Multi-Year 

Program Plan 

FY’09-FY’15 

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: 

Navigant Consulting, Inc., 

Radcliffe Advisors, Inc., 

and
 

SSLS, Inc. 

March 

2009 

Multi-Year 

Program Plan 

FY’09-FY’15 

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: 

Navigant Consulting, Inc., 

Radcliffe Advisors, Inc., 

and 

SSLS, Inc. 

March 

2009 
 

 

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: March 2009 1 
 

 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

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

valuable input and guidance provided to develop Section 4.0 of the Multi-Year Program Plan 

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

lighting roundtables of September 2008 in Washington, D.C. Finally, the DOE wishes to thank 

those individuals who participated in the solid-state lighting Technical Committee conference 

calls in the fall of 2008: 

DOE LED and OLED Roundtable Participants 

Andy Albrecht GE Lumination 

Peter Djurovich University of Southern California 

Mike Hack Universal Display Corporation 

Mark Hand Acuity Brands Lighting, Inc. 

Russell Holmes University of Minnessotta 

Lionel Levinson Vartek Associates, LLC 

Gao Liu Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory 

Samuel Mao Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory 

Asanga Padmaperuma Pacific Northwest National Laboratories 

Linda Sapochak National Science Foundation
 

Joe Shiang GE Global Research
 

Gary Silverman Arkema, Inc.
 

Yuan-Sheng Tyan Eastman Kodak Company
 

Jim Beck Optoelectronix 

Paul Fini Inlustra Technologies, LLC 

Angela Hohl-AbiChedid Osram Sylvania, Inc. 

Bernd Keller CREE, Inc. 

Mike Krames Philips Lumileds Lighting Company 

Cameron Miller National Institute of Standards and Technology 

Russ Mortenson QuNano AB
 

Theodore Moustakas Boston University 

Gerry Negley CREE, Inc. 

Chistopher Ruud Ruud Lighting, Inc.
 

Jerry Simmons Sandia National Laboratories 

Jeff Tsao Sandia National Laboratories 

Christian Wetzel Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute 

DOE LED Technical Committee 

Steven Allen Osram Sylvania, Inc. 

Jim Beck Optoelectronix 

George Brandes CREE, Inc. 

George Craford Philips Solid-State Lighting Solutions
 

Kevin Dowling Philips Lighting Solid State Lighting 

Paul Fini Inlustra Technologies, LLC 

Mark Hand Acuity Brands Lighting, Inc. 

Samuel Mao Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory 

Mark McClear CREE, Inc. 

Russ Mortenson QuNano AB
 

Theodore Moustakas Boston University 

Date: March 2009 2 
 

 

DOE LED Technical Committee (continued) 

Jeff Popielarczyk GE-Lumination 

Jeff Quinlan Acuity Brands Lighting 

Leo Schowalter Crystal IS, Inc. 

Jerry Simmons Sandia National Laboratories 

Kevan Taylor Corning, Inc.
 

Jeff Tsao Sandia National Laboratories 

Christian Wetzel Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute 

DOE OLED Technical Committee 

Dietrich Bertram Philips Solid-State Lighting Solutions
 

Mike Hack Universal Display Corporation 

Mark Hand Acuity Brands Lighting, Inc. 

Lionel Levinson Vartek Associates, LLC 

Gao Liu Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory 

Samuel Mao Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory 

Peter Ngai Acuity Brands Lighting, Inc. 

Asanga Padmaperuma Pacific Northwest National Laboratories 

Jeff Popielarczyk GE-Lumination 

Jeff Quinlan Acuity Brands Lighting 

Linda Sapochak National Science Foundation
 

Gary Silverman Arkema, Inc.
 

Jerry Simmons Sandia National Laboratories 

Kevan Taylor Corning, Inc.
 

Jeff Tsao Sandia National Laboratories 

Yuan-Sheng Tyan Eastman Kodak Company
 

Steffan Zahn Air Products and Chemicals 

Jim Buntaine Eastman Kodak Company
 

Joe Shiang GE Global Research
 

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: March 2009 3 
 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS
 

1.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 8
 

1.1 SIGNIFICANT SSL PROGRAM ACCOMPLISHMENTS TO DATE ................................ 8
 

1.1.1 RECENT RESEARCH HIGHLIGHTS............................................................................... 9
 

1.1.2 RECENT SSL PROGRAM HIGHLIGHTS ...................................................................... 14
 

1.2 LEGISLATIVE DIRECTIVE ................................................................................... 17
 

1.3 INTERNATIONAL COMPETITION AND US INDUSTRIAL POSITIONING................... 20
 

1.4 FEDERAL ROLE IN SUPPORTING THE SSL INITIATIVE......................................... 21
 

1.5 DOE GOALS AND SOLID-STATE LIGHTING ........................................................ 21
 

1.5.1 OFFICE OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY .................................. 21
 

1.5.2 BUILDING TECHNOLOGIES PROGRAM...................................................................... 22
 

1.5.3 SOLID-STATE LIGHTING PORTFOLIO GOAL ............................................................. 23
 

2.0 SSL TECHNOLOGY STATUS ................................................................................. 24
 

2.1 BRIEF HISTORY OF LIGHTING TECHNOLOGIES ................................................... 24
 

2.2 CURRENT NATIONAL LIGHTING NEEDS ............................................................. 26
 

2.2.1 LIGHTING ENERGY USE IN BUILDINGS .................................................................... 26
 

2.2.2 DESCRIPTION OF COMPETING TECHNOLOGIES ........................................................ 27
 

2.3 CURRENT TECHNOLOGY STATUS ....................................................................... 28
 

2.3.1 PERFORMANCE OF LIGHT SOURCES......................................................................... 28
 

2.3.2 FIRST COST OF LIGHT SOURCES .............................................................................. 29
 

2.3.3 THE COST OF LIGHT................................................................................................. 30
 

2.3.4 TECHNOLOGY STATUS: INORGANIC LIGHT-EMITTING DIODES............................... 32
 

2.3.5 TECHNOLOGY STATUS: ORGANIC LIGHT-EMITTING DIODES.................................. 34
 

2.3.6 TECHNOLOGY TRENDS ............................................................................................ 35
 

2.4 CURRENT MARKET STATUS ............................................................................... 36
 

2.4.1 MARKET STATUS ..................................................................................................... 36
 

2.4.2 MARKET SHARE....................................................................................................... 39
 

2.4.3 MARKET VIEWS ....................................................................................................... 40
 

3.0 CURRENT PORTFOLIO AND FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES....................................... 42
 

3.1 CURRENT SSL PROJECT PORTFOLIO .................................................................. 42
 

3.2 CONGRESSIONAL APPROPRIATION AND CURRENT PORTFOLIO (MARCH 2009) .. 42
 

3.2.1 SUMMARY OF CURRENT RESEARCH TASKS ............................................................ 47
 

3.3 RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT FUNDING MECHANISMS................................... 47
 

3.4 PROCUREMENT STRATEGY................................................................................. 48
 

3.4.1 PERFORMERS............................................................................................................ 48
 

3.4.2 GAPS ........................................................................................................................ 48
 

3.5 CROSS-AREA COORDINATION............................................................................ 49
 

4.0 TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN ........................................ 52
 

4.1 COMPONENTS OF THE SSL LUMINAIRE .............................................................. 53
 

4.1.1 COMPONENTS OF LED LUMINAIRES........................................................................ 53
 

4.1.2 COMPONENTS OF OLED LUMINAIRES..................................................................... 54
 

4.2 CURRENT TECHNOLOGY STATUS AND AREAS OF IMPROVEMENT ...................... 56
 

4.2.1 LIGHT-EMITTING DIODES ........................................................................................ 58
 

4.2.2 ORGANIC LIGHT-EMITTING DIODES ........................................................................ 64
 

4.3 SSL PERFORMANCE TARGETS ........................................................................... 66
 

4.3.1 LIGHT-EMITTING DIODES ........................................................................................ 67
 

4.3.3 ORGANIC LIGHT-EMITTING DIODES ........................................................................ 71
 

4.4 BARRIERS .......................................................................................................... 76
 

Date: March 2009 4 
 

 

 

 

4.5 CRITICAL R&D PRIORITIES................................................................................ 78
 

4.6 INTERIM PRODUCT GOALS ................................................................................. 97
 

4.6.1 LIGHT-EMITTING DIODES ........................................................................................ 97
 

4.6.2 ORGANIC LIGHT-EMITTING DIODES ........................................................................ 98
 

4.7 UNADDRESSED OPPORTUNITIES......................................................................... 99
 

5.0 SOLID-STATE LIGHTING PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT PLAN............................. 101
 

5.1 DOE SOLID-STATE LIGHTING STRATEGY........................................................ 101
 

5.4.1 PLANNING LR&D PROGRAM DIRECTION .............................................................. 112
 

5.4.2 SELECTION PROCESS FOR LR&D PROJECTS.......................................................... 114
 

5.4.3 CONCURRENT MONITORING AND EVALUATION.................................................... 118
 

5.4.4 POST PROJECT EVALUATION AND REVIEW ........................................................... 122
 

5.4.5 QC&E CLOSEOUT QUESTIONNAIRE ...................................................................... 124
 

5.5 STAGE-GATE PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLAN ................................................... 124
 

5.6 SOLID-STATE LIGHTING COMMERCIALIZATION SUPPORT PLAN ...................... 128
 

6.0 SOLID-STATE LIGHTING PORTFOLIO EVALUATION PLAN ............................... 133
 

6.1 INTERNAL DOE EVALUATION.......................................................................... 133
 

6.1.1 GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE AND RESULTS ACT (GPRA) ................................. 133
 

6.1.2 PEER REVIEW......................................................................................................... 134
 

6.2 EXTERNAL EVALUATION ................................................................................. 134
 

6.2.1 NATIONAL ACADEMIES OF SCIENCE REVIEW........................................................ 134
 

APPENDIX A APPROVAL OF EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES DETERMINATION FOR 

APPENDIX B MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
 

APPENDIX C MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE U.S.
 

APPENDIX G MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE U.S.
 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AND THE ILLUMINATING ENGINEERING SOCIETY OF NORTH 

APPENDIX H MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE U.S.
 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AND THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LIGHTING 

INVENTIONS ARISING UNDER THE SOLID STATE LIGHTING (SSL) PROGRAM ............ A-1
 

ENERGY AND THE NEXT GENERATION LIGHTING INDUSTRY ALLIANCE..................... B-1
 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AND L-PRIZE PARTNERS .................................................... C-1
 

APPENDIX D LEGISLATIVE DIRECTIVE: EPACT 2005 .......................................... D-1
 

APPENDIX E LIST OF PATENTS AWARDED THROUGH DOE-FUNDED PROJECTS . E-1
 

APPENDIX F DEFINITION OF CORE TECHNOLOGY AND PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT...F-1
 

AMERICA .............................................................................................................G-1
 

DESIGNERS .............................................................................................................H-1
 

APPENDIX I LEGISLATIVE DIRECTIVE: EISA 2007 .................................................... I-1
 

Date: March 2009 5 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LIST OF FIGURES 

FIGURE 2.1: HISTORICAL AND PREDICTED EFFICACY OF LIGHT SOURCES..................................................... 25
 

FIGURE 2.2: TOTAL U.S. PRIMARY ENERGY CONSUMPTION FOR LIGHTING BY SECTOR 2001....................... 26
 

FIGURE 2.3: LIGHTING ENERGY CONSUMPTION BY SECTOR & SOURCE ........................................................ 27
 

FIGURE 2.4: HAITZ’S LAW: LED LIGHT OUTPUT INCREASING / COST DECREASING ..................................... 30
 

FIGURE 2.5: COST OF LIGHT .......................................................................................................................... 32
 

FIGURE 2.6: GENERAL TYPES OF WHITE-LIGHT LED PACKAGES ................................................................. 33
 

FIGURE 2.7: LED TECHNOLOGIES EMPLOYED DURING 2007 SOLAR DECATHLON ........................................ 37
 

FIGURE 2.8: ELECTRICITY SAVED, COAL PLANTS AVOIDED, AND POTENTIAL SAVINGS OF SELECTED NICHE 

APPLICATIONS ..................................................................................................................................... 38
 

FIGURE 3.1: CONGRESSIONAL APPROPRIATION FOR SSL PORTFOLIO, 2003-2009 ......................................... 42
 

FIGURE 3.2: CUMULATIVE FUNDING OF SSL R&D PROJECT PORTFOLIO, FEBRUARY 2009 .......................... 43
 

FIGURE 3.3: CUMULATIVE SSL R&D PORTFOLIO: FUNDING SOURCES, FEBRUARY 2009 ............................. 44
 

FIGURE 3.4: TOTAL FUNDING OF PROJECTS IN DOE’S SSL R&D PROJECT PORTFOLIO, FEBRUARY 2009 .... 45
 

FIGURE 3.5: DOE FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES................................................................................................. 47
 

FIGURE 4.1: PHOTOS OF LED COMPONENTS ................................................................................................. 54
 

FIGURE 4.2: DIAGRAM OF OLED DEVICE STRUCTURE AND PHOTO OF OLED PANEL .................................. 55
 

FIGURE 4.3: PHOTO OF A TRANSPARENT OLED LIGHTING TILE ................................................................... 56
 

FIGURE 4.4: A COMMERCIAL OLED TABLE LAMP BY INGO MAURER .......................................................... 57
 

FIGURE 4.5: PHOSPHOR-CONVERTING LED - CURRENT AND TARGET LUMINAIRE EFFICIENCIES FOR STEADY 

STATE OPERATION ............................................................................................................................... 61
 

FIGURE 4.6: COLOR-MIXING LED - CURRENT AND TARGET LUMINAIRE EFFICIENCIES FOR STEADY STATE
 

OPERATION .......................................................................................................................................... 63
 

FIGURE 4.7: OLED LUMINAIRE EFFICIENCIES & OPPORTUNITIES................................................................. 65
 

FIGURE 4.8: WHITE-LIGHT LED PACKAGE EFFICACY TARGETS, LABORATORY AND COMMERCIAL............. 68
 

FIGURE 4.9: WHITE-LIGHT INTEGRATED LED LAMP PRICE PROJECTION (LOGARITHMIC SCALE) ................ 69
 

FIGURE 4.10: WHITE-LIGHT OLED DEVICE EFFICACY TARGETS, LABORATORY AND COMMERCIAL........... 72
 

FIGURE 4.11: LED AND OLED DEVICE EFFICACY PROJECTIONS, COMMERCIAL .......................................... 73
 

FIGURE 4.12: WHITE-LIGHT OLED DEVICE PRICE TARGETS, $/KLM AND $/M2

 ............................................ 74
 

FIGURE 5.1: INTERRELATIONSHIPS WITHIN DOE SOLID-STATE LIGHTING ACTIVITIES ...............................101
 

FIGURE 5.2: STRUCTURE OF DOE SSL OPERATIONAL PLAN........................................................................104
 

FIGURE 5.3: SSL OPERATIONAL PLAN PROCESS ..........................................................................................105
 

FIGURE 5.4: FOUR-STEP QUALITY CONTROL AND EVALUATION PLAN FOR LR&D PROGRAM.....................111
 

FIGURE 5.5: APPROXIMATE TECHNOLOGY MATURITY COVERAGE OF SELECTED DOE R&D PROGRAMS ...116
 

FIGURE 5.6: MAPPING COOPER’S STAGE-GATE SYSTEM TO THE LR&D PORTFOLIO ...................................125
 

FIGURE 5.7: LR&D TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT STAGES AND GATES ......................................................126
 

FIGURE 5.8: DOE SSL COMMERCIALIZATION SUPPORT PLAN .....................................................................129
 

LIST OF TABLES 

TABLE 2.3.1: TYPICAL PERFORMANCE OF LED PACKAGES AND CONVENTIONAL TECHNOLOGIES ............... 29
 

TABLE 2.4.1: AVERAGE NUMBER OF LAMPS PER BUILDING AND TOTAL LAMPS, 2001 ................................. 39
 

TABLE 3.2.1: SSL R&D PORTFOLIO: CORE TECHNOLOGY, FEBRUARY 2009 ................................................ 46
 

TABLE 3.2.2: SSL R&D PORTFOLIO: PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT, FEBRUARY 2009........................................ 46
 

TABLE 4.3.1: PRACTICAL MAXIMUM PACKAGE EFFICACY FOR LEDS .......................................................... 67
 

TABLE 4.3.2: SUMMARY OF LED PACKAGE PERFORMANCE PROJECTIONS ................................................... 70
 

 ............................................................................................................................................................ 71
 

TABLE 4.3.3: SUMMARY OF LED LUMINAIRE PERFORMANCE PROJECTIONS (AT OPERATING TEMPERATURES)

TABLE 4.3.4: SUMMARY OF OLED DEVICE PERFORMANCE PROJECTIONS.................................................... 75
 

TABLE 4.3.5: SUMMARY OF OLED LUMINAIRE PERFORMANCE PROJECTIONS BEGINNING 2010 .................. 76
 

TABLE 4.5.1: LED PRIORITY CORE TECHNOLOGY TASKS FOR 2009 ............................................................. 81
 

Date: March 2009 6 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE 4.5.2: LED PRIORITY PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT TASKS FOR 2009 ..................................................... 82
 

TABLE 4.5.3: OTHER IDENTIFIED LED CORE TECHNOLOGY TASKS .............................................................. 84
 

TABLE 4.5.4: OTHER IDENTIFIED LED PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT TASKS ...................................................... 86
 

TABLE 4.5.5: OLED PRIORITY CORE TECHNOLOGY TASKS FOR 2009 .......................................................... 90
 

TABLE 4.5.6: OLED PRIORITY PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT TASKS FOR 2009 .................................................. 91
 

TABLE 4.5.7: OTHER IDENTIFIED OLED CORE TECHNOLOGY TASKS ........................................................... 92
 

TABLE 4.5.8: OTHER IDENTIFIED OLED PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT TASKS ................................................... 93
 

TABLE 4.6.1: LED PACKAGE MILESTONES ................................................................................................... 98
 

TABLE 4.6.2: OLED PANEL MILESTONES ..................................................................................................... 99
 

TABLE 5.1.1: LR&D PROGRAM – OUTREACH MEETINGS AND EVENTS .......................................................114
 

TABLE 5.1.2: LR&D PROGRAM PROJECT REVIEW MEETINGS FOR FY’09....................................................120
 

TABLE 5.6.1: DOE SSL COMMERCIALIZATION SUPPORT MEETINGS ...........................................................131
 

Date: March 2009 7 
 

 

2

 

 

 

 

The March 2009 edition of the Multi-Year Program Plan updates the March 

2008 edition. Updates were primarily made to Sections 1.0, 3.0, and 4.0. 

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’s (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. 

“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 Committee2 

Lighting in the United States is projected to 

consume nearly 10 quads of primary energy 

by 2012.3 A nation-wide move toward solidstate lighting (SSL) for general illumination 

could save a total of 32.5 quads of primary 

energy between 2012 and 2027. No other 

lighting technology offers the DOE and our 

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

The 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. 

1.1 Significant SSL Program Accomplishments to Date 

Researchers have made considerable progress in the advancement of solid-state lighting 

since the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) initiated its work in SSL research and 

development (R&D) in 2000. In the course of their research, performers supported by the 

DOE SSL portfolio have won several prestigious national research awards and have 

achieved several significant accomplishments in the area of solid-state lighting. The 

following is a list of several of the efficacy records of the SSL portfolio to date: 

•	 September 2008. Cree, Inc. created a prototype cool-white light-emitting diode 

(LED) that delivers 107 lm/W at 350mA. 

•	 September 2008. The University of Florida demonstrated a blue phosphorescent 

organic light-emitting diode (OLED) with a record efficiency of 40 lm/W, with a 

peak external quantum efficiency of 25% using no external light extraction 

techniques. 

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 Illlumination Applications. Prepared by
 

Navigant Consulting, Inc. for the Department of Energy. Washington D.C. December 2006. 

Date: March 2009 8 
 

 

•	 June 2008. Philips Solid-State Lighting Solutions and Cree, Inc. jointly 

developed a warm-white multi-chip prototype of an LED PAR (parabolic 

aluminized reflector) lamp that delivers a luminaire efficacy of 69 lm/W and a 

luminous flux of 681 lumens. 

•	 June 2008. Universal Display Corporation demonstrated an OLED with a lifetime 

of 80,000 hours. The performance of the OLED was 50 lm/W at 1,000 cd/m2

. 

•	 June 2008. Universal Display Corporation demonstrated a white-light 

phosphorescent OLED with a record power efficacy of 102 lm/W at 1000 cd/m2. 

•	 September 2007. Cree, Inc. developed an LED array prototype that delivers 95 

lm/W at 350 mA. 

•	 September 2007. GE Global Research set a new record for solution-processed 

white OLED devices, demonstrating a performance greater than 14% peak W/W 

(overall power conversion efficiency). Further improvements will enable the 

demonstration of a 45 lm/W illumination-quality OLED that proves near-term 

technology viability as an incandescent replacement for certain applications. 

•	 September 2007. Universal Display Corporation (UDC) fabricated a 6-squareinch OLED panel that produces 100 lumens of light at an efficacy of 31 lm/W and 

a brightness of 3,000 nits, relatively brighter than today’s fluorescent lamps. 

•	 June 2007. Eastman Kodak developed a new device architecture for white-light 

OLED devices that demonstrates an extraction efficiency of 46%, a tremendous 

improvement over previous devices. 

1.1.1 Recent Research Highlights 

Recent research highlights are described below. 

