2.0 Substrate and Electrode

D.2.1 Substrate materials

D.2.2 Low-cost electrodes

D.3.0 Fabrication 

D.3.1 Panel manufacturing technology

D.3.2 Quality control

D.4.0 Luminaire Integration

D.4.1 Light utilization

D.4.2 Luminaire integration

D.4.3 System reliability methods

D.4.4 Luminaire thermal management

D.4.5 Electrical interconnects

D.5.0 Electronic Components

D.5.1 Color maintenance

D.5.2 Smart controls

D.5.3 Driver electronics

D.6.0 Panel Architecture

D.6.1 Large area OLEDs

D.6.2 Panel packaging

D.6.3 Panel outcoupling

D.6.4 Panel reliability

D.6.5 Panel mechanical design
Date: Updated May 2011 108 

Non-Prioritized Tasks

LED Core Research Tasks

Task Description

A.1.1 Alternative substrates Explore alternative practical substrate materials and growth for highquality epitaxy so that device quality can be improved.

A.2.1 Light extraction approaches

Devise improved methods for raising chip-level extraction efficiency 

and LED system optical efficiency. Photonic crystal structures or 

resonant cavity approaches would be included.

A2.2 Novel emitter materials and 

architectures

(1) Devise novel emitter geometries and mechanisms that show a clear 

pathway to efficiency improvement; (2) Demonstrate a pathway to

increased chip-level functionality offering luminaire or system 

efficiency improvements over existing approaches; (3) Explore novel 

architectures for improved efficiency, color stability, and emission 

directionality including combined LED/converter structures. (Possible 

examples: nano-rod LEDs, lasers, micro-cavity LEDs, photonic 

crystals, system on a chip)

A.3.4 Thermal control research Simulation of solutions to thermal management issues at the package or 

array level. Innovative thermal management solutions.

A.4.4 Manufacturing simulation Develop manufacturing simulation approaches that will help to 

improve yield and quality of LED products.

A.5.1 Optical component materials

Develop optical component materials that last at least as long as the 

LED source (50k hours) under lighting conditions which would 

include: elevated ambient and operating temperatures, UV- and bluelight exposure, and wet or moist environments.

A.6.2 Thermal components research Research and develop novel thermal materials and devices that can be 

applied to solid-state LED products.

A.6.3 System Reliability Methods

Develop models, methodology, and experimentation to determine the 

system lifetime of the integrated SSL luminaire and all of the 

components based on statistical assessment of component reliabilities 

and lifetimes. Includes investigation of accelerated testing.

A.7.4 Driver electronics

Develop advanced solid-state electronic materials and components that 

enable higher efficiency and longer lifetime for control and driving of 

LED light sources.

A.7.5 Electronics Reliability Research Develop designs that improve and methods to predict the lifetime of 

electronics components in the SSL luminaire.

LED Product Development Tasks

Task Description

B.1.2 Semiconductor materials

Reduce the operating voltage of LED chips or arrays by increasing 

lateral conductivity or architectural improvements or package design, 

etc.

B.1.3 Phosphors

B.2.3 Electrical

Reduce the operating voltage of LED chips or arrays by increasing 

lateral conductivity or architectural improvements or package design, 

etc.

B.3.1 LED package optics Beam-shaping or color-mixed at the LED package or array level.

B.3.2 Encapsulation Develop a thermal/photo-resistant encapsulant that exhibits long life 

and has a high refractive index.

B.3.4 Emitter thermal control Demonstrate an LED or LED array that maximizes heat transfer to the 

package so as to improve chip lifetime and reliability. 

B.3.5 Environmental sensitivity

Develop and extensively characterize a packaged LED with significant 

improvements in lifetime associated with the design methods or 

materials.
Date: Updated May 2011 109 

LED Product Development Tasks (Cont)

Task Description

B.4.1 Yield and manufacturability

Devise methods to improve epitaxial growth uniformity of wavelength 

and other parameters so as to reduce binning yield losses. Solutions 

may include in-situ monitoring and should be scalable to high volume 

manufacture.

B.4.2 Epitaxial growth

Develop and demonstrate growth reactors and monitoring tools or other 

methods capable of growing state of the art LED materials at low-cost 

and high reproducibility and uniformity with improved materials-use 

efficiency.

B.4.3 Manufacturing tools 

Develop improved tools and methods for die separation, chip shaping, 

and wafer bonding, and testing equipment for manufacturability at 

lower cost.

B.5.1 Light utilization

Maximize the ratio of useful light exiting the luminaire to total light 

from the LED source. This includes all optical losses in the luminaire; 

including luminaire housing as well as optical losses from diffusing, 

beam shaping, and color mixing optics. Minimize artifacts such as 

multishadowing or color rings.