Cree, Inc. Pushes Cool White to 107 Lm/W 

In September of 2008, Cree successfully created a 

prototype cool-white LED that delivers 107 lm/W at 

350mA. This achievement builds on the Cree EZBright® 

LED chip platform, developed in part with prior funding 

support from DOE. Cree made the prototype LED under 

their DOE project focused on developing photonic 

crystal chips for improved light extraction and novel 

package technology for higher down-conversion 

efficiency compared to conventional LEDs. Based on a 1-millimeter-square chip, the 

new prototype LED produces white light with a correlated color temperature (CCT) of 

5500K and a color rendering index (CRI) of 73. Integration of four of these prototype 

LEDs can produce luminous flux of more than 450 lumens from a single package. 

Philips and Cree Create High-Efficacy Warm-White Multi-Chip LED PAR Lamp 

In June of 2008, Philips Solid-State Lighting Solutions and Cree, Inc. successfully 

fabricated a new warm-white multi-chip prototype of an LED PAR lamp delivering a 

Date: March 2009 9 
 

 

luminaire efficacy of 69 lm/W and a luminous flux of 681 lumens. 

This is significantly more efficient than comparable LED PAR 38 

lamps on the market. The lamp also features the good color quality 

(CRI of 91) and warm tone (CCT of 2716K) preferred by 

consumers. This new hybrid-LED source incorporates advanced LED 

package and system integration technology plus novel, highly efficient 

driver technology and a unique optical arrangement. The research team will continue its 

efforts to improve performance figures over the course of this 18-month project. 

PNNL/NREL Team Demonstrates Robust GZO TCO 

In January of 2008, the National Renewable Energy 

Laboratory (NREL) and Pacific Northwest National 

Laboratory (PNNL) demonstrated a robust transparent 

conducting oxide (TCO) based on zinc oxide (ZnO) 

substitutionally doped with gallium (GZO). While GZO has 

conductivity and transparency comparable or superior to 

that of the best indium tin oxide (ITO), it is expected to be 

significantly less expensive. This research team has for the 

first time demonstrated OLEDs based on gallium doped 

ZnO with device performance characteristics equivalent to 

that of ITO-based diodes. This achievement reveals the potential for a new generation of 

designable TCO materials with enhanced performance at reduced cost. 

R&D Achievements Contribute to Market-Ready Products 

The following project contributed to products on the market that incorporate underlying 

research funded by DOE. 

Cree XLamp® LEDs Light Olympic Venues 

Cree XLamp LED technology provided SSL lighting for several key 

Olympic venues in Beijing, including the “Bird’s Nest” (National 

Stadium) and the “Water Cube” (National Aquatic Center). Cree’s 

XLamp product utilizes LED technology that was developed in part 

with R&D funding support from DOE. Approximately 496,000 

XLamp LEDs in red, green, and blue were used to illuminate the 

exterior of the Water Cube. The Bird’s Nest exterior featured 

approximately 258,000 XLamp LEDs providing dramatic lighting 

effects. The research team at Cree continues to work with DOE to 

further improve LED device efficiency and drive toward DOE’s 

long-term research goal of 160 lumens per watt in cost-effective, market-ready systems 

by 2025. (August 2008) 

Additional R&D Achievements 

The following projects represent a sampling of additional R&D achievements funded by 

DOE. 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

Transmission (%) 

400 600 800 1000

Wavelength (nm)

 ITO 

Ga:ZnO 2.1% 

Ga:ZnO 4.4% 

Ga:ZnO 9.9% 

Date: March 2009 10 
 

 

 

University of Florida Achieves Record Efficiency for Blue OLEDs 

The research team at the University of Florida (UF) recently demonstrated a blue 

phosphorescent OLED with a peak power efficiency of 40 lm/W, with a peak external 

quantum efficiency of 25 percent, using no external light extraction techniques. This 

accomplishment is believed to be the highest reported 

OLED efficiency for blue light in the United States, 

and among the highest reported worldwide. Blue 

OLEDs are important in the creation of white light 

suitable for solid-state general illumination 

applications, but high-efficiency blue OLEDs with 

good lifetime and stability have been a significant 

technical hurdle. Most phosphorescent OLEDs 

possess an inherent imbalance of charge carriers that 

limits internal quantum efficiency. The UF team has demonstrated high-efficiency blue 

OLEDs using a unique charge carrier material with special electrical properties. The team 

will continue to exploit certain light extraction techniques and special down-converting 

phosphors that will produce white light from the high-efficiency blue OLEDs developed 

in their lab. (September 2008) 

RPI Demonstrates Efficient Deep-Green Emitting LED Epitaxial Material 

The research team at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute 

(RPI) demonstrated a significant improvement in the 

efficiency of deep-green LED materials, which is 

essential to the color-mixing (red, green, blue) approach 

for white LEDs. Deep-green LEDs are the least efficient 

of the three materials required for color mixing. The RPI 

team demonstrated 555 nanometer deep-green 

electroluminescence in polar c-axis gallium nitride (GaN) 

growth, exhibiting 8 mW of light output at 100 A/cm2

. RPI achieved these improved 

results by reducing defects in the active region of the LED, which involved investigating 

growth on a variety of polar and non-polar GaN substrates. (August 2008) 

Sandia National Laboratory Demonstrates Initial Success in Bulk Crystal Growth 

Sandia National Laboratory is working to develop a 

novel, scalable, cost-effective growth technique for 

producing low dislocation density bulk GaN 

substrates for LEDs. Success will impact the 

efficiency and lifetime of the LED lamp device. 

Current technology employs an epitaxial structure 

of a GaN-based semiconductor on a sapphire or 

silicon carbide substrate, which results in high 

dislocation densities. Sandia has successfully demonstrated the physics principals of a 

new proprietary bulk GaN growth technology. The Sandia team will continue this 

Date: March 2009 11 
 

 

research by growing successively larger boules of crystalline GaN that are suitable as 

substrates for LEDs. Currently, the lack of quality larger substrates reduces the efficiency 

and increases the cost of LEDs used in solid-state lighting. (June 2008) 

Universal Display Corporation Improves Lifetime of OLEDs 

Universal Display Corporation (UDC) researchers continued 

to improve the feasibility of using OLEDs to replace 

traditional light sources, and recently demonstrated a 

lifetime of 80,000 hours in a high-performance OLED 

device. Lifetimes have previously been a limiting factor to 

realizing true commercialization potential for general 

illumination OLED devices, since much of the OLED is 

organic material. The performance of the measured OLED 

device was 50 lm/W at 1,000 cd/m2

, which equates to a similar light output from a typical 

60-watt incandescent lamp at more than double the efficiency. UDC researchers will 

continue to advance the efficiency, color, and lifetime of OLED devices. (June 2008) 

Universal Display Achieves World Record, Exceeds 100 lm/W in White OLED 

Performance 

In a separate project, UDC successfully demonstrated a record-breaking white OLED 

with a power efficacy of 102 lm/W at 1000 cd/m2

. This 

achievement represents a significant milestone for OLED 

technology and demonstrates performance that surpasses 

the power efficacy of incandescent bulbs with less than 15 

lm/W and fluorescent lamps at 60-90 lm/W. UDC’s 

achievement is the result of its proprietary, highefficiency phosphorescent OLED technology, developed 

in part with R&D funding support from DOE. The 

achievement represents a major step toward DOE’s goal of a 150 lm/W commercial 

OLED light source by 2015. (June 2008) 

University of North Texas Breakthrough Achieves 42 Percent Power Efficiency in 

White Phosphorescent OLED 

The University of North Texas, partnering with the University of 

Texas, made significant advances toward their second-year DOE 

R&D project milestone of 50 percent power efficiency, versus 

baseline, in OLED devices. The breakthrough relates to obtaining 

white emission from a single dopant and allows for color tuning 

by simply varying the doping concentration. Conventional OLEDs 

obtain white light by employing multiple dopants that produce 

single colors when combined properly. The UNT strategy results 

in 42.2 percent power efficiency, compared to baseline, and was determined using 

electroluminescence. (May 2008) 

Date: March 2009 12 
 

 

 

RTI International Demonstrates Photoluminescent Nanofibers with 70 Percent 

Quantum Efficiency 

RTI International has demonstrated 

photoluminescent nanofibers containing 

either yellow or orange quantum dots 

with quantum efficiencies at 70 percent. 

To achieve these values, RTI developed 

a post-fabrication processing routine that 

improves the quantum efficiency from 30 to 70 percent. This is a significant 

improvement in phosphor material, which is an essential part of a phosphor-converted 

LED. Phosphor-converted LEDs use a blue LED with a yellow phosphor coating to 

produce white light. RTI’s photoluminescent nanofibers will be used as the yellow 

phosphor coating in order to increase the overall efficiency of white LEDs. (April 2008) 

LANL Research Defines Trap Mechanisms, Identifies Methods to Increase OLED 

Efficiency 

Scientists at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) 

completed a three-year study for DOE, successfully 

identifying new ways to increase charge injection and 

mobility in OLED materials. LANL researchers made 

significant advances in defining the role of loss mechanisms – 

called “traps” – that had previously limited efforts to increase 

device efficiency. Their findings (applicable to both 

polymeric and small molecule OLEDs) make OLED 

theoretical models more useful to researchers in the field. Some of their results have 

already been incorporated into ongoing DOE R&D projects. UDC and General Electric 

are just two of DOE’s R&D partners who are building on the study results to develop 

practical, inexpensive OLED devices that will meet DOE’s future efficacy requirements 

of more than 50 lm/W by 2012. (February 2008) 

Fairfield Crystal Technology Achieves 2-Inch Diameter Aluminum Nitride (AlN) 

Wafer with Smooth Surface Morphology 

Fairfield Crystal Technology demonstrated a 2-inch diameter 

AlN wafer with smooth surface morphology, a significant 

improvement over previous AlN wafers, which were limited to a 

1-inch diameter. The polished 2-inch wafers have been sent to 

Yale University for Indium Gallium Nitride deposition, to 

determine if the larger wafers improve the quality of LED 

material. The research team is testing the relationship between 

high-quality AlN wafers and the quality of LED materials in order to make LEDs more 

efficient for use in general illumination. (February 2008) 

PNNL Breakthrough in Material Design Yields Significant Improvement in Blue 

OLED Performance 

Scientists at PNNL made another breakthrough in the development of low-voltage 

materials key to producing power-efficient blue OLEDs. A new approach to material 

Date: March 2009 13 
 

 

 

design, developed at PNNL, incorporates multiple transport 

functionalities on suitable host materials for blue organic 

phosphors. The team has synthesized new host materials 

that combine hole-transporting fragments with electrontransporting molecules, leading to thermally stable materials that 

can transport both holes and electrons. The team used these 

materials to demonstrate 12.6 percent external quantum 

efficiency at 800 cd/m2

 from a “sky-blue” phosphorescent dopant at only 4.6 V. This is a 

significant improvement over the previous result of 10.5 percent at 5.3 

V, which required doping of the hole transport layer as well as the active layer. (January 

2008) 

Eastman Kodak Improves Lifetime for All-Fluorescent White OLED 

Eastman Kodak Company showed an all-fluorescent white OLED device with a lifetime 

exceeding 10,000 hours at 1,000 cd/m2. This achievement was a result of their new 

device architecture, where an Internal Extraction Layer 

(IEL) enables breakthrough extraction efficiency. The 

research team is working to significantly improve the 

internal quantum efficiency (IQE), light extraction, 

device operating voltage, and lifetime of OLED devices. 

Their approach emphasizes non-phosphorescent designs 

with the claim that the very high IQE required for 

success can be achieved using only fluorescent 

molecules. They continue to make improvements in extraction efficiency and power 

efficiency, which impacts the device’s lifetime. (December 2007) 

1.1.2 Recent SSL Program Highlights 

February 2009 - DOE SSL R&D Workshop 

More than 400 attendees from a variety of sectors interested in SSL - lighting industry 

leaders, chip makers, fixture manufacturers, researchers, academia, lighting designers, 

architects, trade associations, energy efficiency organizations, and utilities – participated 

in the DOE SSL R&D Workshop in San Francisco to share insights and news on 

technology advances and market developments related to solid-state lighting. Attendees 

also provided input to guide updates to the DOE SSL R&D Multi-Year Program Plan. 

DOE Report Estimates LED Savings in Niche Markets 

In September, DOE released analysis findings for niche markets where LEDs compete 

with or are poised to compete with traditional lighting sources such as incandescent and 

fluorescent. The report provides estimates of energy savings in 2007 plus potential 

savings if these markets switched to LEDs overnight. Twelve niche markets were 

analyzed, comprising four colored-light applications, six indoor white-light applications, 

and two outdoor white-light applications. LEDs in these markets are already saving 

consumers nearly $1 billion in electricity costs. If these markets switched to LEDs 

overnight, energy savings would be the equivalent of taking 16 million residential 

Date: March 2009 14 
 

 

 

households off the grid and could save consumers more than $20 billion in electricity 

costs. To download a PDF of the report, go to 

http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/publications/pdfs/ssl/nichefinalreport_october200 

8.pdf. 

Voices for SSL Efficiency 2008: DOE and Northwest Partners Host Market 

Introduction Workshop 

More than 270 attendees gathered in Portland, Oregon, to participate in the “Voices for 

SSL Efficiency” workshop in July 2008. The workshop, hosted by DOE, Bonneville 

Power Administration, Energy Trust of Oregon, Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance, 

and Puget Sound Energy, was the third DOE meeting to explore how federal, state, and 

private-sector organizations can work together to guide market introduction of highperformance SSL products. The workshop brought together a diverse gathering of 

participants – energy efficiency organizations, utilities, government, and industry – to 

share insights, ideas, and updates on the rapidly evolving SSL market. The three-day 

workshop included panel discussions on CALiPER testing, ENERGY STAR, and 

GATEWAY demonstrations, as well as a full day focused on what efficiency programs 

and utilities are doing now to prepare for high-performance SSL products. A PDF copy 

of the workshop report is available at: 

http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/publications/pdfs/ssl/portland2008_sslreport_d2_f 

inal.pdf. 

DOE Launches SSL Quality Advocates 

At the Portland workshop, DOE announced a new initiative called SSL Quality 

Advocates. The initiative, jointly developed by DOE and the Next Generation Lighting 

Industry Alliance (NGLIA), is designed to improve the quality of SSL products and 

prevent a recurrence of compact fluorescent lamp (CFL) market introduction mistakes. 

Initial efforts involve the development of guidelines for reporting product performance 

and a new Lighting FactsTM label, similar to the nutrition label found on food packaging. 

The label provides essential performance information in five categories – lumen output, 

luminaire efficacy, power input, correlated color temperature, and color rendering index. 

These parameters and other recommendations are detailed in a new guide, Reporting 

LED Luminaire Product Performance. In the coming months, DOE will launch a 

voluntary pledge program to build a growing community of SSL Quality Advocates 

across the lighting supply chain. Participating manufacturers will agree to follow the 

guidelines and use the label. Participating partners (retailers, utilities, contractors, 

designers, and other buyers) will agree to look for and purchase products with this label. 

To learn more, visit: http://www.lighting-facts.com/. 

DOE Initiates Study on Life Cycle Analysis of SSL Technologies 

At the Portland workshop, DOE also announced a new study on Life Cycle Analysis of 

SSL Technologies. The study, under the direction of Dr. H. Scott Matthews, Research 

Director of the Green Design Institute at Carnegie Mellon University, will focus on a 

soup-to-nuts assessment of energy and materials costs associated with SSL technology. 

The first phase will define the parameters of the study, including the identification of key 

energy and materials issues, the availability of relevant data, and a definition of the 

Date: March 2009 15 
 

 

study’s scope and boundaries. Dr. Matthews will work with industry during this phase in 

both defining the parameters and acquiring sources of data. The second phase will 

encompass a comparison of SSL to several mature lighting technologies in both the 

residential and commercial markets. It will begin with a valuation of raw materials and 

evolve through the entire product lifecycle, ending with disposal. For DOE, this study is 

seen as an important step in understanding how the advent of SSL will impact energy 

consumption, energy and product economics, pollution prevention, and ultimately, 

environmental decision-making. For additional information, see the workshop report at: 

http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/publications/pdfs/ssl/portland2008_sslreport_d2_f 

inal.pdf. 

L PrizeTM: Transforming the Lighting Landscape 

The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 directed DOE to establish the Bright 

Tomorrow Lighting Prizes (L Prize) competition to accelerate development and adoption 

of SSL products to replace the common light bulb. In May 2008, DOE launched the L 

Prize competition at LIGHTFAIR® International. The competition challenges industry to 

develop replacement technologies for two of today’s most widely used and inefficient 

products: 60W incandescent lamps and PAR 38 halogen lamps. Winners will be eligible 

for cash prizes, opportunities for federal purchasing agreements, utility programs, and 

other incentives. Four California utilities – Pacific Gas & Electric, Sacramento 

Municipal Utility District, San Diego Gas & Electric, and Southern California Edison – 

worked closely with DOE to establish rigorous technical requirements for the 

competition. These utilities also signed a Memorandum of Understanding with DOE, 

agreeing to work cooperatively to promote high-efficiency SSL technologies (see 

Appendix C). These L Prize partners will conduct field assessments of proposed products 

and play an important role in promoting and developing markets for the winning L Prize 

products. Since the competition’s launch, a number of additional partners have signed on. 

For more information, see: www.lightingprize.org. 

Lighting Designer Roundtable on SSL Hosted in Chicago 

In March 2008, DOE joined with the International Association of Lighting Designers 

(IALD) and the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA) to host an 

invited group of lighting designers for a Roundtable meeting in Chicago. The focus of the 

one-day gathering was to examine SSL market and technology issues and to encourage a 

discussion of the designers’ experiences, ideas, and recommendations regarding SSL and 

the SSL industry. Sixteen lighting designers attended the one-day meeting, along with 

representatives from DOE. The designers provided valuable input that has already 

informed DOE planning for several new initiatives, including a new product quality 

initiative and a life cycle analysis of SSL technology. Attendees also provided feedback 

on a draft Design Guide developed by IESNA and DOE. A PDF copy of the roundtable 

report is available at: 

http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/publications/pdfs/ssl/designer_roundtable_report_ 

final_apr08.pdf. 

Date: March 2009 16 
 

 

 

2008 Transformations in Lighting: Fifth Annual DOE SSL R&D Workshop 

In January 2008, more than 300 attendees – lighting industry leaders, chip makers, fixture 

manufacturers, researchers, academia, trade associations, energy efficiency organizations, 

and utilities – gathered in Atlanta to share insights and updates on technology advances 

and market opportunities. The annual DOE SSL workshop provides a forum for building 

partnerships and strategies to accelerate technology advances and guide market 

introduction of high-efficiency, high-performance SSL products. At the workshop, DOE 

recognized four research teams for significant achievements and provided an overview of 

draft updates to the DOE SSL R&D roadmap for review and comment. Input from 

attendees guided updates to the DOE SSL R&D Multi-Year Program Plan, published in 

March. A PDF copy of the workshop report is available at: 

http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/publications/pdfs/ssl/workshop_report08.pdf. 

DOE Issues Five Competitive Solicitations Related to SSL 

During Fiscal Year 2008 (FY’08), DOE issued five competitive solicitations related to 

SSL: 

• Core Technology Research, Round V 

• Product Development, Round V 

• National Laboratory Call for Core Technology Research, Round V 

• Small Business Innovation Research, Phase I 

• Small Business Innovation Research, Phase II 

In total, DOE reviewed 126 proposals, then selected and initiated 21 projects in FY’08. 

Selections for Round V solicitations will be made in FY’09. 

Results from DOE-Funded Projects: Patents and Publications 

As of December 2008, a total of twenty two solid-state lighting patents have been granted 

as a result of Department of Energy-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 

90 patents applications have been applied for or awarded as follows: large businesses - 

44, small businesses - 16, universities - 26, and national laboratories - 4. 

For the list of patents awarded for DOE funded SSL research, see Appendix E. 

1.2 Legislative Directive 

Building on the directives issued in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT 2005), Pub. 

L. 109-58, the FY2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act, H.R.1105, enacted on March 11, 

2009, authorizes $25 million to the DOE for solid state lighting research and 

development and directs DOE to implement an Energy Star program for solid state 

lighting. 

Date: March 2009 17 
 

 

“Building Technologies.—The bill provides $140,000,000 for building technologies, 

to include $33,000,000 for the Commercial Buildings Initiative, and no less than 

$25,000,000 for solid state lighting research and development. Consistent with 

section 912(b) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the Department shall implement an 

Energy Star Program for solid state lighting and develop Energy Star specifications 

for solid state lighting in connection with the nation’s efforts to promote the 

commercialization of these products.” 

FY2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act 

On December 19, 2007, President Bush signed the Energy Independence and Security 

Act (EISA), Pub. L 110-140 which again builds on EPACT 2005. EISA instituted the 

“Bright Tomorrow Lighting Prizes.” The “Bright Tomorrow Lighting Prizes” establishes 

prizes for a solid-state lighting product with an efficacy of 90 lm/W to replace an 

incandescent 60W lamp, a solid-state lighting product with an efficacy of 123 lm/W to 

replace halogen PAR 38 lamps, and a solid-state lighting product with an efficacy of 150 

lm/W. After the prizes are awarded, the Federal Government may purchase the lamps for 

its own facilities. Excerpts of EISA 2007 that describe all lighting prizes, new energy 

efficiency standards for lighting, and authorization for a lighting research and 

development program can be found in Appendix I. More information on the “Bright 

Tomorrow” Lighting Prizes is at: http://www.lightingprize.org/. 

EISA 2007 also mandated increases in the energy efficiency of general service 

incandescent lamps by 2012 and directs the Secretary of Energy to initiate a rulemaking 

for general service lamps (LEDs, OLEDs, general service incandescent lamps, and 

compact fluorescent lamps) by January 1, 2014. This rulemaking is to establish standards 

for general service lamps that are greater or equal to 45 lm/W by January 1, 2020. EISA 

2007 also authorizes a lighting research and development program of $10 million per 

year for fiscal years 2008-2013, to terminate by September 30, 2015. The legislation 

specifically directs the Secretary 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 

•	 Assist manufacturers of general service lamps in the manufacturing of general 

service lamps that, at a minimum, achieve the wattage requirements required by the 

legislation. 

Date: March 2009 18 
 

 

 

 

 

 

EPACT 2005, enacted on August 8th 2005, issued a directive to the Secretary of Energy 

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

development of solid-state lighting:4 

“(a) IN GENERAL.—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 solidstate lighting technologies based on white light emitting diodes. 

(b) 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; more energy-efficient; and cost-competitive, and 

have less environmental impact...”
 

Energy Policy Act of 2005 

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

demonstration, and commercial application activities related to advanced solid-state 

lighting technologies. This law specifically directs the Secretary to: 

•	 Develop SSL technologies based on white LEDs that are longer lasting, more 

energy-efficient, and cost-competitive compared to traditional lighting 

technologies. 

•	 Competitively select an Industry Alliance to represent participants that are 

private, for-profit firms that, as a group, are broadly representative of United 

States solid-state lighting research, development, infrastructure, and 

manufacturing expertise. 

•	 Carry out the research activities of the Next Generation Lighting Initiative 

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 on-going development, demonstration, and commercial application 

program for the Next Generation Lighting Initiative through competitively 

selected awards. 

4 Section 911 of Energy Policy Act of 2005, Pub. L. 109-58, enacted on August 8, 2005, authorizes $50 

million for each fiscal year 2007 through 2009 to the NGLI, with extended authorization for the Secretary 

to allocate $50 million for each of the fiscal years 2010 to 2013. In total, Congress proposed $350 million 

for R&D investment in SSL. 

Date: March 2009 19 
 

 

 

 

 

The Secretary may give preference to participants of the Industry Alliance. Excerpts 

from EPACT 2005 describing the Next Generation Lighting Initiative can be found in 

Appendix D. 

As a result of the next generation lighting initiative, DOE and the NGLIA signed a 

Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) detailing a strategy to enhance the manufacturing 

and commercialization focus of the DOE portfolio by utilizing the expertise of this 

organization of SSL manufacturers in February 2005. This document can be found in 

Appendix B. 

In addition to signing an MOA with NGLIA, DOE also issued an Exceptional 

Circumstances Determination to the Bayh-Dole Act to facilitate more rapid 

commercialization of SSL technologies in June 2005. The determination places guidance 

on intellectual property generated under the Core Technology program area, which 

creates technology breakthroughs that can be widely applicable to future products. See 

Appendix A for a full version of the Exceptional Circumstances Determination. 

1.3 International Competition and US Industrial Positioning 

The global lighting fixtures market is expected to reach $94 billion by 2010, and solidstate lighting is expected to play a substantial role in the market by that time.5 Sales of 

high-brightness LEDs (HB–LEDs), the technology associated with LEDs for lighting 

applications, were $5.1 billion in 2008.6 Of these HB-LED revenues, approximately 9% 

(or $450 million) was attributable to illumination applications.7 

DOE support of SSL R&D is essential. There is a window of opportunity to establish the 

United States as a global leader in this technology, retaining intellectual property rights, 

high tech value-added jobs, and economic growth for the nation. As time passes, foreign 

companies will try to surpass present U.S. technical know-how and compete with the 

U.S. to become future suppliers of LED and OLED lighting sources and systems. Losing 

this emerging industry would mean losing jobs, industry, and more imports. Foreign 

companies already produce SSL products, which they are marketing in the U.S. 

DOE recognizes that steps taken to increase research funding could encourage the 

production of more energy efficient SSL, thus supporting the conservation goals 

embedded in the strategic direction of DOE. Through a proactive, collaborative approach, 

DOE anticipates that its cost-shared projects will deliver substantial energy savings and 

position U.S. companies as global leaders. SSL R&D investments can help secure our 

nation’s energy future and technological leadership in products, systems and services. 

5

 “Lighting fixtures market to exceed $94 billion by 2010.” August 2007. Available at: 

http://www.ledsmagazine.com/news/4/8/3

6 Strategies in Light Conference. Santa Clara, CA. February 18 – 20, 2009.
 7

 Does not include signage, mobile appliances, signals, automotive, or electrical equipment. 

Date: March 2009 20 
 

 

 

 

1.4 Federal Role in Supporting the SSL Initiative 

A part of the Department of Energy's overarching mission is to advance the national, 

economic, and energy security of the United States and to promote scientific and 

technological innovation in support of that mission. DOE has four strategic goals toward 

achieving the mission. Of these four goals, the Science Strategic Goal aligns well with 

the SSL portfolio: 

To protect our national and economic security by providing world-class scientific 

research capacity and advancing scientific knowledge. 

The solid-state lighting portfolio funds research, development, and demonstration 

activities linked to public-private partnerships. The government’s current role is to 

concentrate funding on high-risk, pre-competitive research in the early phases of 

development. Currently, the majority of the SSL program’s activities are in the area of 

applied technology research and development, which includes efforts that are in our 

national interest and have potentially significant public benefit, but are too risky or longterm to be conducted by the private sector alone. As SSL activities progress through the 

stages of developing technology to validating technical targets, the government’s relative 

cost share, although perhaps not its absolute cost burden, will diminish. The government 

will bring technologies to the point where the private sector can successfully integrate 

solid-state lighting into buildings and then decide how best to commercialize 

technologies. And, as this technology advances, the federal role of the Department of 

Energy will become even more important in order to keep the focus on saving energy. 

1.5 DOE Goals and Solid-State Lighting 

The SSL Portfolio falls under the Building Technologies Program (BT) in the Office of 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Listed below are the goals of EERE, BT and 

the SSL Portfolio. 

1.5.1 Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 

The Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy at the U.S. Department of 

Energy 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; 

• Lead by example through government’s own actions; and 

• Change the way EERE does business. 

Date: March 2009 21 
 

 

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. 

David Garman, former Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 

launched the November 2003 Solid-State Lighting Workshop with a keynote address 

highlighting the importance of SSL technology. Mr. Garman discussed creating a 

focused partnership between government and industry, to accelerate SSL technology with 

the potential to reduce energy consumption, to create affordable long-lasting general 

illumination technology, to strengthen U.S. leadership in this critical technology area, and 

to provide the necessary infrastructure (people and policy) to accelerate market adoption. 

Indicators of success would be two quads of energy per year displaced, a market price of 

$3 per kilolumen, and the creation of new forms of lighting systems that improve our 

quality of life. 

Mr. Garman outlined the reasons why the United States needs a national research 

initiative in SSL: 

•	 To maintain its leadership position in SSL, it must compete with other countries’ 

government funding efforts. 

•	 White-light sources represent a higher risk R&D investment that industry is 

unlikely to fund in the near term. 

•	 The projected energy savings for the U.S. is significant. 

1.5.2 Building Technologies Program 

The Building Technologies Program is designed to reduce America’s growing 

dependence on energy by developing technologies to increase the energy efficiency of 

buildings. This mission was chosen because of the benefits associated with reducing 

building energy consumption, potential energy security, reliability benefits and 

environmental benefits. Additionally, in support of the President’s policies and 

initiatives, BT has embraced the program goal of developing Zero Energy Buildings 

(ZEB) to reduce national energy demand. 

The mission of DOE’s Building Technologies Program is: 

To create technologies and design approaches that enable net zero energy 

buildings at low incremental cost by 2025. A net zero energy building is a 

residential or commercial building with greatly reduced needs for energy through 

efficiency gains, with the balance of energy needs supplied by renewable 

technologies. These efficiency gains will have application to buildings constructed 

Date: March 2009 22 
 

 

 

before 2025 resulting in a substantial reduction in energy use throughout the 

sector. 

1.5.3 Solid-State Lighting Portfolio Goal 

The goal of DOE lighting research and development 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 lighting R&D activities, shaped by 

input from industry leaders, research institutions, universities, trade associations, and 

national laboratories. Through interactive workshops, DOE and its partners identified 

SSL as a high-priority research area. 

The goal of the SSL portfolio 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 accurately reproduces sunlight spectrum. 

This goal of increasing the energy efficiency of lighting technologies directly supports 

BT’s vision of ZEBs. Specifically, SSL sources will “greatly reduce needs for energy 

through efficiency gains,” which reduces the balance of energy consumption that must be 

supplied by renewable sources. The commercialized efficacy goal of SSL is to reach an 

order of magnitude increase in efficacy over incandescent luminaires and a two-fold 

improvement over fluorescent luminaires. Advances in the efficiency of SSL will reduce 

the number of power plants being constructed and improve the reliability of the grid. This 

SSL portfolio goal also dovetails directly into EERE’s strategic goal to “increase the 

energy efficiency of buildings and appliances.” 

This Multi-Year Program Plan provides a description of the activities that the SSL R&D 

Portfolio will undertake in the period of FY’09 through FY’15 to implement this 

mission.8

 This plan is a living document, updated periodically to incorporate new 

analyses and progress, and new research priorities, as science evolves. 

8

 In several cases, the technology projections and research task timeline extend slightly beyond this 

timeframe. 

Date: March 2009 23 
 

 

 

2.0 SSL Technology Status 

2.1 Brief History of Lighting Technologies9 

The last century of lighting has been dominated by incandescent, fluorescent and highintensity discharge (HID) light sources. 

In 1879, Joseph Swan and Thomas Edison independently developed the first electric 

lamp based on principles of a blackbody radiator. In the United States, Thomas Edison 

developed the first incandescent lamp using a carbonized sewing thread taken from his 

wife’s sewing box. His first commercial product, using carbonized bamboo fibers, 

operated at about 60 watts for about 100 hours and had an efficacy of approximately 1.4 

lm/W. Further improvements over time have raised the efficacy of the current 120-volt, 

60-watt incandescent lamp to about 15 lm/W for products with an average lifetime of 

1,000 hours. 

In 1901, Peter Cooper Hewitt, an American inventor, patented the first low-pressure 

mercury vapor (MV) discharge lamp. It was the first prototype of today’s modern 

fluorescent lamp. George Inman, working for General Electric, improved upon this 

original design and created the first practical fluorescent lamp, introduced at the New 

York and San Francisco World’s Fairs in 1939. Since that time, the efficacy of 

fluorescent lighting has reached a range of approximately 65-100 lm/W, depending on 

lamp type and wattage. 

In 1801 Sir Humphry Davy, an English chemist, caused platinum strips to glow by 

passing an electric current through them. In 1810, he demonstrated a discharge lamp to 

the Royal Institution of Great Britain by creating a small arc between two charcoal rods 

connected to a battery. This led to the development of high-intensity discharge lighting, 

but the first high-pressure mercury vapor lamp was not sold until 1932. In 1961, Gilbert 

Reiling patented the first metal halide (MH) lamp. This lamp demonstrated an increase 

of lamp efficacy and color properties over MV, which made it more suitable for 

commercial, street and industrial lighting. The MH lamp was introduced at the 1964 

World's Fair. The first high-pressure sodium (HPS) lamp was introduced soon after in 

1965. Since that time, the efficacy of HID lighting has reached a range of approximately 

45-150 lm/W, a value which again is dependent on lamp type and wattage. 

In the 1950s, British scientists conducted experiments on the semiconductor gallium 

arsenide (GaAs), which exhibited electroluminescence or the emission of a low level of 

infrared light, leading to the creation of the first “modern” light-emitting diode (LED). In 

1962, the first practical visible-spectrum light-emitting diode (LED) was invented at 

General Electric’s Advanced Semiconductor Laboratory.10 After subsequent 

improvements in this technology, the first commercial visible (red) light LEDs were 

fabricated in the late 1960s using gallium arsenide phosphide (GaAsP). In the mid 1970s, 

green LEDs were produced using gallium phosphide (GaP). The first blue LEDs 

9 Lighting a Revolution. National Museum of American History. Smithsonian Institute. 10 Holonyak and Bevaqcua, Applied Physics Letter, Volume 1, pp.82-83 (1962). 

Date: March 2009 24 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

emerged in the 1990s using gallium nitride (GaN). Combining the red, green, and blue 

LEDs or coating the blue LEDs with a yellow phosphor led to the creation of white 

LEDs, a promising, high-efficiency technology for general illumination. Parallel to 

efforts to create white LEDs, researchers have been working to improve the efficacy of 

the technology. Present day LED commercial packages have reached efficacies of 101 

lm/W, comparable to the efficacies of fluorescent and certain HID lamps.11, 12 

In the late 1970s, after green LEDs were invented, Dr. Ching Tang at Eastman Kodak 

discovered that sending an electrical impulse through a carbon compound caused such 

materials to glow. Continuing research in this vein, Dr. Ching Tang developed the first 

organic light-emitting diode (OLED). A paper on his research was published in 1987.13 

Since then OLED researchers have developed white OLEDs that have reached efficacies 

of up to 102 lm/W in the laboratory. Although currently only OLEDs used for display 

purposes are sold commercially, companies are conducting research in white OLEDs so 

that commercial products can be sold in the future for general illumination purposes. 

The traditional three light sources – incandescent, fluorescent and HID – have evolved to 

their present performance levels over the last 60 to 120 years of research and 

development. Industry researchers have studied all aspects of improving the efficiency of 

these sources, and while marginal incremental improvements are possible, there is little 

room for significant, paradigm-shifting efficacy improvements. SSL technology, such as 

LEDs and OLEDs, on the other hand, has potential to achieve a two-fold improvement 

over some of today’s most efficacious white-light sources, based on projections by 

experts. This projection is illustrated for LEDs below, in Figure 2.1. 

1920 19401960198020002020

Source: Lumileds 

Figure 2.1: Historical and Predicted Efficacy of Light Sources 

Source: Lumileds. 

11 Efficacies of incandescent, fluorescent, and HID lamps from Audin, L., Houghton, D., et al. Lighting 

Technology Atlas. E Source, Inc., Boulder, CO (1997). (p 2.2.5) 12 For a definition of “LED Package,” see Section 4.1.1.
 13 C. W. Tang, S. A. VanSlyke, Organic electroluminescent diodes, Appl. Phys. Lett. 1987, 51, 913
 

0

50

100

150

200

Incandescent

Fluorescent

Luminous Efficiency (lumens / watt)

Halogen

LED

White

LED

Reflector

0 

50 

100 

150 

200 

Incandescent Incandescent 

Fluorescent Fluorescent 

Luminous Efficiency (lumens / watt)

Halogen Halogen 

LED 

White

LED

White 

LED 

Reflector 

Date: March 2009 25 
 

 

 

 

 

2.2 Current National Lighting Needs 

Lighting is the second largest end-use of energy in buildings.14 New lighting technologies 

offer one of the greatest opportunities for energy savings potential within the building 

sector. 

2.2.1 Lighting Energy Use in Buildings 

In 2001, energy consumption for all lighting in the U.S. was estimated to be 8.2 quads, or 

about 22% of the total electricity generated in the U.S.15 Figure 2.2 provides a breakdown by end-use sector of the energy consumption for lighting our homes, offices and 

other metered applications around the country. 

Outdoor 

Residential, 

27% 

Commercial 

51% 

Industrial

 14% 

Stationary

 8% 

Figure 2.2: Total U.S. Primary Energy Consumption for Lighting by Sector 2001 

Source: U.S. Lighting Market Characterization Volume I: National Lighting Inventory and Energy 

Consumption Estimate. Prepared by Navigant Consulting, Inc. for the Department of Energy. Washington 

D.C. September 2002. 

Figure 2.2 shows that more than half of these 8.2 quads consumed in 2001 were for the 

commercial sector, the largest energy user for lighting. This is one of the principal 

markets the DOE has targeted to develop more efficient technologies. Lighting also 

contributes to a building’s internal heat generation and subsequent air-conditioning loads. 

14 Building Energy Databook 2008. Available at http://buildingsdatabook.eren.doe.gov/ 

15 In 2001, total energy consumption was 98.3 quads, of which about a third – 37 quads - was used for 

electricity production. (Annual Energy Outlook, 2002; Table 2 Energy Consumption by Sector and Source) 

In 2008 total energy consumption was 100.88 quads, of which approximately 41 quads were used for
 

electricity production (Annual Energy Outlook, 2009; Table 2 Energy Consumption by Sector and Source).
 

Date: March 2009 26 
 

 

 

Excluding outdoor applications, total energy use for lighting was approximately 6.4 

quads. Lighting consumed approximately 17.6% of total building energy consumption 

across the commercial and residential sectors, or approximately 30.3% of commercial 

and residential total building electricity use. 

2.2.2 Description of Competing Technologies 

While Figure 2.2 presented the end-use energy for lighting in terms of primary energy 

consumption (quads), Figure 2.3 presents the same data, disaggregated by sources, in 

terms of terawatt-hours per year (TWh/yr). These units represent the electrical energy 

measured by the site meters for lighting throughout the United States. Figure 2.3 

illustrates the end-use electricity consumed by incandescent, fluorescent and highintensity discharge lamps. 

Outdoor Incandescent 

Stationary Fluorescent 

Industrial HID 

Residential 

Commercial 

0 100 200 300 400
 

Energy Use (TWh/yr) 

Figure 2.3: Lighting Energy Consumption by Sector & Source 

Source: U.S. Lighting Market Characterization Volume I: National Lighting Inventory and Energy 

Consumption Estimate. Prepared by Navigant Consulting, Inc. for the Department of Energy. Washington 

D.C. September 2002. 

The lighting end-use energy consumption chart in Figure 2.3 shows that fluorescent 

sources in the commercial sector were the single largest energy-consuming segment in 

the U.S. in 2001, slightly greater than incandescent sources in the residential sector. 

However, across all sectors, incandescent lighting was the leading energy consumer in 

the U.S., consuming 321 terawatt-hours per year (TWh/yr). Fluorescent lighting was 

second with about 313 TWh/yr and HID was third with approximately 130 TWh/yr. As 

noted in Section 2.4.3, this may change as a result of current legislation. 

Figure 2.3 shows that outdoor stationary energy consumption was primarily from HID 

sources in 2001, which accounted for 87% of its 58 TWh/year of electricity use. The 

industrial sector had sizable energy shares of both fluorescent and HID sources, 67% and 

31% respectively, of this sector’s 108 TWh/year consumption. The commercial sector 

Date: March 2009 27 
 

 

 

was the largest energy user overall, having large quantities of energy used by all three 

light sources. Fluorescent and incandescent sources were the two largest commercial 

lighting energy users, accounting for 56% and 32% of its annual 391 TWh/year of 

electricity use in 2001. In the residential sector, energy use for lighting was primarily 

driven by incandescent technologies; 90% of the lighting energy was consumed by this 

light source. 

In September 2005, the DOE published U.S. Lighting Market Characterization Volume 

II: Energy Efficient Lighting Technology Options.16 This report looks broadly at energyefficient options in lighting and identifies leading opportunities. Volume II presents fiftytwo technology options that promise to save energy or demonstrate energy savings 

potential. The options encompass both conventional technologies such as incandescent, 

fluorescent, and HID, as well as SSL. 

2.3 Current Technology Status 

2.3.1 Performance of Light Sources 

Table 2.3.1 presents the typical performance of 2008 LED products on the market17 in 

comparison to conventional technologies. Some of the LED products available today are 

marketed as “energy-efficient” but actually have very low light output compared to 

typical light sources. The combination of high price and low light output may actually 

make them a poor replacement for current technology. It is important to compare new 

LED products to the most efficient conventional technology (such as fluorescent, 

incandescent, or metal halide) that could be used for any specific application. As LED 

technology advances, costs decrease, and efficiency improves, LEDs will build market 

share in the general illumination market. 

16 U.S. Lighting Market Characterization Volume II: Energy Efficient Lighting Technology Options. 

Prepared by Navigant Consulting, Inc. for the Department of Energy. Washington D.C. September 2005. 

Available at: http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/info/documents/pdfs/ee_lightingvolII.pdf 17 It should be noted that LED laboratory prototypes reach much higher efficacies than those listed in Table 

2.3.1. 

Date: March 2009 28 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 2.3.1: Typical Performance of LED Packages and Conventional Technologies 

Color Luminous 

Output Wattage Luminous Efficacy 

CCT (Typical)/ 

Dominant 

Wavelength 

CRI Lifetime 

White 45 lm 1W 101 lm/W 5500°K 70 50k hours 

Warm White 20 lm 1W 72 lm/W 3300°K 90 50k hours 

Green 53 lm 1W 53 lm/W 530 nm N/A 50k hours 

Blue 16 lm 1W 16 lm/W 470 nm N/A 50k hours 

Red 42 lm 1W 58 lm/W 625 nm N/A 50k hours 

Amber 42 lm 1W 50 lm/W 590 nm N/A 50k hours 

Incandescent 850 lm 60W 14 lm/W 3300°K 100 1k hours 

Fluorescent 5300 lm 32W 83 lm/W 4100°K 78 20k hours 

HID 24,000 lm 400W 80 lm/W 4000°K 65 24k hours 

Notes: For LED packages - drive current = 350ma, 1W device, Tj=25°C, batwing distribution, lifetime 

measured at 70% lumen maintenance. Lumen output is measure in mean lumens. “LED package” is 

defined in Section 4.1.1.
 

Source: Seoul Semiconductor, 2008. CREE, 2008. GE, 2008. Philips Lighting, 2008. OSRAM Sylvania, 

2008, Nichia, 2008. Product Catalogs. DOE LED Technical Committee, 2008.
 

2.3.2 First Cost of Light Sources 

The prices of light sources are typically compared on a price per kilolumen basis. The 

first costs for today’s principal lamps indicate the degree of the challenge facing SSL in 

the marketplace in 2008: 

Incandescent Lamp (A19 60W) $0.30 per kilolumen 

Compact Fluorescent Lamp (13W) $2 per kilolumen 

Fluorescent Lamp-and-Ballast System (F32T8) 

Integrated LED Lamp18

$4 

$170 

per kilolumen 

per kilolumen19 

Although on a normalized light output basis LEDs are more than 560 times the cost of the 

incandescent light bulb and almost 90 times the cost of a CFL,20 the price of the LED has 

significantly dropped over the years and will continue to drop. However, over the next 

several years, as performance improves and price drops, LED light sources are projected 

to become competitive on a first-cost basis. 