B.5.2 Color Maintenance 

Ensure luminaire maintains the initial color point and color quality over 

the life of the luminaire. 

Product: Luminaire/ replacement lamp

B.5.3 Diffusion and beam shaping

Develop optical components that diffuse and/or shape the light output 

from the LED source(s) into a desirable beam pattern and develop 

optical components that mix the colored outputs from the LED sources 

evenly across the beam pattern.

B.6.1 Luminaire mechanical design

Integrate all aspects of LED-based luminaire design: thermal, 

mechanical, optical, and electrical. Design must be cost effective, 

energy efficient and reliable.

B.6.2 Luminaire thermal management Design low-cost integrated thermal management techniques to protect 

the LED source, maintain the luminaire efficiency and color quality. 

B.7.1 Color maintenance

Develop LED driver electronics that maintain a color setpoint over the 

life of the luminaire by compensating for changes in LED output over 

time and temperature, and degradation of luminaire components. 

B.7.2 Color tuning Develop efficient electronic controls that allow a user to set the color 

point of the luminaire.

B.7.3 Smart controls

Develop integrated lighting controls that save energy over the life of 

the luminaire. May include methods to maximize dimmer efficiency. 

May include sensing occupancy or daylight, or include communications 

to minimize energy use, for example.

B.7.4 Electronics component research

Develop compact, long-life LED driver electronics and power 

converters that efficiently convert line power to acceptable input power 

of the LED source(s) while maintaining an acceptable power factor; 

encourage standardization in the long term.
Date: Updated May 2011 110 

OLED Core Technology Tasks

Task Description

C.1.1 Novel device architectures

Device architectures to increase EQE, reduce voltage, and improve 

device lifetime that are compatible with the goal of stable white light. 

Explores novel structures like those that use multi-function 

components, cavities or other outcoupling strategies to optimize light 

extraction. Could include studying material interfaces.

C.1.3 Material and device architecture 

modeling

Developing software simulation tools to model the performance of 

OLED devices using detailed material characteristics. 

C.1.4 Material degradation Understand and evaluate the degradation of materials during device 

operation.

C.1.5 Thermal characterization of 

materials and devices

Involves modeling and/or optimizing the thermal characteristics of 

OLED materials and device architectures with the goal of developing 

less thermally sensitive and hydrolytically more stable materials and 

devices.

C2.2 Electrode Research

Develop a novel electrode system for uniform current distribution 

across a (>200 cm2

C3.1

) panel. Solutions must have potential for 

substantial cost reduction with long life while maintaining high OLED 

performance. Work could include more complex architectures such as 

grids or patterned structures, p-type and n-type degenerate electrodes, 

two-material electrodes, electrodes that reduce I*R loss, flexible 

electrodes, or other low-voltage electrodes.

Fabrication Technology 

Research 

Develop new practical techniques for materials deposition, device 

fabrication, or encapsulation. Should show potential for scalability and 

low cost.

C.4.3 Optimizing system reliability

Research techniques to optimize and verify overall luminaire reliability. 

Develop system reliability measurement methods and accelerated 

lifetime testing methods to determine the reliability and lifetime of an 

OLED device, panel, or luminaire through statistical assessment of 

luminaire component reliabilities and lifetimes.

OLED Product Development Tasks

Task Description

D.1.1 Implementation of materials 

and device architectures

Develop materials and device architectures that can concurrently 

improve robustness, lifetime, efficiency, and color quality with the goal 

of stable white light over its lifetime. The device should be pixel-sized, 

demonstrate scalability, and have a lumen output of at least 50 lumens.

D.1.5 Device failure Understand the failure modes of an OLED at the device level.

D.2.1 Substrate materials

Demonstrate an OLED with reasonable performance and low 

degradation using a substrate material that is low-cost and shows 

reduced water and oxygen permeability. Other considerations may 

include processing and operational stability, weight, cost, optical and 

barrier properties, and flexibility. 

D2.2 Low-Cost Electrodes

Demonstrate a high-efficiency OLED panel employing a transparent 

electrode technology that is low-cost, low-voltage, and stable, with the 

potential for large-scale manufacturing. The electrode surface should 

be smooth enough to prevent shorting. Design could include a 

conducting grid or segmented structures. 