18 “Integrated LED lamp” is defined in Section 4.1.1. 

19 Assumes integrated LED lamp, 13 W self-ballasted compact fluorescent lamp, 2-lamp 32 W T8 linear 

fluorescent lamp-and-ballast system, and 60 W A19 incandescent lamp with 2008 prices. 

20 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. 

Date: March 2009 29 
 

 

 

 

The following chart, Figure 2.4, shows how the light output of LEDs has increased 20 

fold each decade for the last 40 years, while the cost ($/lumen) has decreased ten-fold 

each decade over that same time period. Figure 2.4 also shows predictions for price and 

light output over the next two decades. Light Output/Package (Lumens) 

10000 

1000 

100 

10 

1 

0.1 

0.01 

0.001 

Red $/Lumen 

Red Flux 

Expon. (Red Flux) 

White $/Lumen 

White Flux 

Expon. (Red $/Lumen) 

-10x Decrease/Decade 

+20x Increase/Decade 

Cost/Lumen ($/Lumen) 

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 

Year 

Figure 2.4: Haitz’s Law: LED Light Output Increasing / Cost Decreasing 

Source: Roland Haitz and Lumileds. 

Note: Both lines are on the same numerical scale (with different units) 

2.3.3 The Cost of Light21 

Considering the value of energy savings and lifetime may allow a modest premium over 

the initial cost of traditional technologies. Life-cycle cost, the effective “cost of light,” 

can be estimated by including lamp cost, energy consumption and maintenance over a 

lighting service period. The units used for this lighting service period are dollars per 

kilolumen-hours ($/klm-hr): 22 

21 “Cost of Light – When does Solid-state Lighting make Cents?” by Kevin Dowling, Color Kinetics, 

September 12, 2003.

22 IES Lighting Handbook, 8th Edition. Lighting Economics, p501-2. 

Date: March 2009 30 
 

 

 

⎛ 10 ⎞ ⎛ LampCost + LaborCost ⎞ CostOfLight = ⎟

⎟ ⎜⎜ × ⎜⎜ + EnergyUse × EnergyCost ⎟⎟ 21 ⎝ LampLumens ⎠ ⎝ Lifetime ⎠

Where: 

LampLumens = the light output of the lamp measured in lumens 

LampCost = the initial cost (first cost) of the lamp in dollars 

LaborCost = the labor cost necessary to replace a lamp in dollars 

Lifetime = the useful operating life of the lamp, expressed in 1000 hours 

EnergyUse = the power consumption of the lamp, expressed in watts 

EnergyCost = the cost of the electricity necessary to operate lamp in $/kWh 

By this measure, it can be argued that LED-based illumination is already a viable 

alternative for many applications and, due its many non-energy benefits, has already 

carved out niches in selected markets (see Section 2.4). Due to the advantages of LEDbased white-light technology, market penetration is expected to grow into the arena of 

general illumination. 

For instance, although incandescent lamps have a very low cost and high lumen output 

compared with LEDs, the LED source has a much longer lifetime and consumes far less 

power. In fact, using the equation above and looking at a finite quantity of light emission 

(one million lumen-hours), typical LEDs already have a slightly lower “cost of light” 

than incandescent and halogen sources today. While consumers may not always 

acknowledge the full lifetime benefit of LED technologies, many will be willing to pay 

some portion of this energy savings as a first-cost premium. 

Date: March 2009 31 
 

 

 

 

 

Figure 2.5: Cost of Light 

Note/Source: To see how these values were calculated, please see the complete paper: “Cost of Light – 

When does Solid-state Lighting make Cents?” by Kevin Dowling, Color Kinetics, September 12, 2003 

Available at: http://www.colorkinetics.com/support/whitepapers/CostofLight.pdf and 

http://www.colorkinetics.com/energy/cost/ 

In the case of conventional technologies, the price and performance are not projected to 

change drastically, and the cost of light will remain relatively constant. However, as LED 

efficacy improves and the first cost decreases, the “cost of light” for LED lighting will 

decrease, and eventually reach the point where it is more cost effective on a life-cycle 

basis than fluorescent lighting. 

In addition, all of the comparisons in this study deal with economics and not the technical 

features of the light sources. For example, LEDs are ideal for use in extreme 

environments (e.g., high vibration, extreme cold) or in applications where the light 

emission must not include UV. The properties of LEDs enable a strong argument for use 

of LED light sources over traditional technologies. 

2.3.4 Technology Status: Inorganic Light-Emitting Diodes 

In 1962, the first practical visible-spectrum LED was invented at General Electric’s 

Advanced Semiconductor Laboratory.23 This LED consisted of a GaAsP alloy with a p-n 

homojunction. The performance of this technology improved over the next few years, 

culminating in the commercial release of red LEDs in the late 1960s. While the efficacy 

of these first LEDs was extremely low (~ 0.1 lm/W), researchers continued to improve 

the technology over the next three decades, achieving higher efficiencies and expanding 

the range of emission wavelengths through the engineering of new III-V alloy systems, 

thus providing the wide array of high-brightness LEDs on today’s market. 

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

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

23 Holonyak and Bevaqcua, Applied Physics Letter, Volume 1, pp.82-83 (1962). 

Date: March 2009 32 
Date: March 2009 33 

 

Alone, these LED dies24 are not well suited for general illumination applications as they 

do not produce the white light required in these applications. To generate white light for 

general illumination applications, the narrow spectral band of an LED’s emission must be 

converted into white light, or two (or more) discrete emissions must be mixed. Whitelight LED luminaires are typically based on one of two common approaches: (a) 

phosphor-conversion, and (b) discrete color-mixing. Figure 2.6 shows these two 

approaches to white-light production. There are also “hybrid” LED luminaires that 

generate white light using a combination of phosphor conversion and color-mixing. 

Multi-colored LEDs

Color mixing optics

White

Light

Color 

Mixing

(a) Phosphor-Conversion LED (pc-LED) (b) Color-Mixing LED 

Figure 2.6: General Types of White-Light LED Packages 

The phosphor-converting LEDs primarily create white light by blending a portion of the 

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

phosphor. Discrete color-mixing packages, on the other hand, utilize color mixing optics 

to blend together the light output from discrete colored sources, creating white light. 

In the phosphor-converting blue LED approach, an LED die emits blue light, generally 

around 460nm. Some of this light is emitted directly, and some of it is down-converted 

by a phosphor from the 460nm wavelength (blue) to longer wavelengths (e.g., green, 

yellow, red) with wide-band emissions that blend with the blue to produce white light. 

Nichia was the first manufacturer to use this method to produce white-light LED 

packages on a commercial scale in 1997. It has since been adopted by numerous other 

manufacturers as a method for generating white light. Some manufacturers have 

successfully lowered the color correlated temperature and increased the color rendering 

index by adding a second phosphor to the package, but at a cost to package efficacy. 

These “warm-white” packages are currently available at high power with an efficacy of 

72 lm/W and a CCT of 3000K. 

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

maintaining consistent-quality white light due to natural variations in LED (blue or UV) 

wavelength or in the phosphors. The white light produced by pc-LEDs is susceptible to 

variations in LED optical power, peak emission wavelength, temperature and optical 

characteristics. Thus, variations in color appearance can occur from one pc-LED to 

another, a potentially serious problem for many lighting applications. 

Although improvements in phosphor technology will help, the Stokes loss is an inevitable 

limitation to the efficiency. Discrete color-mixing is thought by many, for this reason, to 

 

24 For a definition of “LED die,” see Section 4.1.1. 

Phosphors

White

Light

Blue or UV LED

pc-LED
 

 

 

 

 

promise the highest-efficacy device. In color-mixing, LED packages mix discrete 

emissions from two or more LED dies to generate white light. This approach is 

accompanied by its own manufacturing challenges for blending the discrete colors. 

Analysis has shown, however, that with the color-mixing approach, high-quality, 

efficacious white light can be produced. For example, three discrete color elements can 

produce white light at a CCT of 4100K with 80 CRI at a cumulative electrical luminous 

efficacy of approximately 198 lm/We, assuming a device efficiency of 69% (see Section 

4.2.1).25 The principal advantage of the color-mixing method is that it does not involve 

phosphors, thereby eliminating phosphor conversion losses in the production of white 

light. The largest challenge is the absence of efficient emitters of green light, which 

significantly limits achievable efficacy. Another drawback is increased complexity. 

Blending discrete colors potentially requires multi-die mounting and potentially 

sophisticated optics. It may also require color control feedback circuitry to address the 

different degradation and thermal characteristics of the discrete LED dies. 

2.3.5 Technology Status: Organic Light-Emitting Diodes 

OLEDs are thin-film multi-layer devices based on organic carbon molecules or polymers. 

They consist of: 1) a substrate foil, film or plate (rigid or flexible), 2) an electrode layer, 

3) layers of active materials, 4) a counter electrode layer, and 5) a protective barrier 

layer.26 At least one of the electrodes must be transparent to light. For a diagram of an 

OLED, see Figure 4.2. 

Materials used in OLED devices have broad emission spectra. This gives OLEDs an 

advantage over LEDs in that minor changes in the chemical composition of the emissive 

structure can tune the emission peak of the device. Therefore, getting good-quality white 

light from OLEDs is easier and it is anticipated that the quality of the white light will 

improve with the science. 

OLED technology for general illumination applications is in a nascent, yet critical, stage 

of development. Although currently OLEDs used for display applications are being 

commercialized, experts agree that without a substantial infusion of capital, OLED 

technologies developed for general illumination applications may not be commercialized 

until 2015. Currently, only a niche OLED lamp exists; it is produced at a high price and 

in very limited quantities (see Section 4.2). Companies overseas, with support from their 

governments, may develop an insurmountable technological lead and make it difficult for 

U.S. manufacturers to compete. However, as the U.S. government invests in this 

technology, OLED commercialization may be accelerated in the U.S. 27 

25 Electrical luminous efficacy (in lm/We) measures the amount of useful visible light out of a device per 

unit of electrical energy into the device. 26 Organic Light Emitting Diodes (OLEDs) for General Illumination: An OIDA Technology Roadmap 

Update 2002. Optoelectronics Industry Development Association. November 2002. Available at: 

http://lighting.sandia.gov/lightingdocs/OIDA_SSL_OLED_Roadmap_Full.pdf. 27 Organic Light Emitting Diodes (OLEDs) for General Illumination: An OIDA Technology Roadmap 

Update 2002. Optoelectronics Industry Development Association. November 2002. 

Date: March 2009 34 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Although much of the work for this technology is exploratory and far from 

commercialization, research is being conducted in industry as well as research institutions 

and academia. For example, SSL divisions of General Electric, Osram Sylvania, and 

Philips Electronics are participating in the research, positioning themselves to participate 

in this market when white-light OLEDs become a reality.28 Currently, the best laboratory 

OLED devices have efficacies of approximately 102 lm/W. 

2.3.6 Technology Trends 

While LED and OLED research progresses, conventional lighting technologies are 

improving in efficacy and cost as well through the efforts of the major manufacturers, 

raising the bar for market penetration of solid state lighting even higher. This section 

outlines the research directions for conventional and solid-state lighting technologies and 

the potential for higher efficacy lamps from this research. 

Current incandescent light sources range in efficacy from 3 to 20 lm/W.29 Research 

being conducted on higher-temperature incandescent light sources has the potential to 

raise these efficacies to 26.5 lm/W. Basic and applied research is also being conducted 

on selective radiators that tailor the spectrum of incandescent emissions to maximize 

emission in the visible spectrum. Some researchers claim that this technology may allow 

incandescent sources to achieve efficacies of 80 lm/W.30 

Fluorescent sources are typically more efficient than incandescent sources. Efficacies for 

this technology range from 25 to 103 lm/W.29 Linear and compact fluorescent lamp 

technology can improve in efficacy through a variety of research efforts. For example, 

researchers estimate that basic and applied research on multi-photon phosphors has the 

potential to raise efficacies of this light source to 200 lm/W.30 

High-intensity discharge lamps are the most efficacious lamps currently on the market, 

with efficacies ranging from 25 to 150 lm/W.29 Efforts are underway to improve the 

energy efficiency of high-intensity discharge lamps (which includes mercury vapor, 

metal halide and high-pressure sodium lamps). 

Commercial LED devices have the potential to surpass the efficacy of conventional light 

sources. Although the range in efficacy for commercial LEDs is currently 63 to 101 

28 For the display industry, more than 70 companies--ranging from the OLED pioneer, Eastman Kodak, to 

DuPont and eMagin, a small microdisplay company based in New York--are ready to bring OLED displays 

to market. In March 2003, Kodak launched the first digital camera incorporating a full color OLED 

display. In December 2007, Sony started production on an 11” OLED TV called the XEL-1. 

29 U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Final Report: U.S. 

Lighting Market Characterization, Volume I: National Lighting Inventory and Energy Consumption 

Estimate. 2002. Washington, D.C. Available at: 

< www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/info/documents/pdfs/lmc_vol1_final.pdf>

30U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Final Report: U.S. 

Lighting Market Characterization Volume II: Energy Efficient Lighting Technology Options. 2005. 

Washington D.C. Available at: 

http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/info/documents/pdfs/ee_lightingvolII.pdf 

Date: March 2009 35 
 

 

 

 

lm/W,31 research in a variety of areas, as outlined in this report, may raise the efficacy of 

LEDs to approximately 230 lm/W. Laboratory efficacies for OLEDs are beginning to 

surpass efficacies of conventional technologies. The best laboratory efficacy for an 

OLED device is currently around 102 lm/W. More research needs to be done to realize 

the potential of this technology for creating efficient white light. 

2.4 Current Market Status 

2.4.1 Market Status 

Presently, BT’s SSL R&D portfolio is investing in activities to improve efficiency, 

performance, lifetime, and quality of light. While SSL sources are just starting to 

compete for market share in general illumination applications, recent technical advances 

have made LEDs cost-effective in many colored-light niche applications. LED 

technology is capturing these new applications because it offers a better quality, costeffective lighting service compared to less efficient conventional light sources such as 

incandescent or neon. In addition to energy savings, LEDs offer longer operating life 

(>50,000 hours), lower operating costs, improved durability, compact size and shorter 

startup time. Recognizing this fact, EPACT 2005 requires that all exit signs and traffic 

signals manufactured after January 1st, 2006 conform to ENERGY STAR performance 

criteria, which in effect, converts these colored-light applications to LED sources. 

Applications for white-light LED products include LED task lights, downlights, undercabinet lighting, and outdoor lights. At the 2007 Solar Decathlon,32 many of the 

universities’ solar homes featured these products. Figure 2.7 shows photographs from this 

event of integrated LED lighting products that the university teams chose to incorporate 

into their designs. 

31 Seoul Semiconductor, 2007. CREE, 2007. GE, 2007. Philips Lighting, 2007. OSRAM Sylvania, 2007. 

Product Catalogs. DOE LED Technical Committee, 2008. 32 For more information on this event, see http://www.solardecathlon.org/. 

Date: March 2009 36 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 2.7: LED Technologies Employed during 2007 Solar Decathlon 

In addition to the applications listed above, LEDs currently are beginning to compete 

with HID lamps in street lighting applications. Several cities including Raleigh, NC, 

Austin, TX, and Ann Arbor, MI have begun installing LED street and area lights to save 

both on energy and maintenance costs.33 DOE’s Solid-State Lighting GATEWAY 

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

across the country.34 LEDs also have the potential to compete in many other 

applications. DOE partnered with the partnered with the Illuminating Engineering 

Society of North America (IESNA) and the International Association of Lighting 

Designers (IALD) to sponsor a design competition called “Next Generation Luminaires” 

to encourage the use of LEDs in a variety of applications. In the 2008 competition, 

winning fixtures included a spotlight, a step light, and jewelry display case lighting.35 

The Memorandum of Understanding between DOE and the IESNA is located in 

Appendix G, and the Memorandum of Understanding between DOE and the IALD is 

located in Appendix H. 

A 2008 study36 analyzed the energy savings potential of LEDs in twelve niche markets. 

Figure 2.8 summarizes the on-site electricity savings and coal power plants avoided from 

33 Details about the LED city program are available at: http://www.ledcity.org/. 34 DOE’s Solid-State Lighting GATEWAY program is at:
 

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ssl/gatewaydemos.html

35 Details about the “Next Generation Luminaires” competition is available at: http://www.ngldc.org/. 36 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: 

http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/publications/pdfs/ssl/nichefinalreport_october2008.pdf. 

Date: March 2009 37 
 

 

the six of the twelve niche markets. As shown, LEDs are achieving high levels of market 

penetration for some niche applications. 

90.0 14.0 

60.0 

81.2 | 12.8 

12.6 | 2.0 

44.7 | 7.0 

4.85 | 0.76 5.18 | 0.82 2.1 | 0.33 

Traffic Signals Exit Signs Refrigerated 

Display Cases 

Recessed 

Downlights 

Step, Path, and 

Porch lights 

Street and Area 

Lights 

Colored Light Indoor White-Light Outdoor White-Light 

Electricity Savings Potential 

Electricity Savings, 2007 

* * 

8.0 

Coal Power Plants Avoided (1000 MW stations) 

80.0 12.0 

Electricity Savings (TWh/yr) 70.0 

10.0 

50.0 

40.0 6.0 

30.0 

4.0 

20.0 

2.0 10.0 

0.0 0.0 

Figure 2.8: Electricity Saved, Coal Plants Avoided, and Potential Savings of 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. October 2008. 

Considering only those applications that are grid-connected, approximately 8.7 TWh of 

electricity consumption was saved in 2007, more than the equivalent output of one large 

(1,000 MW) electric power station. The following summarizes the findings for three of 

those niche applications: 

Recessed Downlights. In 2007, there were approximately 829 million recessed 

downlights installed in commercial and residential buildings in the United States. These 

lamps used 103.1 TWh of energy. About 17% of the downlights were CFLs. Currently, 

the penetration of LEDs into the recessed downlight market is almost negligible. A 

complete conversion of the installed base of recessed downlights to LED technologies 

could save the nation about 81.2 TWh, or 876.6 TBtu of primary energy. 

Step, Path, and Porch Lights. The penetration of LEDs into the residential outdoor step, 

path, and porch light market has also been negligible. Though 17% of the approximately 

265 million step, path, and porch lights were CFLs in 2007, the majority of outdoor lights 

in these areas (82%) are particularly power-intensive incandescent and halogen systems. 

A complete conversion of residential step, path, and porch lights over to LED 

technologies would save the nation 12.6 TWh, or 136.3 TBtu of primary energy. 

Street and Area Lights. In 2007, the majority of the 131 million street and area lights in 

the United States were high pressure sodium lamps, with metal halide and mercury vapor 

Date: March 2009 38 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

technologies comprising additional large portions of the installed base. LED lamps 

currently have a negligible penetration in this market. 44.7 TWh of energy (about 482.0 

TBtu of primary energy) could be saved with a complete conversion of street and area 

lights to LED technologies. This is about 24% of the maximum energy that could be 

saved if all of the lamps in the twelve niche markets analyzed by this study were 

converted to LEDs. 

LEDs can currently be found in a range of niche market applications. And, as LED 

technology advances – reducing costs and improving efficiency – LEDs will build market 

share in these and other markets. 

2.4.2 Market Share 

The market share of lighting technologies such as incandescent lamps, compact and 

linear fluorescent lamps, high-intensity discharge lamps, and solid-state lamps varies by 

market sector. Table 2.4.1 illustrates the average number of lamps that existed in 

residential, commercial, and industrial buildings in 2001, disaggregated by technology 

type. Close to 63% of all lamps in the market were incandescent lamps while almost 

35% of these lamps were fluorescent. 

Table 2.4.1: Average Number of Lamps per Building and Total Lamps, 2001 

Incandescent

Technologies 

39 

Residential 

91 

Commercial 

33 

Industrial 

4,397 

(millions) 

Total Lamps 

in U.S. 

63% 

Percent of 

Lamps 

Fluorescent 6 324 1340 3 35% 

HID 0.04 7 67 105 2% 

Solid State 0 0.4 0.3 2 0.03% 

Total 45 422 1440 6,977 100% 

Number of 

Buildings 

(millions) 

106.9 4.6 0.2 n/a n/a 

Source: U.S. Lighting Market Characterization Volume I: National Lighting Inventory and Energy 

Consumption Estimate. Prepared by Navigant Consulting, Inc. for the Department of Energy. Washington 

D.C. September 2002. 

Although incandescent lamps accounted for the largest number of installations in 2001, 

they provided only 12% of the total amount of light delivered in the United States. 

Fluorescent lamps, on the other hand, provided the majority of light at 62% while HID 

sources provided around 26% of light delivered in the country.37 Note that the data in 

Table 2.4.1 represents the lighting market share for the year 2001. LEDs for general 

illumination have since increased substantially in efficacy and become less expensive 

such that they are beginning to enter the market, as described in Section 2.4.3. 

37 U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Energy Conservation 

Program for Consumer Products: Final Report: U.S. Lighting Market Characterization, Volume I: 

National Lighting Inventory and Energy Consumption Estimate. 2002. Washington, D.C. Available at: 

< www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/info/documents/pdfs/lmc_vol1_final.pdf> 

Date: March 2009 39 
 

 

 

2.4.3 Market Views 

The lighting market faces major challenges in shifting to more energy-efficient 

technologies because the people who decide which lighting system to purchase (typically 

building contractors) 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 energyefficient lighting products that would cost the consumer less over the long term. 

Therefore, the federal government must take a leading role in supporting investments in 

energy-efficient lighting. This section outlines the view of industry and academic 

partners of the market prospects of the major lighting technologies in the market: 

incandescents, fluorescents, HID lamps, LEDs, and OLEDs. 

After more than a century of dominance, incandescent lamps are facing serious 

competition in the form of energy-efficient linear and compact fluorescent lamps. The 

UNDP-UNEP-GEF38 has a global initiative to support the phaseout of incandescent 

lamps in non-OECD39 countries.40 On April 25, 2007, the Canadian Government 

announced its commitment to phase out the use of inefficient incandescent lamps.41 In 

addition, lamp manufacturers have made voluntary commitments to improve the efficacy 

of incandescent lamps. For example, in June 2007, European lighting manufacturers 

proposed standards for incandescent lamps. In addition, EISA 2007 established 

efficiency standards for incandescent lamps in the U.S. These standards would increase 

the average efficacy of incandescent lamps to at least 18 lm/W by 2014. In 2020, the 

efficacies of general service lamps must be at least 45 lm/W. This standard may phase out 

the use of incandescent lamps entirely. 

Compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs), on the other hand, are becoming more popular as 

lighting energy efficiency standards are being increased and commercial, industrial, and 

municipal consumers are making energy efficiency retrofits. However, there is still some 

resistance to switching to CFLs in the residential market because of consumer familiarity 

with the warm-white light produced by incandescents and the low initial cost of these 

lamps. 

38 UNDP-UNEP-GEF is a partnership among the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), 

United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), and Global Environment Facility (GEF). 

39 OECD stands for the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. OECD member 

countries include Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, 

Germany, Greece, Hungry, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Luxembourg, Mexico, Netherlands, New 

Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, the Slovak Republic, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United 

Kingdom, and the United States.

40 International Energy AgencyCEnergy Efficiency and Environment Division. European Policy 

Developments Concerning Incandescent Lighting. 2007. 

<ftp://ftp.nrcan.gc.ca/pub/outgoing/lighting/Europe%20-%20%20Paul%20Waide.ppt#355,1,European 

policy developments concerning incandescent lighting> 

41 Greentech Media. “The Lighting Market by the Numbers, Courtesy of Philips Chairman.” October 2008. 

Available at: http://greenlight.greentechmedia.com/2008/10/22/the-lighting-market-by-the-numberscourtesy-of-philips-chairman-676/
 

Date: March 2009 40 
 

 

 

 

In the commercial and industrial sector, the market is moving toward the use of more 

energy efficient electronic fluorescent lamp ballasts. In addition, high-intensity discharge 

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

the most common lighting technologies in use for outdoor area lighting. The lessefficient mercury vapor lamps are currently being replaced by the more-efficient metal 

halide lamps. Conventional HID lamps are also beginning to face some competition from 

LEDs for certain niche applications. 

High-brightness LEDs are expanding from use as indicator lights in traffic signals and 

exit signs to usage for general illumination purposes. Sales of HB-LEDs were $5.1 

billion in 2008.6 Of the HB-LED revenues, approximately 9%, or $450 million, was 

attributable to general illumination applications.6 LEDs form a small but rapidly growing 

segment of the global lighting market, estimated at $75 billion a year in 2008.42 The U.S 

accounted for approximately 20% of the market ($15 billion). 

OLEDs are still being improved in the lab, with a best reported efficacy for a white LED 

at 102 lm/W. Manufacturers are waiting for OLED efficacies to improve before 

investing in the capital-intensive manufacturing infrastructure needed to produce 

commercial products at high volumes. 

42 Lighting Market size from “Building a better, greener light bulb.” 

http://money.cnn.com/2007/02/13/magazines/fortune/gunther_pluggedin_lightbulb.fortune/index.htm?secti 

on=magazines_fortune. (2007). 

Date: March 2009 41 
 

 

3.0 Current Portfolio and Funding Opportunities 

This chapter offers a description of the SSL current funding mechanisms, and an 

overview of the projects in the current project portfolio. 

3.1 Current SSL Project Portfolio 

This section provides an overview of the currents projects in the SSL portfolio (as of 

February 2009). The SSL Project Portfolio is grouped into four topic areas: 

Group 1: Inorganic SSL Core Technology Research 

Group 2: Inorganic SSL Product Development 

Group 3: Organic SSL Core Technology Research 

Group 4: Organic SSL Product Development 

Within each of the four grouped topic areas, DOE’s SSL R&D agenda is further divided 

into “tasks” and “subtasks.” At the consultative workshops, participants discuss each of 

the tasks and subtasks, and provide recommendations for prioritizing R&D activities over 

the next 1-2 years. Detail on the current priority subtasks is presented in the tables in this 

section. Under each subtask there are a number of “projects” representing specific efforts 

by researchers to address the goals of that subtask. 

3.2 Congressional Appropriation and Current Portfolio (March 2009) 

Figure 3.1 presents the congressional appropriation for the SSL portfolio from FY2003 

through FY2009. The funding request for the current fiscal year (FY2009, which began 

in October 2008) totals $25 million. The program's funding level increased from $3 

million in FY2003 to $30.0 million in FY 2007. For FY2009, the final funded amount 

was $25 million; about $6 million of additional funding over the Administration request 

was provided by Congress. 

Figure 3.1: Congressional Appropriation for SSL Portfolio, 2003-2009 

Date: March 2009 42 
 

 

 

The current SSL DOE research portfolio43 (not including completed projects) includes 

forty-four projects, which address LEDs and OLEDs. Projects balance long-term and 

short-term activities, as well as large and small business and university participation. The 

portfolio totals more than $75.1 million in cumulative government and industry 

investment. Figure 3.2 provides a graphical breakdown of the funding for the current 

SSL project portfolio; this value represents cumulative funding levels for projects 

awarded over the last three years. DOE is currently providing $57.2 million in funding 

for the projects, and the remaining $17.9 million is cost-shared by project awardees. Of 

the forty-four projects active in the SSL R&D portfolio through September 2008, twentysix were associated with LEDs and eighteen were focused on OLEDs. The OLED 

project partners had a lower cost-share contribution ($6.3 million) than the LED project 

partners ($11.5 million). 

OLED 

LED DOE Share 

$33.1 million 

DOE Share 

$24.1 million 

Applicant Share 

$11.6 million 

Applicant 

Share 

$6.3 million 

$0 $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 

$ (Millions) 

Figure 3.2: Cumulative Funding of SSL R&D Project Portfolio, February 2009 

Figure 3.3 shows the DOE funding sources and level of support contributing to the SSL 

project portfolio, for projects active in February 2009. The Building Technologies 

Program in the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) provided the 

majority of the funding; forty-four projects receive $75.1 million in funding from this 

source. Approximately 58 percent ($41.5 million) of the BT/National Energy Technology 

Laboratory (NETL) funds are for Core Technology Research projects and the balance of 

42 percent ($30.7 million) supports Product Development projects. The Small Business 

43 As of February 2009. 

Date: March 2009 43 
 

 

Innovation Research (SBIR) program in the Office of Science funded seven projects for a 

total of $2.8 million. 

BT/NETL 

Product 

Development 

$30.7 Million 

BT/NETL Core 

$41.5 Million 

SBIR 

$2.8 Million 

BT/NETL 

$72.2 Million 

Figure 3.3: Cumulative SSL R&D Portfolio: Funding Sources, February 2009 

The DOE supports SSL R&D in partnership with industry, small business, academia, and 

national laboratories. Figure 3.4 provides the approximate level of R&D funding 

contained in the current SSL portfolio among the four general groups of SSL R&D 

partners, as of February 2009. Industry participants receive approximately 37% of 

portfolio funding, with $28.0 million in R&D activities. Small businesses comprise the 

next largest category and receive 24%, or $18.4 million, in research funds. Finally, 

universities and national laboratories comprise 23% and 16% of the R&D portfolio, 

respectively, and receive $17.05 million and $11.8 million, respectively. 

Date: March 2009 44 
 

 

LED Product 

Development 

$19.8 Million 

26% 

OLED Product 

Development LED Core $12.7 Million Technology 17% $24.8 Million 

33% 

$75.1 Million 

OLED Core 

Technology 

$17.7 Million

 24% 

Figure 3.4: Total Funding of Projects in DOE’s SSL R&D Project Portfolio, February 

2009 

Table 3.2.1 and Table 3.2.2 show the total number of projects and total-project funding in 

the SSL portfolio by subtask (as of February 2009). During the SSL workshop held in 

November 2003, participants suggested research areas that required emphasis at that time 

in order to advance SSL technology toward the goal of general illumination. These 

priorities have been continuously updated since that time. Table 3.2.1 shows the projects 

that DOE has chosen to fund, in keeping with the evolving priorities, under the Core 

Technology solicitations. Table 3.2.2 shows the projects that are currently funded in 

Product Development (as of February 2009). 

Date: March 2009 45 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 3.2.1: SSL R&D Portfolio: Core Technology, February 2009 

Number of 

Projects 

$ Funding 

(Million) 

Light-Emitting Diodes 

Large-area substrates, buffer layers, and wafer research 3 $3.3 

High-efficiency semiconductor materials 9 $14.0 

Reliability and defect physics for improved emitter 

lifetime and efficiency 1 $1.3 

Strategies for improved light extraction and manipulation 1 $2.5 

Phosphors and conversion materials 2 $3.7 

Total 16 $24.8 

Organic Light-Emitting Diodes 

Novel materials and device architectures 3 $5.80 

Improved contact materials and surface modification 

techniques to improve charge injection 3 $4.10 

Applied research in OLED devices 1 $0.80 

Novel strategies for improved light extraction 1 $0.10 

Research on low-cost transparent electrodes 2 $2.90 

Investigation (theoretical and experimental) of low-cost 

fabrication and patterning techniques and tools 1 $4.00 

Total 11 $17.7 

TOTAL 27 $42.5 

Table 3.2.2: SSL R&D Portfolio: Product Development, February 2009 

Number of 

Projects 

$ Funding 

(Million) 

Light-Emitting Diodes 

Manufactured materials 1 $3.8 

LED packages and packaging materials 6 $9.8 

Optical coupling and modeling 2 $3.3 

Thermal design 1 $2.9 

Total LED 10 $19.8 

Organic Light-Emitting Diodes 

Practical implementation of materials and device 

architectures 2 $3.4 

Practical application of light extraction technology. 3 $6.6 

OLED encapsulation packaging for lighting applications 2 $2.7 

Total OLED 7 $12.7 

TOTAL 17 $32.6 

Date: March 2009 46 
 

 

3.2.1 Summary of Current Research Tasks 

For both LEDs and OLEDs, the March 2009 MYPP has a greater emphasis on Product 

Development in comparison with the March 2008 plan. Prioritized LED Product 

Development tasks in the March 2009 plan focus on thermal issues, epitaxial growth, and 

overall system reliability. Prioritized LED Core Technology tasks in the 2009 plan focus 

on materials, down-conversion, thermal issues, and system reliability modeling. For 

OLEDs, Product Development tasks in substrates, materials and device architecture 

issues, electronic components, and luminaire integration were prioritized. Core 

Technology tasks in the 2009 plan for OLEDs focus on novel materials and device 

architectures, new substrate and electrode types, fabrication issues, and system reliability 

modeling methods. 

3.3 Research and Development Funding Mechanisms 

DOE supports the research, development, and demonstration of promising SSL 

technologies. As a technology matures, different funding mechanisms are available to 

support its development, as detailed in Figure 3.5. Solid-state lighting research partners 

and projects are selected based on such factors as energy savings potential, likelihood of 

success, and alignment with the SSL R&D plan. 

Figure 3.5: DOE Funding Opportunities 

DOE funding mechanisms used in the Solid-State Lighting R&D Portfolio include: 

•	 Basic Research — Precedes the mission of the DOE Solid-State Lighting R&D 

program. Grants supporting basic energy science are provided by DOE’s Office of 

Science through an annual solicitation process. 

•	 Building Technologies Program — Funds R&D on materials, components, and 

systems applicable to residential and commercial buildings. Areas of interest 

include solid-state and conventional lighting, advanced fixtures and controls, 

Date: March 2009 47 
 

 

space conditioning, building envelope, whole buildings, zero-energy buildings, 

and other areas of need. Solicitations are issued through the National Energy 

Technology Laboratory. 

•	 Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) — Seeks to increase participation 

of small businesses in federal R&D. Supports annual competitions among small 

businesses for Phase 1 (feasibility of innovative concepts) and Phase 2 (principal 

research or R&D effort) awards, and includes topics related to solid-state lighting. 

•	 Solid-State Lighting Competitive Solicitations — Seeks to advance and 

promote the collaborative atmosphere of the Lighting Research and Development 

(LR&D) SSL program to identify product concepts and develop ideas that are 

novel, innovative and groundbreaking. 

3.4 Procurement Strategy 

DOE’s Office of Building Technologies typically releases at least three competitive 

solicitations for academia, industry researchers, and national laboratory researchers each 

year. In prioritizing needs for these solicitations in both Core Technology and Product 

Development, DOE obtains advice from researchers at the solid-state lighting program 

planning workshops and from researchers in the SSL partnership. The SSL partnership, 

composed of manufacturers and allies, was created in June 2004 through a competitive 

selection process. Proposals received through the solicitation process are reviewed by 

peer 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 program by providing problem-solving 

research to overcome barriers identified by the SSL Partnership. 

3.4.1 Performers 

Long-term applied research in the Building Technologies solid-state lighting research and 

development portfolio is typically performed by those academia or national laboratories 

with the experience and resources to undertake long-term, high-risk pre-commercial 

research. The Small Business Innovation Research program is targeted to small 

commercial businesses to encourage their participation in basic and applied research as 

well. Product development research projects are typically performed by small businesses 

and industry teams or consortia. 

3.4.2 Gaps 

Funding for the R&D tasks for solid-state lighting is allocated, to the extent possible, 

according to the priorities agreed upon by DOE and industry experts during the annual 

SSL workshops. These priorities are updated annually, based on actual progress, as 

described in this document. This process may leave some critical tasks unfunded at any 

given time. These obviously represent gaps that could accelerate the program or improve 

performance. 

Date: March 2009 48 
 

 

 

 

3.5 Cross-Area Coordination 

The DOE SSL program has coordinated with a variety of agencies and organizations. The 

following paragraphs describe areas in which this coordination has occurred. 

In November 2003, representatives from the DOE Building Technologies Program and 

Basic Energy Sciences Program, National Science Foundation (NSF), National Institutes 

of Standards and Technologies’s (NIST) Advanced Technologies Program (ATP), and 

the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) met with representatives 

from the solid-state lighting industry in a workshop to coordinate and prioritize publicprivate research on solid-state lighting technologies.44 Since then, these offices have 

continued to share results of research projects and coordinate topics for competitive 

solicitations for solid-state lighting research, typically released once a year. 

The DOE Building Technologies program also coordinates with the DOE Federal Energy 

Management Interagency Task Force, consisting of representatives from 21 agencies, to 

support demonstrations of LED products throughout the country in federal installations. 

The Interagency Task Force meets bi-monthly to address and resolve key issues 

surrounding the implementation of energy savings programs mandated by the Energy 

Policy Act of 2005. 

The DOE Building Technologies program is an active member of the ENERGY STAR® 

program with manufacturers of solid-state lighting technologies. ENERGY STAR® 

labels the highest performers in the solid-state lighting market to educate the consumer 

about good-quality, energy-saving products. To guide the ENERGY STAR® program, 

and planning for R&D, technology demonstration, and procurement, DOE supports the 

Commercially Available LED Product Evaluation and Reporting (CALiPER) Program 

which provides objective product performance information to the public in the early 

years, helping buyers and specifiers have confidence that new SSL products will perform 

as claimed. 

DOE is currently collaborating with the National Institutes of Standards and Technology 

(NIST) to aid the CALiPER program in providing objective product performance 

information to the public. In addition, DOE is collaborating with NIST and other 

standards organizations to provide a forum for greater cooperation. In March 2006, DOE 

hosted an LED Standards Industry Workshop that invited members of the IESNA, the 

National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA), the National Institute of 

Standards and Technology, the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), 

Underwriters Laboratories (UL), the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), 

the International Commission on Illumination (CIE), Federal Communications 

Commission (FCC), National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) and the Canadian 

Standards Association (CSA). With DOE support and leadership, the group will continue 

to coordinate, update progress, and accelerate the development process of LED testing 

44 Illuminating the Challenges: Solid State Lighting Program Planning Workshop Report. Office of Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy Building Technologies Program. Prepared by Navigant Consulting. 

February 2004. 

Date: March 2009 49 
 

 

standards. A second workshop was held in October 2006, and a CALiPER roundtable 

was held in November 2007. Another CALiPER roundtable was held in March of 2009. 

In the DOE SSL Technology Demonstration GATEWAY Program, DOE collaborates 

with utilities, manufacturers, and host sites to feature high-performance SSL products for 

general illumination in a variety of commercial and residential applications. Results 

provide real-world experience and data on product performance and cost-effectiveness 

while connecting DOE technology procurement efforts with large-volume purchasers. 

Performance measures include energy consumption, light output, color consistency, and 

installation/interface/control issues. The first “Invitation to Participate” was issued in 

March 2007. A second invitation followed in November 2007 and remained open through 

May 2008. To date, GATEWAY demonstration projects include LED roadway and 

walkway lighting, LED residential lighting, and LED parking garage lighting. DOE 

seeks to assemble demonstration teams that match host sites with appropriate products 

and partners. DOE GATEWAY demonstrations are open to all participants, subject to 

certain eligibility parameters. Potential participants are encouraged to submit expressions 

of interest using the application forms available at: 

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ssl/gatewaydemos_results.html. 

DOE must coordinate with the American Lighting Association (ALA) and the 

Consortium for Energy Efficiency (CEE) in the Lighting for Tomorrow competition. This 

competition encourages technical innovation, stimulating the market for attractive, 

energy-efficient residential lighting fixtures that use a fraction of the electricity of 

standard incandescent fixtures. The competition focus extends to marketing, promotion, 

and sales through primary distribution channels for both new construction and renovation 

markets. Lighting for Tomorrow was launched in 2002, with an initial focus on CFL 

fixtures. In 2006, a category for solid-state lighting was added, attracting 30 entrants. In 

2007, two dozen companies submitted 45 solid-state lighting entries. In January of 2008, 

the 2008 Lighting for Tomorrow competition was launched at the Dallas Lighting 

Market. Lighting for Tomorrow judges are drawn from across the lighting industry, 

creating a diverse panel of experts who sell, design, evaluate, and write about residential 

lighting design. Winners of the 2008 solid-state lighting portion of the competition 

included LED downlight and under-cabinet lighting, LED task lights, an LED spotlight, 

an LED ceiling lay-in, and a linear LED module. For more information about Lighting 

for Tomorrow, see http://www.lightingfortomorrow.com/. 

The DOE Technical Information Network for Solid-State Lighting (TINSSL) is managed 

collaboratively with competitively selected partners, the Northeast Energy Efficiency 

Partnerships (NEEP) and the Consortium for Energy Efficiency (CEE). TINSSL is 

designed to increase awareness of SSL technology, performance, and appropriate 

applications. TINSSL members include representatives from regional energy efficiency 

organizations and program sponsors, utilities, state and local energy offices, lighting trade 

groups, and other stakeholders. NEEP and CEE work closely with DOE to produce SSL 

information and outreach materials, host meetings and events, and support other outreach 

activities. TINSSL members receive regular updates on technical progress of SSL 

technologies, upcoming meetings and events that address market issues related to SSL, 

Date: March 2009 50 
 

 

and outreach materials developed for target audiences. To join the network, visit 

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ssl/technetwork.html. 

Date: March 2009 51 
 

 

 

 

4.0 Technology Research and Development Plan 

The U.S. Department of Energy supports domestic research, development, demonstration, 

and commercialization activities related to SSL to fulfill its objective of advancing 

energy-efficient technologies. DOE’s SSL R&D Portfolio focuses on meeting specific 

technological goals, as outlined in this document, that will ultimately result in 

commercial products that are significantly more energy-efficient than conventional light 

sources. 

Improving the efficiency and decreasing the cost of SSL will have a large contribution 

toward DOE’s goal of a net-zero energy building. Lighting constitutes approximately 12 

percent of residential building energy consumption and 25 percent of commercial 

building energy consumption. This electricity consumption figure does not include the 

additional loads due to the heat generated by lighting, which is estimated to be up to 40 

percent in a typical “stock” building. Further technology and cost improvements and 

market acceptance of SSL technologies will dramatically reduce lighting energy 

consumption, and thereby the total energy consumption, of residential and commercial 

buildings by 2025.45 

A part of DOE’s 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. Over the next few 

years, SSL sources will expand their presence in the general illumination market, 

replacing some of today’s lighting technologies. DOE’s R&D activities will work to 

ensure that U.S. companies remain competitive suppliers of the next generation of 

lighting technology in this new paradigm. 

This chapter describes the objectives and work plan for future R&D activities under the 

SSL program for the next 6 years, with some general observations to 2025. Actual 

accomplishments will result in changes to the plan over this time period which will be 

reflected in future revisions. The process of updating the content of this chapter for FY09 

began with a series of roundtable sessions convened in Washington, D.C. in September of 

2008. The NGLIA members and other industry experts invited to these sessions 

presented short talks on current topics of interest for LED and OLED technologies and 

then discussed research tasks. The invited experts then formed technical committees for 

LEDs and OLEDs (the “LED Technical Committee” and the “OLED Technical 

Committee,” respectively). During the fall of 2008, the Technical Committees further 

revised the research tasks and other aspects of the chapter during a series of 

teleconferences. In February of 2009, a workshop was convened in San Francisco, CA, 

where representatives of various sectors of the lighting industry gave their thoughts on 

SSL R&D task prioritization. After careful internal review, considering inputs received 

at the workshop, DOE defined the task priorities for 2009 as listed in section 4.5. 