D.3.1 Panel manufacturing 

technology

Develop and demonstrate methods to produce an OLED panel with 

performance consistent with the roadmap using integrated 

manufacturing technologies that can scale to large areas while enabling 

significant advances in yield, quality control, substrate size, process 

time, and materials usage using less expensive tools and materials than 

in the OLED display industry and can scale to large areas.
Date: Updated May 2011 111 

OLED Product Development Tasks

Task Description

D.3.2 Quality control

Develop characterization methods to help define material quality for 

different materials and explore the relationship between material 

quality and device performance. Develop improved methods for 

monitoring the deposition of materials in creating an OLED panel.

D.4.1 Light utilization

Maximize the ratio of useful light exiting the luminaire to total light 

from the OLED sources. This includes all optical losses in the 

luminaire; including optical losses from beam distribution and color 

mixing optics. 

D.4.2 Luminaire integration

Integrate one or more OLED panels into a luminaire, with thermal, 

mechanical, optical, and electrical design to achieve a cost-effective, 

long-life, energy-saving, and marketable luminaire suitable for general 

lighting applications. All components should be as robust as the 

OLED. This task is to include maximizing light output, thermal 

management to limit OLED source temperature, and electrical 

interconnections with driver and among OLED panels. 

D.4.3 System reliability methods Develop models, methodology, and experimentation to determine the 

lifetime of the integrated OLED luminaire and all of the components.

D.4.4 Luminaire thermal management

Design integrated thermal management techniques to extract heat from 

the luminaire in a variety of environments and operating conditions. 

Thermal management should maintain the OLED source temperature as 

well as enhance the luminaire color and efficiency performance.

D.4.5 Electrical interconnects Develop standard connections for integration of OLED panels into the 

luminaire.

D.5.1 Color maintenance

Develop OLED driver electronics that maintain a color setpoint over 

the life of the luminaire by compensating for changes in OLED output 

over time and temperature, and degradation of luminaire components. 

D.5.2 Smart controls Develop integrated lighting controls and sensors that save energy over 

the life of the luminaire.

D.5.3 Driver electronics

Develop efficient, long-life OLED driver electronics and power 

converters that efficiently convert line power to acceptable input power 

of the OLED source(s) and maintain their performance over the life of 

the fixture. These can include energy-saving functionality such as 

daylight and occupancy sensors and communication protocols for 

external lighting control systems.

D6.2 Panel Packaging

Scale up practical, low-cost packaging designs that result in improved 

resistance to the environment (particularly water and oxygen 

impermeability) and thermal management. Encapsulation 

considerations should involve compatible materials, appropriate 

processes, etc. Edge effects should also be considered. Demonstrate a 

high-efficiency OLED panel that employs such a packaging design and 

exhibits improved lifetime.

D6.4 Panel Reliability

Analyze and understand failure mechanisms of OLED panels and 

demonstrate a packaged OLED panel with significant improvements in 

operating lifetime. Specific issues may include enhanced thermal 

management to support operation at higher luminance levels, or the 

dependence of shorting on layer thickness and uniformity.

D.6.5 Panel mechanical design

Integrate all aspects of OLED-based luminaire design: thermal, 

mechanical, optical, and electrical. The design must be cost-effective, 

energy-efficient and reliable.
Date: Updated May 2011 112 

Appendix E List of Patents Awarded Through DOEFunded Projects

As of January 2011, a total of thirty four SSL patents have been granted as a result of 

DOE-funded research projects. This demonstrates the value of DOE SSL projects to 

private companies and notable progress toward commercialization. Since DOE began 

funding SSL research projects in 2000, a total of 113 patents applications have been 

applied for as follows: large businesses - 43, small businesses - 34, universities - 32, and 

national laboratories - 4. 

Primary Research 

Organization Title of Patent Application (Bolded titles indicates granted patents)

Agiltron, Inc. Two patent applications filed.

Boston University Optical Devices Featuring Textured Semiconductor Layers

Formation of Textured III-Nitride Templates for the Fabrication of Efficient 

Optical Devices 

Formation of Textured III-Nitride Templates for the Fabrication of Efficient 

Optical Devices 

Nitride LEDs Based on Flat and Wrinkled Quantum Wells

Cree, Inc.

Light Emitting Diode with Porous SiC Substrate and Method for 

Fabricating

Light Emitting Diode with High Aspect Ratio Sub-Micron Roughness for 

Light Extraction and Methods of Forming

Light emitting diode with high aspect ratio submicron roughness for light 

extraction and methods of forming

Light emitting diode package element with internal meniscus for bubble free 

lens placement

One other patent application filed.

Dow Corning Four patent applications filed

Eastman Kodak Ex-Situ Doped Semiconductor Transport Layer

Doped Nanoparticle-Based Semiconductor Junction

Device Containing Non-Blinking Quantum Dots

Two other patent applications filed.