45 2006 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., September 2006. 

Hereafter, BED. 

Date: March 2009 52 
 

 

 

 

 

The next section sets forth working definitions of the various components of a solid-state 

lighting luminaire in order to provide a common language for describing and reporting on 

the R&D progress. 

4.1 Components of the SSL Luminaire46 

Subsequent sections of this multiyear plan describe both LED and OLED 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. 

4.1.1 Components of LED Luminaires 

As solid-state lighting 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-16, Addendum 

a, as updated and released in 2008. 

Component level (no power source or driver) 

•	 LED Die refers to the small piece of semiconducting material (“chip”) on which 

the light-emitting diode itself is constructed. 

•	 LED Package (also known as an LED device) refers to an assembly of one or 

more LED dies including the mounting substrate, encapsulant, phosphor if 

applicable, electrical connections, and possibly optical components along with 

thermal and mechanical interfaces. 

•	 LED Array. Several LED packages may be assembled on a common substrate or 

wiring board (possibly with additional optical components and mechanical, 

thermal, or electrical interfaces) in order to increase total light output or improve 

the spectrum. 

•	 LED Module. This term refers to an LED package or array that is connected to the 

load side of an LED power source or driver. The module may include additional 

components such as optical components and thermal, mechanical, or electrical 

interfaces.47 

46 To be consistent with terms used in the DOE Commercially Available LED Product Evaluation and 

Reporting (CALiPER) program and Addendum a of ANSI/IESNA RP-16-05, “luminaire” is used here to 

describe the entire solid state lighting product. CALiPER supports the testing of a wide, representative 

array of SSL products available for general illumination, using test procedures currently under development 

by standards organizations. More information is available at: 

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ssl/caliper.html. 47 The term “light engine” has come into usage in recent years; “light engine,” however, is not defined by 

RP-16, and “module” is the preferred analogue. 

Date: March 2009 53 
 

 

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 refers to an assembly that is integrated with an 

LED driver and has an ANSI standardized base for connection directly 

to an electrical branch circuit. 

o	 Non-Integrated LED Lamp refers to an assembly with an ANSI 

standardized base but without a built-in LED driver. Non-integrated 

LED lamps are designed for connection to LED luminaires. 

•	 LED Driver refers to a power source with integral control circuitry designed to 

meet the specific needs of an LED package, array, or module. The driver 

converts line voltage to appropriate power and current for the package and may 

also provide sensing of and corrections for shifts in color or intensity that occur 

over the life of the product or due to temperature variations. Other special 

features, such as dimming controls, may also be included. 

•	 LED Luminaire refers to the complete lighting unit, intended to be directly 

connected to an electrical branch circuit. It consists of a light source and driver 

along with parts to distribute the light and to connect, position, and protect the 

light source. 

Figure 4.1, below, illustrates a few of these definitions. 

Die	 Package Luminaire 

Figure 4.1: Photos of LED Components 

Photo sources: Cree, Journée 

4.1.2 Components of OLED Luminaires 

A structure parallel to LEDs can be used to define the components of an OLED 

luminaire. Formal definitions for OLED terminologies have not been standardized at this 

Date: March 2009 54 
 

 

time, so the definitions below were crafted to parallel what is in RP-16 for LEDs. 

•	 OLED Device is roughly analogous to an LED package. It refers to an assembly 

of layers of materials, including a set of charge-transporting and emissive layers 

(made of organic materials) that are analogous to those of the LED die. The 

device also includes other layers for encapsulation and electrical connection to the 

device. 

•	 OLED Panel refers to one or more OLED devices that are assembled to create a 

unit with significant light output (at least 500 lumens). The OLED panel 

approximately corresponds to an LED array or module, depending on whether the 

panel is designed to be connected directly to the load side of an OLED driver. 

The OLED panel may also incorporate packaging, thermal management, and 

optical outcoupling components. 

•	 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 and 

fixture. The OLED driver converts line voltage to appropriate power and current 

for the device. The OLED fixture provides for thermal management, if not 

included in the panels, as well as mounting and mechanical support, 

interconnection with the driver, and diffusion or direction of the light from the 

OLED device to the task. 

Geometries that emit downward through a transparent substrate or upward from a 

reflective substrate are currently being considered for OLEDs. The simple planar 

structure shown in Figure 4.2 below displays an OLED which emits downward through a 

transparent substrate. These structures typically employ a reflective, metal cathode. 

Substrate 

Anode 

Conductive Layer 

Emissive Layer 

Cathode 

White Light 

Figure 4.2: Diagram of OLED Device Structure and Photo of OLED Panel 

Photo source: General Electric 

It is also possible to manufacture an OLED with a highly transparent cathode (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 entirely 

Date: March 2009 55 
 

 

 

transparent devices. Figure 4.3 displays an entirely transparent OLED luminaire 

employing a transparent substrate and cathode. 

Figure 4.3: Photo of a Transparent OLED Lighting Tile 

Photo source: OSRAM Opto-Semiconductor 

4.2 Current Technology Status and Areas of Improvement 

Significant progress has been made in LEDs over the past year, and several viable and 

efficient luminaire products have reached the market. More are expected in the coming 

year. LED package technology successfully met the first milestone set by DOE’s multiyear plan and appears to be ahead of schedule for the next one. As a result, LED 

luminaires are now routinely more efficient than incandescent sources and are at or near 

parity with CFLs.48 More work will be necessary to assure that luminaires and power 

conditioners do not excessively degrade the performance or lifetime of the packages. 

More work will also be necessary both to reach efficiencies that can compete with linear 

fluorescent lamps, and to achieve high-efficiency packages with a warmer light (i.e., 

lower correlated color temperature). OLED performance lags behind LEDs, as might be 

expected from this technology’s later start. One niche product using OLEDs for general 

illumination has become available on the market at a high price and in very limited 

quantities. The niche product is a table lamp, shown in Figure 4.4, produced by the 

designer Ingo Maurer. This product appears to be more efficacious than incandescent 

sources, but it is not near the efficacy of a CFL. Although general market products for 

OLEDs have still not been introduced, the introduction of this niche product shows 

promise. 

48 DOE Solid-State Lighting CALiPER Program: Summary of Results: Round 3 of Product Testing. 

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ssl/caliper.html 

Date: March 2009 56 
 

 

 

Figure 4.4: A Commercial OLED Table Lamp by Ingo Maurer 

Photo source: OSRAM Opto-Semiconductor 

To further define the relationship among the components of luminaires and to highlight 

relative opportunities for efficiency improvements, one can identify various elements of 

power efficiency, both electrical and optical, within the SSL device and for the luminaire 

as a whole. These losses and consequent opportunities for LED and OLED luminaires 

are apparent in the several figures that follow (Figure 4.5, Figure 4.6, and Figure 4.7). 

Generally, the losses identified result from the conversion of energy, either electrical or 

optical depending on the stage, into heat. However, the efficiency of converting optical 

radiated power into useful light (lumens) is derived from the optical responsiveness of the 

human eye. This source of inefficiency (the spectral or optical “efficacy” of the light) is 

essentially the human eye’s spectral filtering of light that has already been radiated by the 

SSL luminaire. 

The electrical luminaire efficacy, a key metric for the DOE SSL program, is the ratio of 

useful light power radiated (visible lumens) to the electrical power (watts) applied to the 

luminaire. The electrical device efficacy refers to the ratio of lumens out of the device to 

the power applied to the device at room temperature, so it does not include the driver, 

fixture, or thermal efficiencies. This technology plan forecasts both device efficacy and 

luminaire efficacy improvements. It is important to keep in mind that it is the luminaire 

efficacy that determines the actual energy savings. 

Opportunities for improvement of the device include: reducing electrical and optical 

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. 

Tailoring of the spectrum to the eye response is constrained by the need to provide light 

of appropriate color quality (correlated color temperature and color rendering index). 

Further improvements in phosphors and optimization of the spectrum of the LED are still 

needed to provide an appropriate color quality while increasing luminosity. 

The following sections compare the current typical efficiency values for the individual 

luminaire elements to a set of suggested program goals for LED and OLED technologies. 

Date: March 2009 57 
 

 

These consensus numbers were developed in consultation with members of the LED and 

OLED Technical Committees as mentioned in the introduction to this chapter. It is 

important to realize there may be significantly different allocations of loss for any 

specific design, which may nevertheless result in an overall efficient luminaire. The 

allocation of typical current efficiency values and targets used in the sections to follow, 

however, serves as a guide for identifying the opportunities for improvement (i.e., those 

components with the greatest differences between current and target values). It is not, 

however, the program’s intention to impede novel developments that use a different 

allocation of losses that result in a better overall luminaire performance. 

For consistency, OLED efficiencies throughout this chapter are reported assuming a 

pixel-sized OLED device, as defined in Section 4.1.2, at a fixed brightness (1,000 cd/m2

). 

Targets for OLED devices have been set with the goal of enabling the development of 

high quality OLED panels and luminaires. LED efficiencies are reported for a fixed 

drive current (350 mA) and area (1 mm2). These values are simply used to compare 

efficiency levels and set targets to a common reference. It is not the DOE’s intention to 

dictate the brightness, size, or current drive of devices used in practice. 

4.2.1 Light-Emitting Diodes 

As described in Section 2.3.4, white-light LED luminaires are typically based on one of 

three approaches: 

a) phosphor-conversion LEDs (pc-LEDs) 

b) discrete color-mixing LEDs 

c) a hybrid consisting of phosphor (white) and monochromatic packages 

Phosphor-Converting LED 

Figure 4.5 presents a diagram of a phosphor-converting LED luminaire. On the left side 

of the figure is a simplified breakdown of the elements of luminaire efficiency that 

includes driver efficiency, thermal losses associated with steady state operation and 

thermal management design, and fixture and optical considerations. On the right hand 

side is a breakdown of package efficiencies. These efficiencies are independent of 

spectrum to first order, although the spectrum will determine the resulting efficacy. The 

table shows the efficiencies (both current and target) as typically reported for packages 

(e.g. pulsed measurements taken at 25°C). Target efficiencies represent the ultimate 

target of DOE’s SSL program. Depending on the difficulty of the task, target efficiencies 

could be reached before or after the year 2015. Note that the targets for R&D research 

tasks are for the year 2015. For purposes of comparing various experimental results, this 

diagram and the next one for color-mixing LEDs assume a target correlated color 

temperature of 4100°K (the equivalent CCT of a cool-white fluorescent lamp), and a CRI 

of at least 80. Other combinations may provide acceptable light for particular market 

needs. Currently available 2008 products typically have color temperatures in the range 

of 4100-6500°K and often a lower CRI than 80, although more warm-white products are 

beginning to appear. The 2008 typical numbers reflect these less than optimal 

parameters, and therefore may overstate our current capability. The following definitions 

Date: March 2009 58 
 

 

 

 

provide some clarification on the efficiency values presented in the figures and for the 

project objectives over time. 

•	 Driver efficiency represents the efficiency of the electronics in converting input 

power from 120V 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. 

•	 Package efficiency represents the total efficiency of the LED package (excluding 

the driver and luminaire) and consists of several components that are shown on 

the right in Figure 4.6 and also defined below. The output of the “LED package” 

in this figure is useful lumens; that is, the spectral effects are not included within 

the “package” box. 

•	 Thermal efficiency is the ratio of the lumens emitted by the 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.49 The 

thermal efficiency can be improved by minimizing temperature rise through 

innovative thermal management strategies. 

•	 Fixture and optics efficiency,η fo , is the ratio of the lumens emitted by the 

luminaire to the lumens emitted by the LED package in thermal equilibrium. 

Losses in this component of the luminaire include optical losses. (For purposes of 

this illustration, spectral effects in the fixture and optics are ignored, although this 

may not always be appropriate.) 

Considering the package portion of the luminaire, the power efficiency is the ratio of 

electrical input from the driver (i.e., applied to the package) to the optical power out 

(irrespective of the spectrum of that output). As such, package power efficiency excludes 

driver losses. The package efficacy is the product of the power efficiency of the package 

and the spectral or optical efficacy due to the human eye response. Elements of the 

package power efficiency are: 

•	 Electrical efficiency, ηv, accounts for the ohmic losses within the package and the 

loss of any charge carriers that do not arrive at the active region of the package. 

The forward voltage should be as low as possible in order to achieve the 

maximum number of charge carriers into the package active region. When 

resistive losses are low, the voltage is essentially the breakdown voltage which is 

approximately the bandgap energy divided by the electronic charge. Ohmic 

losses in the LED material and electrode injection barriers add to the forward 

49 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 temperature higher than 25°C. 

Date: March 2009 59 
 

 

 

 

 

 

voltage. This efficiency also includes the injection efficiency, which reflects any 

loss of charge carriers that occurs away from the active region of the package. 

•	 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.50 

•	 Extraction efficiency, χ, is the ratio of photons emitted from the encapsulated chip 

into air to the 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.51 

•	 External quantum efficiency, EQE, is the ratio of extracted photons to injected 

electrons.52 It is the product of the IQE and the extraction efficiency χ. 

•	 Color-mixing efficiency,η color , refers to losses incurred while mixing the discrete 

colors in order to create white light (not the spectral efficacy, but just optical 

losses). Color-mixing could also occur in the fixture and optics, but for the 

purposes of Figure 4.6 is assumed to occur in the package. 

•	 Phosphor efficiency,η phos , refers to the efficiency with which current state of the 

art green-yellow phosphors create white light using a blue LED. The phosphor 

efficiency includes quantum efficiency and the Stokes loss of the phosphor. In 

order to improve the color quality of phosphor-converted white packages while 

maintaining high efficiency it will be necessary to improve the phosphor 

efficiency of phosphors that emit in the red wavelengths and, possibly, the 

efficiency of phosphors that emit in the green to blue-green region of the 

spectrum. Improvement in the efficiency of phosphors that emit in the red 

wavelengths will enable the development of more efficacious warm-white 

products. 

•	 Scattering efficiency is the ratio of the photons emitted from the LED package to 

the number of photons emitted from the semiconductor chip. This efficiency, 

relevant only to the phosphor-converting LED in Figure 4.5, accounts for 

scattering losses in the phosphor and encapsulant of the package. 

50 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).

51 The extraction efficiency may be calculated by several methods; one example is described in [R.
 

Windisch et al. IEEE J.Sel. Top. Quantum Electron. 8, 248 (2002)] and in S. Riyopoulos, T. D. Moustakas 

and J. S. Cabalu, J. Appl. Phys. 102, 04311 (2007). 52 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. 

Date: March 2009 60 
 

 

 

 

 

1 Total 

85% 92% 

2008 Target 

2 30% 51% 

4 80% 92% 

17% 41%

Luminaire 

Driver 

Fixture 

& Optics 

Optical Power 

LED 

Package 

1 

2 

Thermal 

Efficiency 

3 

4 

3 85% 95% 

Luminaire 

Line voltage input 

LED Package 

Electrical 

Efficiency 2a 

2d Phosphor 

Electrons to photons 

EQE 

IQE 

2c 

2b 

χ

Scattering 

Efficiency 2e 

2008 Target 

2a 90% 95% 

2b 80% 90% 

2c 80% 90% EQE

64% 81% 

2d 65% 73% 

2e 80% 90% Total LED Device

30% 51% 

Figure 4.5: Phosphor-Converting LED - Current and Target Luminaire Efficiencies for 

Steady State Operation 

Source: LED Technical Committee, Fall 2008 

Note: 

1.	 The target assumes a CCT of 4100K and CRI of 90. Current CCT: 4100-6500K, CRI: 75 

2.	 The target for 2d includes 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 phosphor system. 

3.	 The shown efficiency allocation is only one method of achieving the 41% luminaire efficiency target. 

In Figure 4.5, Component 2a (the LED package electrical efficiency) is estimated to have 

an efficiency of 90% for 2008 phosphor LED products (with available switching 

techniques). The ultimate target for this component is to improve the efficiency to 92%. 

In comparison, other components of the luminaire have more room for efficiency 

improvements. For example, the extraction efficiency of the mounted, encapsulated LED 

die is currently 80%. The ultimate goal of DOE’s SSL program is to raise the extraction 

efficiency of the die to 90%. 

Members of the LED Technical Committee estimated that today’s driver efficiency is 

85%, excluding possible additional losses for special control circuitry. The program 

target for the driver is to improve the efficiency to 92%. There is considerable room for 

improvement of the fixture and optics. Assuming a simple functional luminaire like a 

recessed downlight, fixture efficiencies for LEDs are currently around 80%. DOE 

expects the efficiency of the fixture can be ultimately increased to 92%. However, 

Date: March 2009 61 
 

 

 

efficiencies for more decorative luminaires may not be able to reach this target because of 

losses due to color-altering diffusers or shades added for aesthetic purposes. 

Currently, the phosphor-converting LED luminaire is approximately 16% efficient at 

converting electrical energy into visible white light. If all targets are reached, the LED 

package would have an efficiency of 51%, and the luminaire an efficiency of 41%. The 

package power efficiency (Wo/We), indicated in Figure 4.5 as the “Total White LED 

Package” efficiency, measures the power of light emitted by the package divided by the 

electrical power put into the package. This metric is independent of the spectrum of light 

emitted by the package. Electrical luminous efficacy (in lm/We),53 on the other hand, 

measures the amount of useful visible light out of a package per unit of electrical energy. 

The electrical luminous efficacy of the phosphor-converting LED package can be 

calculated by multiplying the package power efficiency by the optical or spectral 

luminous efficacy of radiation (LER). For blended LEDs, the LER is approximately 360 

lm/Wo (exact value varies with the CRI and CCT for the particular design and the 

available wavelengths54). Using this conversion, the target for a phosphor converting 

LED package would be close to 184 lm/We (51% power efficiency, above, multiplied by 

360 lm/Wo). This would result in an overall luminaire efficacy, absent significant 

breakthroughs, of approximately 147 lm/We (360 lm/Wo multiplied by 41% luminaire 

efficiency). These additional luminaire losses are the reason that the program includes 

tasks directed at fixture and driver efficiency as well as those emphasizing the basic LED 

package, and also why the most energy-efficient installations of the future will have 

purpose-designed luminaires as opposed to retrofit lamps. These are “practical” figures 

based on the sources and technology that can be envisioned now. The electrical to optical 

power conversion efficiency could improve and the spectral luminous efficacy could also 

be higher, as much as 400 lm/Wo for a CRI of 80, if optimal wavelengths (or more 

colors) are available. This would yield a higher overall figure for lumens per watt. 

Color-Mixing LED 

Figure 4.6 presents a diagram of a color-mixing LED luminaire. For simplicity, three 

colors are used, although a fourth color, e.g. amber, or even more colors could be used to 

improve the spectrum. The definitions for the various efficiencies are the same as listed 

for Figure 4.5. The percentage efficiencies in the table next to each component indicate 

the typical performance in 2008 and targets that will satisfy the goals of the program. 

From this diagram one can infer the headroom for improvement for the various luminaire 

and package elements. 

53 The subscript “e” denotes electrical power into the device and “o” denotes optical power within the 

device. Unless otherwise stated, “efficacy” means electrical luminous efficacy. 54NIST has simulated an LER of 361 lm/Wo at a CRI of 97 and CCT of 3300K. (Ohno, Y. "Color 

Rendering and Luminous Efficacy of White LED Spectra." Proc. SPIE 49th Annual Mtg., Conf. 5530 

(2004).) 

Date: March 2009 62 
Date: March 2009 63 

 

1 Total

85% 92%

2008 Target

2 28% 69%

4 80% 92%

16% 55%

Luminaire

Optical Power

LED Package

Driver

Fixture 

& Optics

Line voltage input

LED 

Package

1

2

4

Electrical

2a Efficiency

EQE

IQE

2c

2b

Electrons to photons

χ

Color-Mixing 

Efficiency 2d

Luminaire

2b

2cTotal White LED Device

69%

2a 90% 95%

28%

81%B

81%G

81%R

64%B

16%G

38%R

90%B

90%G

90%R

80%B

80%G

50%R

90%B

90%G

90%R

80%B

20%G

75%R

EQE

2d 80% 90+%

2008 Target

Thermal

Efficiency

3

3 85% 95%

Figure 4.6: Color-Mixing LED - Current and Target Luminaire Efficiencies for Steady 

State Operation 

Source: LED Technical Committee, Fall 2008 

Note: 

1. The target assumes a CCT of 4100K and CRI of 80. Current CCT: 4100-6500K, CRI: 75. 

2. IQE statuses and targets assume wavelengths of 610 nm for red, 540 nm for green, and 450 nm for 

blue. 

3. The efficiency allocation shown in this figure is only one example of how the 55% luminaire 

efficiency target can be met. 

Because there is no Stokes loss, the color-mixing LED is theoretically capable of higher 

efficacies than the pc-LED. However, there are design issues of color-mixing packages 

that must be taken into account, such as additional driver complexity and cost, and the 

lower efficiency of green LEDs. Other options are possible for obtaining different color 

temperatures or color rendition indices using a hybrid approach. For example, a warm 

white color can be achieved by mixing phosphor-converted white LEDs with 

monochromatic red or amber LEDs. In fact, several very successful high efficacy warmwhite luminaires employing this hybrid approach have recently appeared on the market. 

Over the course of the program, performance improvements will make possible the 

manufacturing of packages with lower color temperature and better CRIs without 

seriously degrading the efficiency. Achieving the efficiency targets identified in Figure 

4.6 will require more efficient emitters (particularly in the green area of the spectrum) 
 

 

 

and other improvements elsewhere in the luminaire. The package-related parameters of 

the luminaire have the greatest headroom for improvement in the short term. For 

example, the internal quantum efficiencies (2b) of the chips range from 20% to 80%, 

depending on color. The ultimate goal is to raise the IQE to 90% across the visible 

spectrum, bringing the total package efficiency to 69%. As the LEDs become more 

efficient, there will necessarily be more emphasis on the other luminaire losses in order to 

maximize overall efficiency. 

Currently, the simple and functional color-mixing LED luminaire is approximately 16% 

efficient at converting electrical energy into visible white light. If all targets are 

achieved, the LED package would have an efficiency of 69%, with an overall luminaire 

efficiency of 55%. Similarly to the phosphor-converting package, the electrical luminous 

efficacy (in lm/We) of the color-mixing LED package can be calculated by multiplying 

the package power efficiency (Wo/We) by the optical luminous efficacy (useful light out 

(lm) divided by the optical power in (Wo)) of a phosphor. A practical target for a colormixing LED luminaire is about 198 lm/We. Improving the color-mixing efficiency and 

temperature performance could improve the efficacy even more. 

4.2.2 Organic Light-Emitting Diodes 

Figure 4.7 presents a diagram for an OLED luminaire and compares the current typical 

efficiency values for the individual system elements to a set of suggested program targets. 

The definitions for the various efficiencies are the same as listed for Figure 4.5, with 

additional definitions for electrode efficiency and substrate optical losses. Additional 

clarification is also given for internal quantum efficiency and electrical efficiency. 

•	 Electrode efficiency accounts for the losses that occur between the external 

electrical contacts of the device and the charge-injecting interfaces of the device. 

•	 Internal quantum efficiency, IQE, is the ratio of the photons generated within the 

active region of the OLED to the number of electrons injected into the active 

region. IQE is the product of the fraction of all electrons and holes that eventually 

combine, the efficiency with which electrons and holes form an emissive state, 

and the quantum yield of the emissive state. 

•	 Electrical efficiency is the ratio of photon electron volts to the electrical voltage 

input to the OLED. The electrical efficiency accounts for the internal device 

resistance and the barrier to charge injection at the electrode-organic interface. 

•	 Substrate optical losses are losses incurred as photons exiting the device 

encounter the substrate and electrode materials. While such losses are small for 

glass and very thin electrodes such as those made from indium tin oxide, substrate 

optical losses may be substantial for different substrates (such as flexible 

substrates made from plastics) and non-ITO electrodes. 

Date: March 2009 64 
 

 

Driver

Fixture 

& Optics

OLED 

Device

1

2

3

Driver

Fixture 

& Optics

OLED 

Device

1

2

3

IQE

Electrons to photons

χ 

Extraction efficiency

2b

2d

2c

2a

2e

 

 

Luminaire OLED Device 

2008 Target 

1 90% 95% 

2 21% 67% 

3 90% 95% 

Total

Luminaire 

17% 60% 

Electrical Efficiency 

Line voltage input Line voltage input 

Driver 

Fixture 

& Optics 

OLED 

Device 

1 

2 

3 

EQE 

IQE 

Electrons to photons 

Substrate Optical 

Losses (2) 

χ 

Extraction efficiency 

Electrode 

efficiency (1) 

21% 67%

36% 74%

90% 98%

40% 76%

100% 100%

60% 95%

99% 95%

2008 Target

21% 67%

36% 74%

90% 98%

40% 76%

100% 100%

60% 95%

99% 95%

2008 Target

2d 

2c 

2e 

2a 

2b 

Total OLED

Device

EQE

Device 

2b 

2d 

2c 

2a 

2e EQE 

Optical Power 

Figure 4.7: OLED Luminaire Efficiencies & Opportunities 

(Assumptions for “Target” figures: CCT: 2700-4100K, CRI: 80, 1,000 cd/m2, total output ≥ 500 lm) 

Note 

1.	 Electrode loss is negligible for devices currently used for small displays but will be an issue for 

large area devices necessary for general illumination applications in the future. 

2.	 Includes substrate and electrode optical loss – negligible for glass and very thin electrodes but may 

be important for plastic or thicker electrodes. 

3.	 Note that the efficiency allocation shown here is only one example of how the 60% luminaire 

efficiency target can be met. 

Source: OLED Technical Committee, Fall 2008 

While there is significant room for improvement in the active layers which comprise the 

device, considerable attention will have to be paid to the practicalities of OLED 

manufacturing. Current assembly technologies for OLEDs, which are focused on display 

applications, usually employ glass substrates with virtually no scattering loss. 

Transitioning to a flexible polymer substrate may be necessary to realize low cost 

manufacturing, but that may also reduce the device efficiency. The figure above 

estimates a target of 95% electrode efficiency, but this may be optimistic. Similarly, 

electrode design techniques may reduce losses in the conductors but could also obstruct 

or impair portions of device emission, thus reducing overall device efficiency. Today, 

this is sometimes evidenced by dim regions on even a relatively small panel. There are 

electrode design techniques that can improve but not entirely eliminate electrode 

resistance, but it could become a significant issue as panel sizes increase. Thus, while 

this diagram shows very small source losses from these effects, as they can be in lab 

devices, a commercialized product with that level of loss may be difficult to achieve. 

Date: March 2009 65 
 

 

 

The external quantum efficiencies in OLED layers can be relatively good for green (in 

contrast to the situation for LEDs) but are lower for blue and red, thus depressing the 

overall performance of white light. Due to waveguiding, EQE in planar OLED designs is 

limited to around 20% if one does not include any outcoupling enhancement. Innovation 

is needed to enhance EQE, as the goal is to achieve EQE values in the 70% range (with 

outcoupling enhancement). The same discussion with regard to the overall efficacy as 

outlined in the LED section applies here as well; lumens per optical watt depends on 

available wavelengths and efficiencies while the power efficiency depends on the other 

loss mechanisms. 

Fixture efficiencies for OLEDs may also be relatively high when compared to 

conventional fixtures, although this has yet to be shown. Because OLEDs can be large 

area emitters, fixtures (to the extent that they are used to reduce glare) could almost be 

eliminated if the total lumen output of the OLED is distributed over a large enough area. 

Although fixture efficiencies could increase, prices of these fixtures could rise as the area 

of the OLED increases. Also, it is important to note that because there are no commercial 

products on the market, estimates of luminaire efficiencies are based on laboratory 

prototypes. 

Keys to efficiency improvements in OLEDs continue to revolve around finding suitable 

stable materials with which to realize white light, with blue colors being the most 

difficult. Progress on efficiencies for OLEDs has been relatively rapid, as discussed in 

the next section. However, 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, as noted above and in the figure, and may also limit materials choices. 

4.3 SSL Performance Targets 

The projections of the performance of SSL devices created in consultation with the 

Technical Committees assume adequate funding by both government and private industry 

for the duration of the program. Although the authorization level for the SSL program is 

$50M for 7 years, actual appropriations have never reached this level. Appropriated 

funding steadily increased until 2007 (see Figure 3.1). In 2008 and 2009, appropriated 

funding decreased slightly from 2007 levels. Meeting these performance targets assumes 

that there are no unforeseen resource availability problems. 

In order to capture the ultimate objectives of the SSL program that relate to luminaire 

efficacy or cost, objectives for luminaire performance are also included along with device 

performance objectives. Although the graphs show large improvements in device 

performance, reaching the luminaire objectives will take longer, as shown by the 

luminaire efficacy values in Table 4.3.3 and Table 4.3.5. Innovative fixtures for LEDs 

can have a significant impact on overall efficacy. For example, package efficiencies (and 

operating lifetime) can be degraded by 30% or more when operating at full temperature at 

steady state in a luminaire. Despite this degradation, SSL will still help DOE meet its 

Date: March 2009 66 
 

 

ZEB goals by providing a luminaire that is more efficient than luminaires of other 

lighting technologies. The simultaneous accommodation of aesthetic and marketing 

considerations along with the preservation of the energy-saving advantages of solid state 

lighting is a challenge in commercializing this technology. Section 5.6 of the SSL MYPP 

discusses DOE’s commercialization support plan. 

4.3.1 Light-Emitting Diodes 

The performance of white-light LED packages depends on both the correlated color 

temperature of the package and, to a lesser extent, the color rendering index. While every 

case cannot be examined, efficacy projections have been shown for two choices: one for 

cooler CCT (4100K to 6500K), and the other for warmer CCT (2700K to 3500K). 

Because the majority of commercial products sold today are cool-white products, 

forecasts for these products are more predictable. Therefore for the cool-white case, 

projections are shown both for laboratory prototype LEDs and for commercially available 

packaged LEDs. Experience suggests that a one and a half year lag between laboratory 

results and commercial product is fairly typical. Efficacy projections for warm-white 

commercial LEDs are also given. 

Actual results through 2008 show that efficacy improvement continues to be faster than 

was expected in earlier forecasts. LEDs are beginning to approach what are perceived to 

be the practical limits of efficacy as shown in Table 4.3.1. Because of this, one can expect 

progress to begin to slow down. These limits depend on the choice of CCT and color 

quality demanded by the application. Apart from these more or less predictable limits, 

manufacturing and cost considerations may further reduce efficacies below their maxima. 

Based on expected rates of future improvements, these maximum efficacies should be 

achieved in products between the years 2016 and 2020. 

Table 4.3.1: Practical Maximum Package Efficacy for LEDs 

Maximum Efficacy (lm/W) 

CCT 75 CRI 90 CRI 

3000K 182 162 

4100K 220 193 

6500K 228 186 

Source: LED Technical Committee, Fall 2008 

Figure 4.8 shows package efficacy improvement forecasts over time. The 2009 MYPP 

forecast does not differ greatly from the 2008 MYPP, except that a somewhat slower rate 

of improvement is now projected for warm white light. The asymptotes on the graph 

show the extremes of the above table: warm-white packages with high CRI at 162 lm/W 

and cool-white packages with a low CRI at 228 lm/W. The earlier diagrams (Figure 4.5 

and Figure 4.6) showed efficiencies for targets in between, giving values for a neutral 

white (4100K) and a moderate-to-high CRI. By 2013 the efficacy for high power coolwhite laboratory prototypes should reach 184 lm/W, near the limit in the table above. 

Cool-white commercial products should reach a level of approximately 172 lm/W by that 

Date: March 2009 67 
 

 

 

 

 

time. By 2025, the projections approach the practical maximum efficacies for LEDs of 

228 lm/W for cool-white LEDs and 162 lm/W of warm-white LEDs (with a CRI of 90). 

All projections assume a “reasonable” package life (i.e. tens of thousands of operating 

hours). 

A number of actual reported results for high-power LED packages are plotted, although 

these specific examples may not meet all of the criteria specified in the footnotes. Lowpower LED packages also exist, but examples of these are not plotted. Because many 

more low-power LED packages are required to make a useful light source, reported 

results between low- and high-power LED packages are not directly comparable. For 

example, although one can achieve a high-efficacy light source using these low-power 

packages, there may be issues of higher assembly cost that need attention. While claims 

of higher efficacy have been made, they cannot be compared unless all parameters are 

known. 

0 

50 

100 

150 

200 

Efficacy (lm/W)

Laboratory Projection - Cool White 

Commercial Product Projection - Cool White 

Commercial Product Projection - Warm White 

Laboratory - Cool White 

Commercial Product - Cool White 

Commercial Product - Warm White 

Maximum Efficacy - Warm White 

Maximum Efficacy - Cool White 

2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 

Year 

Figure 4.8: White-Light LED Package Efficacy Targets, Laboratory and Commercial 

Note: 

1.	 Cool-white efficacy projections assume CRI=70 → 80, CCT = 4100-6500°K, 

2.	 Warm-white efficacy projections assume CRI>85, CCT =2800-3500°K 

3.	 All projections are for high-power packages with a 350 ma drive current at 25°C, 1mm2

 die size, 

package-level specification only (driver/luminaire not included), and reasonable package life. 

4.	 The maximum efficacy values displayed in Table 4.3.1 for warm-white (3000K and 90 CRI) and coolwhite (6500K and 75 CRI) packages are shown above as asymptotes. The target efficiency in Figure 

4.5 assumes a CRI of 90 and a CCT of 4100K and would lie in between these two extremes. 

Source: LED Technical Committee and the Department of Energy, Fall 2008; Press Releases 

Date: March 2009 68 
 

 

 

 

1 

10 

100 

1000 

Price ($/klm)

Log Scale 

Examples, 2007 

Fluorescent Lamp-and-Ballast System 

White-Light

Integrated LED

Lamp 

The price estimates represent the average purchase price of a white-light integrated LED 

lamp. The projected original equipment manufacturer (OEM) lamp price, assuming the 

purchase of “reasonable volumes” (i.e. several thousands) and good market acceptance, is 

shown in Figure 4.9. The price decreases exponentially from approximately $200/klm in 

2007 to $2/klm in 2025. By way of rough comparison, a band representing a range of 

2008 prices for conventional fluorescent technologies (with a self-ballasted 13 W 

compact fluorescent lamp at the bottom and a two-lamp 32 W T8 linear fluorescent lampand-ballast system at the top) are shown on the same chart. 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 certain 

incandescent products.55 

The package life, measured to 

70% lumen maintenance,56 has 

increased steadily over the past 

few years and appears to be 

currently at its target of 50,000 

hours. Although it appears that 

the majority of LEDs have 

reached the target of 50,000 

hours, this has not been 

substantiated as yet by actual 

long-term operating data. 

Methods for characterizing 

lifetime, especially as changes 

in materials or processes are 

introduced, will likely require 

accelerated aging tests which so 

far have not been established for 

2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 LED technologies. This is an 

Year important area of work, and 

there is an identified task for it Figure 4.9: White-Light Integrated LED Lamp Price described in Section 4.5. Projection (Logarithmic Scale) 

Note: Assumes 2008 prices for fluorescent price range (13 W selfballasted compact fluorescent lamp at bottom, and 2-lamp 32 W An average package life of 

T8 linear fluorescent lamp-and-ballast system at top). 50,000 hours allows LED 

Source: LED Technical Committee, Fall 2008 packages to last more than twice 

as long as conventional linear fluorescent lighting products, five times longer than 

compact fluorescent lamps, and fifty times longer than incandescent lighting products. 

This long life makes LEDs very competitive with conventional technologies on a “Cost 

55 Typical 2008 lamp prices for conventional light sources listed in section 2.3.2 are also listed here for
 

comparison: incandescent lamps (A19 60W), $0.30 per klm; self-ballasted compact fluorescent lamps 

(13W), $2 per klm; 2-lamp fluorescent lamp-and-ballast system (F32T8), $4 per klm. 56 The package life stated above accounts for the lumen maintenance of the LED but does not account for 

other failure mechanisms. 

Date: March 2009 69 
 

 

of Light” basis (See Section 2.3.3). However, the total cost of ownership is not 

substantially affected by lifetimes greater than approximately 50,000 hours. LED 

products for niche/specialty applications could be developed with longer package life, 

upwards of 100,000 hours, by trading off with other performance parameters. 

It is important to note that although the package lifetime may be 50,000 hours, the 

luminaire lifetime may be shorter. Bad luminaire design can shorten the life of an LED 

package dramatically through overheating. Drivers may also limit the lifetime of an LED 

luminaire. Therefore improving the lifetime of the driver to equal or exceed that of the 

LED package and improving heat management within an LED luminaire are goals of the 

SSL program. 

Table 4.3.2 presents a summary of the LED performance projections in tabular form. 

Table 4.3.2: Summary of LED Package Performance Projections 

Metric 2008 2010 2012 2015 

Efficacy- Lab 

(lm/W) 144 160 176 200 

EfficacyCommercial 

Cool White 

(lm/W) 

108 147 164 188 

EfficacyCommercial 

Warm White 

(lm/W) 

64 97 114 138 

OEM Lamp 

($/klm) 169 101 61 28 

Note: 

1.	 Efficacy projections for cool-white packages assume CRI=70 → 80 and a CCT = 4100-6500°K, 

while efficacy projections for warm-white packages assume CRI =>85 and a CCT of 2800­

3500°K. All efficacy projections assume that packages are measured at 25°C. 

2.	 All packages are assumed to have a 350 mA drive current, 1mm2

 die size, package-level 

specification only (driver/fixture not included), and lifetime as stated in table. 

3.	 Price targets assume an integrated LED lamp, “reasonable volumes” (several 1000s), CRI=70 →

80, color temperature = 4100-6500K. 

4.	 Package life is approximately 50,000 hrs assuming 70% lumen maintenance, “1 watt package,” 

and 350 mA drive current. 

Source: LED Technical Committee, Fall 2008 

4.3.2 LED Luminaires 

As stated in Section 4.2.1, the LED package is only one component of an LED luminaire. 

To understand the true performance metrics of a solid state lighting source, one must also 

take into account the efficiency of the driver and the efficiency of the fixture, and, 

importantly, the effects, primarily thermal, of the assembly on the performance of the 

Date: March 2009 70 
 

 

 

packaged LED. Provided below in Table 4.3.3 are luminaire performance projections to 

complement the package and lamp performance projections given in Table 4.3.2. Table 

4.3.3 assumes a linear progression over time from the current 2008 fixture and driver 

efficiency values to eventual fixture and driver efficiency 2015 program targets as given 

in Section 4.1.1. Estimating the factors that affect the performance of an LED luminaire, 

it appears that a cool-white luminaire in 2008 was capable of achieving 62 lm/W 

(although not all did so). By 2015 cool-white luminaire efficacies should reach a 

capability of 151 lm/W. A projected efficacy for a warm-white luminaire is not given 

here as it depends on the details of the light source design. 

Table 4.3.3: Summary of LED Luminaire Performance Projections (at operating 

temperatures) 

Metric 2008 2010 2012 2015 

Package EfficacyCommercial Cool 

White (lm/W, 25 

degrees C) 

108 147 164 188 

Thermal Efficiency 85% 89% 91% 95% 

Efficiency of Driver 85% 87% 89% 92% 

Efficiency of Fixture 80% 83% 87% 92% 

Resultant luminaire 

efficiency 58% 64% 70% 80% 

Luminaire EfficacyCommercial Cool 

White (lm/W) 

62 94 115 151 

Notes: 

1.	 Efficacy projections for cool-white luminaires assume CRI=70 → 80 and a CCT = 4100-6500°K. 

2.	 All projections assume a 350mA drive current, 1mm2

 die size, reasonable package life and 

operating temperature. 

3.	 Luminaire efficacies are obtained by multiplying the resultant luminaire efficiency by the package 

efficacy values. 

Source: LED Technical Committee, Fall 2008 

4.3.3 Organic Light-Emitting Diodes 

In consultation with the OLED Technical Committee, DOE developed price and 

performance projections for white light OLED devices operating in a CCT range from 

2700-4100°K and a CRI of 80 or higher. Two projection estimates are shown: one for 

laboratory prototype OLEDs, and one for (future) commercially available OLEDs. 

Because it is difficult to obtain a highly-efficient blue OLED emitter, similar projections 

for cooler CCT values will have lower efficiencies than their warmer CCT counterparts 

shown below. This is unlike LEDs, where cooler CCT values are more efficient than 

their warmer CCT counterparts. Efficacy projections for OLEDs with a CRI of 90 or 

higher will also be slightly lower than projections shown. 

Date: March 2009 71 
 

 

 

Figure 4.10 (plotted on a logarithmic scale) predicts that the efficacy of laboratory 

prototypes will grow exponentially to reach 150 lm/W by 2012. As noted earlier, only 

one commercial OLED luminaire appears to have been produced for sale as of this 

writing, and in very limited quantities. Given such limited availability for commercial 

OLED lighting products, the estimated efficacies for commercial products are not very 

meaningful but have been assumed to lag approximately three years behind the laboratory 

products. Although the overall SSL program may be expected to continue until 2025 in 

order to achieve technologies capable of full market penetration, the commercial OLED 

efficacy forecast in this section only projects performance to 2015 due to a lack of 

knowledge about the ultimate limit of this technology. These projections assume the CRI 

and CCT mentioned above and a luminance of 1,000 cd/m2

 for a pixel-sized OLED 

device. These projections apply to a white light OLED device with a color point “near” 

the blackbody curve (∆cxy<0.005),57 which may be a necessary criterion to market the 

products for various general illumination applications. The figure indicates CRI and 

CCT values for devices with available CRI and CCT information. A number of actual 

reported results are plotted next to the performance projections, although these specific 

examples may not meet all of the specified criteria. 

80; 3700 

88; 4000 

95; 5200 

95; 4000 

70; 3900 

84; 3800 

1 

10 

100 

1000 

Efficacy (lm/W)

log scale 

Laboratory Projection 

Commercial Product Projection 

Historical - Laboratory 

Historical - Commercial 

Values: CRI; CCT 

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 

Year 

Figure 4.10: White-Light OLED Device Efficacy Targets, Laboratory and Commercial 

(On a logarithmic scale) 

Note: Efficacy projections assume CRI > 80, CCT = 2700-4100°K (“near” blackbody curve (∆cxy <0.005),
 

lifetime > 1000 hrs, luminance of 1,000 cd/m2

, and device-level specification only (driver/luminaire not
 

included). CRI and CCT shown for those devices for which it is known. 

Source: Projections: OLED Technical Committee, Fall 2008; Laboratory Points: Press Releases 

57 ∆cxy is the distance from the blackbody curve in C.I.E. color space. 

Date: March 2009 72 
 

 

Today, the efficacy of OLED devices lags behind LED packages. However, researchers 

are optimistic and when the projections of commercial LEDs and OLEDs are compared 

(see Figure 4.11) the efficacy of OLED products appears to approach that of the LED 

products in the latter part of the current forecast. 