Fairfield Crystal 

Technology Method and Apparatus for Aluminum Nitride Monocrystal Boule Growth

GE Global 

Research

Light-Emitting Device with Organic Electroluminescent Material and 

Photoluminescent Materials

Luminaire for Light Extraction from a Flat Light Source

Mechanically Flexible Organic Electroluminescent Device with Directional 

Light Emission

Organic Electroluminescent Devices and Method for Improving Energy 

Efficiency and Optical Stability Thereof

Series Connected OLED Structure and Fabrication Method

Organic Electroluminescent Devices having Improved Light Extraction

Electrodes Mitigating Effects of Defects in Organic Electronic Devices

OLED Area Illumination Source

Hybrid Electroluminescent Devices

Eleven other patent applications filed.

Georgia Tech 

Research 

Corporation One patent application filed.
Date: Updated May 2011 113 

Primary Research 

Organization Title of Patent Application (Bolded titles indicates granted patents)

International 

Technology 

Exchange One patent application filed.

Light Prescriptions 

Innovators

Optical Manifold for Light-Emitting Diodes

Optical Manifold for Light-Emitting Diodes

Optical Manifold

Four other patent applications filed.

Maxdem 

Incorporated Polymer Matrix Electroluminescent Materials and Devices

Nanosys Nanocrystal Doped Matrices

OSRAM Opto 

Semiconductors, 

Inc.

Integrated Fuses for OLED Lighting Device

Novel Method to Generate High Efficient Devices, which Emit High 

Polymer and Small Molecule Based Hybrid Light Source

Novel Method to Generate High Efficient Devices, which Emit High Quality 

Light for Illumination

OLED with Phosphors

Polymer Small Molecule Based Hybrid Light Source

Two other patent applications filed

Pacific Northwest 

National 

Laboratory

Organic Materials with Phosphine Sulphide Moieties having Tunable Electric 

and Electroluminescent Properties

Organic Materials with Tunable Electric and Electroluminescent Properties

Philips Electronics 

North America

High Color-Rendering-Index LED Lighting Source using LEDs from Multiple 

Wavelength Bins

Three other patent applications filed.

Philips Lumileds 

Lighting Two patent applications filed

PhosphorTech 

Corporation

Light Emitting Device having Selenium-Based Fluorescent Phosphor

Light Emitting Device having Silicate Fluorescent Phosphor

Light Emitting Device having Sulfoselenide Fluorescent Phosphor

Light Emitting Device having Thio-Selenide Fluorescent Phosphor

Purdue University Metalized Silicon Substrate for Indium Gallium Nitride Light-Emitting Diode 

One other patent application filed

RTI Six patent applications filed

Sandia National 

Laboratory

Cantilever Epitaxial Process

Nanowire-Templated Lateral Epitaxial Growth of Non-Polar Group III 

Nitrides

UDC Binuclear Compounds

Organic Light Emitting Device Structure for Obtaining Chromaticity 

Stability

Organic Light Emitting Device Structure for Obtaining Chromaticity 

Stability 

Stacked OLEDs with a Reflective Conductive Layer

One other patent application filed.

University of 

California, San 

Diego

Rare-earth activated nitrides for SSL applications

Two additional patent applications filed.

University of 

California, Santa 

Barbara

Plasmon Assisted Enhancement of Organic Optoelectronic Devices

Silicone Resin Encapsulants for Light Emitting Diodes

Enhancing Performance Characteristics of Organic Semiconducting Films by 

Improved Solution Processing

Six other patent applications filed.

University of North 

Texas Three patent application filed.
Date: Updated May 2011 114 
Date: Updated May 2011 115 

Primary Research 

Organization Title of Patent Application (Bolded titles indicates granted patents)

University of 

Southern California

Fluorescent Filtered Electrophosphorescence

Fluorescent Filtered Electrophosphorescence

OLEDs utilizing macrocyclic ligand systems

Materials and architectures for efficient harvesting of singlet and triplet 

excitons for white light emitting OLEDs

Organic vapor jet deposition using an exhaust

Phenyl and fluorenyl substituted phenyl-pyrazole complexes of Ir

Low Index Grids (LIG) To Increase Outcoupled Light From Top or 

Transparent OLED

Three additional patent applications filed.
Date: Updated May 2011 116 

Appendix F Approval of Exceptional Circumstances 

Determination for Inventions Arising Under the SSL 

Program

[APPENDIX STARTS ON NEXT PAGE]





Date: Updated May 2011 117 

Appendix G Memorandum of Understanding between the 

U.S. Department of Energy and the Next Generation 

Lighting Industry Alliance

[APPENDIX STARTS ON NEXT PAGE]