10 

60 

110 

160 

210 

260 

Efficacy (lm/W) 

OLED Commercial 

LED Commercial 

2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 

Year 

Figure 4.11: LED and OLED Device Efficacy Projections, Commercial 

Source: LED and OLED Technical Committees and the Department of Energy, Fall 2008 

Figure 4.12 presents the forecast targets for the OEM price of commercially available 

white-light pixel-sized OLED devices (driver and fixture not included) with a luminance 

of 1,000 cd/m2. The price is expected to fall to $10/klm by 2015, assuming reasonable 

volumes of OLED panels (approximately one square meter in size) are sold. Prices of 

OLEDs may remain around $10/klm after 2015, although future price reductions are 

possible. The OEM device price, measured in $/m2

, is approximately a factor of three 

greater than OLED device price when measured in $/klm for the assumed luminance of 

1,000 cd/m2

. It is important to note that the price projections below are for OLED 

devices and not luminaires. Because an OLED driver and fixture may be less costly than 

that of a conventional lighting source, however, an OLED luminaire with a more 

expensive device may still be cost competitive with a conventional luminaire. 

Date: March 2009 73 
 

 

 

 

1 

10 

100 

1000 

Cost ($/klm or $/m^2)

Log Scale 

$/klm 

$/m^2 

2008 2010 2012 2014 

Year 

Figure 4.12: White-Light OLED Device Price Targets, $/klm and $/m2 

Note: Price targets are displayed on a logarithmic scale. 

Source: OLED Technical Committee, Fall 2008 

The device life for commercial products, defined as 70% lumen maintenance, is expected 

to increase linearly to a value of approximately 50,000 hours in 2015. Although 50% 

lumen maintenance is industry practice for evaluation of OLED displays, 70% lumen 

maintenance58 is used in order to compare lifetimes with other lighting products. 

Table 4.3.4 presents a summary of the OLED performance projections in tabular form. 

Projections below represent the lifetime of the device, not an entire OLED luminaire. 

Although the OLED device may reach long lifetimes, other components of the OLED 

luminaire like the driver may limit the luminaires lifetime. Therefore improving the 

lifetime of these additional components to at least equal that of the OLED device is a goal 

of the SSL program. 

58 Like LED package lifetimes shown in this section, OLED device lifetimes account for the lumen 

maintenance of the OLED but do not account for other failure mechanisms. 

Date: March 2009 74 
 

 

Table 4.3.4: Summary of OLED Device Performance Projections 

Metric 2008 2010 2012 2015 

Efficacy- Lab 

(lm/W) 58 99 150 150 

EfficacyCommercial 

(lm/W) 

N/A 44 76 150 

OEM Device Price-

($/klm) N/A 72 27 10 

OEM Device Price-

($/m2 ) N/A 216 80 30 

Device LifeCommercial Product 

(1000 hours) 

N/A 11 25 50 

Notes: 

1.	 Efficacy projections assume CRI = 80, CCT = 2700-4100°K (“near” blackbody curve 

(∆cxy<0.005), luminance of 1,000 cd/m2

, and device-level specification only (driver/luminaire not 

included). 

2.	 OEM price projections assume CRI = 80, luminance of 1,000 cd/m2

, and device-level specification 

only (driver/luminaire not included). 

3. Device life projections assume CRI = 80, 70% lumen maintenance, and luminance of 1,000 cd/m2

. 

Source: OLED Technical Committee, Fall 2008 

4.3.4 OLEDs in Luminaires 

The table below details a summary of the efficiency losses that occur when considering 

the entire OLED luminaire. Losses in the driver account for the majority of the 

efficiency degradation while losses in the fixture are assumed to be lower. In addition, 

OLEDs do not show significant thermal degradation loss, an effect that required the 

thermal efficiency component for LEDs shown in Table 4.3.3. Again, a linear 

improvement over time is assumed from current 2008 driver and fixture efficiency values 

to 2015 program targets as given in Figure 4.7. The 2010 OLED commercial luminaire 

efficacy projection is 36 lm/W and the 2015 OLED commercial luminaire efficacy 

projection is 122 lm/W, when all of the factors that affect the performance of an OLED 

luminaire are multiplied by the original device efficacy projections. 

Date: March 2009 75 
 

 

Table 4.3.5: Summary of OLED Luminaire Performance Projections beginning 2010 

Metric 2008 2010 2012 2015 

Commercial Device 

Efficacy (lm/W) 

(Table 4.3.4) 

N/A 44 76 150 

Efficiency of Fixture 90% 90% 92% 95% 

Efficiency of Driver 90% 90% 92% 95% 

Total Efficiency 

from Device to 

Luminaire 

81% 81% 85% 90% 

Resulting Luminaire 

EfficacyCommercial Product 

(lm/W) 

N/A 36 65 122 

Notes: 

Efficacy projections assume CRI = 80, CCT = 2700-4100°K (“near” blackbody curve (∆cxy <0.005), 

luminance of 1,000 cd/m2

, and device-level specification only (driver/luminaire not included). 

Source: OLED Technical Committee, Fall 2008 

4.4 Barriers 

The following lists some of the technical, cost, and market barriers to LEDs and OLEDs. 

Overcoming these barriers is essential to the success of the SSL program. 

1.	 Cost: The initial cost of light from LEDs and OLEDs is too high, particularly 

in comparison with conventional lighting technologies such as incandescent 

and fluorescent (see Sections 2.3.2 - 2.3.3). Since the lighting market has 

been strongly focused on low first costs, lifetime benefits notwithstanding, 

lower-cost LED package and OLED device and luminaire materials are 

needed, as well as low-cost, high-volume, reliable manufacturing methods. 

For OLEDs, the cost and future availability of indium, often used in OLED 

electrodes, is of particular concern. 

2.	 Luminous Efficacy: As the primary measure of DOE’s goal of improved 

energy efficiency, the luminous efficacy (lumens/watt) of LED and OLED 

luminaires still need improvement. Although the luminous efficacy of LED 

luminaires has surpassed that of the incandescent lamps, improvement is still 

needed to compete with other conventional lighting solutions. For example, 

the industry must find ways to minimize the amount of “droop” in efficiency 

that occurs at high drive currents for LEDs. Improving red light emission in 

wavelengths specifically for color quality in efficacious lighting would also 

Date: March 2009 76 
 

 

benefit LED lighting products. While laboratory experiments demonstrate 

that OLED devices can be competitively efficacious as compared to 

conventional technologies, no products are yet available. 

3.	 Lifetime: The lifetime of LEDs and OLEDs is defined as the number of hours 

for which the device maintains at least 70% of its initial lumen output. It is 

unclear what lifetimes LED luminaires are achieving. Furthermore, a 

definition of lifetime that focuses on lumen maintenance is inadequate for 

luminaires. Lumen maintenance is only one component of the lifetime of a 

complex system such as a luminaire that may be subject to other failure 

mechanisms like color shifts, reflector degradation, or even catastrophic 

failure. Premature failures due to excessive temperature are still relatively 

common. OLED lifetimes for both devices and luminaires still require 

improvement. The development of a long-lasting blue emitter for OLEDs is 

critical. 

4.	 Testing: The reported lumen output and efficacies of LED and OLED 

products in the market do not always match laboratory tests of performance. 

Improved and standardized testing protocols for performance metrics need to 

be developed. An important barrier appears to be a lack of understanding of 

the meaning of device specifications versus continuous operation in a 

luminaire on the part of designers. Furthermore, accelerated reliability testing 

methods for systems and materials are absolutely necessary for market 

penetration. 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. 

5.	 Lumen Output: LED luminaires are reaching reasonable total lumen output 

levels although many still perceive LEDs as offering only “dim” light, a 

significant market barrier. OLED packages with useful levels of output 

remain yet to be developed. 

6.	 Manufacturing: While OLEDs have been built off of display manufacturing 

capabilities, there has been little investment by manufacturers in the 

infrastructure needed to develop commercial OLED lighting products. A 

breakthrough is necessary to produce low-cost OLEDs for general 

illumination. Lack of process uniformity is an important issue for LEDs and 

is a barrier to reduced costs as well as a problem for uniform quality of light. 

7.	 Codes and Standards: New guidelines for installation and product safety 

certifications such as the UL provided by the Underwriters Laboratory must 

be developed. Common standards for fixture (or socket) sizes, electrical 

supplies and control interfaces may eventually be needed to allow for lamp 

interchangeability. Standard test methods are still lacking in some areas. In 

general, the development of appropriate codes and standards will enable 

consistency from brand to brand and year to year, reducing uncertainty for 

consumers. 

Date: March 2009 77 
 

 

For more information about individual research tasks that address these technical, cost 

and market barriers, refer to Section 4.5. 

4.5 Critical R&D Priorities 

In order to achieve these projections, 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 were updated in the March 2006, March 2007, and 

March 2008 editions of the Multi-Year Program Plan. 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. DOE first held solid-state 

lighting roundtable sessions Washington, D.C. in September of 2008. Further refinement 

occurred through a series of conference calls with members of DOE SSL technical 

committees in the fall of 2008. The tasks were further refined at the February 2009 

“Transformations in Lighting” workshop in San Francisco, CA, where participants 

recommended tasks for prioritization. Using these recommendations, and after further 

internal review, the DOE defined the task priorities for 2009 as follows: 

For LED Core Technology: 

•	 This subtask A.1.2 (Emitter materials research) encourages the development of 

highly-efficient green and deep-red emitters to greatly improve the efficiency of 

color-mixing LED packages. 

•	 Subtask A.1.3 (Down-converters) emphasizes improvements in phosphor lifetime, 

color control, and conversion efficiency, necessary to meet DOE’s long-term LED 

milestones. 

•	 The subtask A.5.1 (Optical component materials) is intended to lay the 

foundations of understanding necessary to reduce degradation over time of 

various optical component materials including diffusers, lenses, adhesives, or 

reflectors, to name a few. 

•	 Subtask A.6.2 (Thermal components research) was prioritized because of the 

variety of thermal issues that exist across various components of the LED 

luminaire, all of which ultimately impact luminaire performance and lifetime. 

•	 Subtask A.6.3 (System reliability methods) is intended to encourage the 

development of high-quality system reliability methods that could lead to 

improved efficiency and can also be used with a variety of LED luminaires. 

For LED Product Development: 

•	 Subtask B.1.2 (Semiconductor materials) was made a priority to further encourage 

the development and deployment of efficient green and deep-red emitters with an 

Date: March 2009 78 
 

 

emphasis on the production of white light with improved droop and thermal 

sensitivity parameters. 

•	 Subtask B.1.3 (Phosphors) was prioritized because advances in phosphors can 

improve LED efficiency as well as color quality, which will both encourage 

market adoption of LED products. 

•	 Subtask B.3.4 (Emitter thermal control) supports the increase in LED thermal 

conductivity in order to increase LED efficacy, reliability, and current density. 

•	 The subtask B.4.2 (Epitaxial growth) is meant to encourage the development of 

growth reactors and monitoring methods that can reproducibly grow advanced 

LEDs at low cost with high uniformity, substantially reducing the cost of LED 

luminaires and increasing the potential for market adoption. 

•	 Subtask B.6.2 (Luminaire thermal management techniques) will support the 

improvement in thermal conductivity in order to substantially improve LED 

luminaire efficacy and reliability. 

•	 Subtask B.6.3 (Optimizing system reliability) will encourage the development of 

consensus as to what methods should be used to assess and model system 

reliability. 

For OLED Core Technology: 

•	 Subtask C.1.1 (Novel device architectures) is intended to encourage the 

development of white-light OLED architectures with increased EQE, improved 

lifetime, and reduced voltage. 

•	 Subtask C.1.2 (Novel materials) will support the development of stable whitelight OLED emitter materials that have the potential for large-scale, low-cost 

production and processing. 

•	 Subtask C.2.2 (Electrode research) is meant to encourage the development of nonITO electrode types with the same performance as ITO or better. The 

prioritization of this subtask could encourage research into two-material 

electrodes, flexible electrodes, p-type and n-type degenerate electrodes, and other 

low-voltage electrodes. 

•	 Subtask C.3.1 (Fabrication technology research) is intended to support the 

creation of practical, scalable techniques for organic material deposition, device 

fabrication, and encapsulation at low cost. 

For OLED Product Development: 

• Subtask D.2.1 (Substrate materials) will encourage the development of low-cost 

OLED substrate materials. These materials can be flexible or non-flexible. 

Date: March 2009 79 
 

 

•	 Subtask D.3.1 (Panel manufacturing technology) will help to address the capital 

and operational costs in manufacturing, which pose a large barrier to cost 

reduction of OLED devices. 

•	 The subtask D.6.1 (Large-area OLED) will support efforts to tackle the significant 

challenges inherent in the creation of a large-area OLED. 

The tables that follow provide a description of the task and defined metrics. There is also 

an estimate of the current status and a target for year 2015. Prioritized tasks for 2009 are 

listed first, and other tasks that were defined during the course of the updating progress 

are listed next. 

Date: March 2009 80 
Table 4.5.1: LED Priority Core Technology Tasks for 2009 

Task Description Metric 2008 Status 

LED Priority Core Technology Tasks for 2009 A.1.2 Emitter materials research Focus on the development of efficient green and deep- red emitters with low droop and minimal thermal sensitivity and continue improvement in blue LEDs. IQE across the visible spectrum at high current densities 20% green (540 nm)

75% red, 80% blue59 

A.1.3 Down-converters 

High-efficiency wavelength conversion materials for improved quantum yield, optical efficiency, and color stability. Explore novel approaches to conversion. 

Quantum Yield;60 

Scattering Losses; Color Stability 

Quantum Yield=80% warm, 95% cool; Sca10%; Color Shift .01over life 

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 blue-light exposure, and wet or moist environments. 

Transmission Across Visible Spectrum; Lifetime 

A.6.2 Thermal components research Research and develop novel thermal materials and devices that can be applied to solid-state LED products. 

LED Source Junction Temperature Maintenance Improvement Relative to 2008 

Baseline 

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. 

Model Accuracy vs. Experiment 

Some testing methodavailable for device lumen depreciation (LM-80) 

59 IQE status and projections assume pulsed measurements at 350 mA drive currents with a 1x1mm2 chip and Tj = 25oC. 60 Quantum Yield is measured at a pumped wavelength of 450 nm unless otherwise specified. 

Date: March 2009 81 
Table 4.5.2: LED Priority Product Development Tasks for 2009 

Task Description Metric 2008 Status 

LED Priority Product Development Tasks for 2009 B.1.2 Semiconductor materials Improve IQE at optimal wavelengths for producing white light across the visible spectrum (red: 610nm; green: 540nm). Improve droop and thermal sensitivity. IQE across the visible spectrum at high current densities 20% green (540 nm),75% red (610 nm), 80% blue 

B.1.3 Phosphors 

Optimize phosphors for LED white light applications, including color uniformity, color maintenance, thermal sensitivity and stability. 

Quantum Yield; Scattering Losses; Color Stability; Temperature Stability 

Quantum Yield=80% warm, 95% cool; Scat. 10%; Color Shift <.012 

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. 

Thermal Resistance (junction to case) for 1W 1mm2 singlechip package 

10oC/W general; some at 5oC/W 

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 materialsuse efficiency. 

Date: March 2009 82 
Table 4.5.2: LED Priority Product Development Tasks for 2009 (Continued) 

Task Description Metric 2008 Status 

LED Priority Product Development Tasks for 2009 B.6.2 

Luminaire thermal management techniques 

Design low-cost integrated thermal management techniques to protect the LED source, maintain the luminaire efficiency and color quality. 

Lumen Output of luminaire at steady state operating temperature relative to lumen output of luminaire at 25°C 

B.6.3 Optimizing system reliability Optimize and verify overall luminaire reliability. Includes system reliability analysis to determine failure mechanisms and improve. Mean Time to Failure (either catastrophic or lumen depreciation below 70%) 

Date: March 2009 83 
Table 4.5.3: Other Identified LED Core Technology Tasks 

Task Description Metric 2008 Status 

Other Identified LED Core Technology Tasks A.1.1 Alternative substrates Explore alternative practical substrate materials and growth for high-quality epitaxy so that device quality can be improved. 

Performance Potential Improvement Over Conventional 

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. 

Chip Extraction Efficiency (

χ); 

Phosphor Conversion Efficiency 

Chip Extraction Efficiency=80% green (540 nm), 50% red (610 nm), 80% blue; Phosphor Conversion Efficiency=65% 

A.2.2 

Novel emitter materials and architectures 

Devise alternative emitter geometries and emission mechanisms in manufacturable configurations that show genuine improvement over existing approaches. (Possible examples: quantum dots, monolithic integrated RGB, 360 degree emitters, etc.) 

EQE 64% 

A.3.4 Thermal control research Simulation of solutions to thermal management issues at the package or array level. Innovative thermal management solutions. Thermal Resistance (junction to case) 

A.4.4 Manufacturing simulation Develop manufacturing simulation approaches that will help to improve yield and quality of LED products. 

Date: March 2009 84 
Table 4.5.3: Other Identified LED Core Technology Tasks (Continued) 

Task Description Metric 2008 Status 

Other Identified LED Core Technology Tasks 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. 

Driver Efficiency; Lifetime at Operating Temperature 

Driver Efficiency=85%; Lifetime at Operating Temp=40 kHrs 

A.7.5 Electronics reliability research Develop designs that improve and methods to predict the lifetime of electronics components in the SSL luminaire. 

Accuracy of Predictive Model vs. Long Term Actual Results or Potential Lifetime Improvement for a novel design approach 

Date: March 2009 85 
Table 4.5.4: Other Identified LED Product Development Tasks 

Task Description Metric 2008 Status 

Other Identified LED Product Development Tasks B.1.1 Substrate development Develop low-cost, high-quality substrates that enable epitaxial growth of high-quality emitting material. Cost of Substrate ($/klm); Defect Density 

B.2.3 Electrical 

Reduce the operating voltage of LED chips or arrays by increasing lateral conductivity or architectural improvements or package design, etc. 

Operating Voltage 

B.3.1 LED package optics Beam-shaping or color-mixing at the LED package or array level. Optical/Fixture Efficiency 80% 

B.3.2 Encapsulation Develop a thermal/photo-resistant encapsulant that exhibits long life and has a high refractive index.61 

% of Original Transmission Per mm at 150oC 

and 10-15 kHrs 

85-90% 

B.3.5 Environmental sensitivity Develop and extensively characterize a packaged LED with significant improvements in lifetime associated with the design methods or materials. Mean Time to Failure 

61 The temperature reference in the metric may change to 185oC as efficiency goals are met and cost becomes a higher priority. 

Date: March 2009 86 
Table 4.5.4: Other Identified LED Product Development Tasks (Continued) 

Task Description Metric 2008 Status 

Other Identified LED Product Development Tasks B.3.6 Package architecture 

Demonstrate a packaged chip or multi-chip product employing practical, low-cost designs, materials, or methods for improving light outcoupling and removing heat from the chip to produce a product with high total lumen output efficiently. 

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.4.3 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. 

Useful Light Output from Luminaire/Total Light Generated by LED Source 

80% 

B.5.2 Color maintenance Ensure luminaire optical components maintain the LED source color quality over the life of the luminaire. 

Color maintenance within X-step MacAdam Ellipse over time 

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. 

Optical Loss measured as part of the luminaire optical system; Lifetime 

Date: March 2009 87 
Table 4.5.4: Other Identified LED Product Development Tasks (Continued) 

Task Description Metric 2008 Status 

Other Identified LED Product Development Tasks 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.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. 

Color Shift over the life of the luminaire; Efficiency of Control Electronics 

B.7.2 Color tuning Develop efficient electronic controls that allow a user to set the color point of the luminaire. 

Efficiency of Control Electronics; OffState Power Consumption; Accuracy of Color-Setting 

Date: March 2009 88 
Table 4.5.4: Other Identified LED Product Development Tasks (Continued) 

Task Description Metric 2008 Status 

Other Identified LED Product Development Tasks 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. 

Efficiency of Control Electronics; OffState Power Consumption; Power Saved 

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. 

Driver Efficiency @120V and 25W; Lifetime at Operating Temperature; Cost; Plug to Chip Efficiency @120V and 25W 

Driver Efficiency=85%; Lifetime at Operating Temp=40 kHrs 

Date: March 2009 89 
Table 4.5.5: OLED Priority Core Technology Tasks for 2009 

Task Description Metric 2008 Status 

OLED Priority Core Technology Tasks for 2009 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. 

EQE; Voltage; L70 

36% EQE including light extraction enhancements; L50=20kHrs 

C.1.2 Novel materials 

Organic materials or contact materials to achieve white light: increase IQE, reduce voltage and improve device lifetime. Explores novel materials that can be used to emit light (especially blue) highly efficiently with the ultimate goal of generating highly-efficient white light. The materials should be inherently stable against moisture and temperature and should have the potential for large scale manufacture at low cost. 

Voltage @ 1mA/cm2; L70; 

EQE without extraction enhancement; L70; CCT;62 CRI 

L50=20kHrs; 29% 

EQE; 3900K CCT; 7CRI63 

C.2.2 Electrode research 

Develop a novel transparent electrode with low resistivity to serve as a lower cost replacement for ITO with the same or better performance. This electrode should be inherently stable against moisture and temperature. Areas of research may include p-type and n-type degenerate electrodes, two-material electrodes, electrodes that reduce I*R loss, flexible electrodes, or other low-voltage electrodes. 

Ohms/Square; Transparency and absorption over the visible spectrum 

Non-ITO electrode: 40 Ohms/Square; 75­80% Transparency; ITO: <10 ohms/sq; 92% transparency 

C.3.1 Fabrication technology research 

Develop new practical techniques for organic materials deposition, device fabrication, or encapsulation. Could also include developing a physical, chemical, or optical model for fabrication of OLED devices. Should show potential for scalability and low cost. 

Material Use; Uniformity 

<5% Material Utilization; Uniformity of <5% thickness variation over device area 

62 CRI and CCT metrics are useful only if color point is <0.005 distance away from black-body locus in CIE color space. 63 Lack of standardized testing in OLEDs results in significant variation in the status of this task. 

Date: March 2009 90 
Table 4.5.6: OLED Priority Product Development Tasks for 2009 

Task Description Metric 2008 Status 

OLED Priority Product Development Tasks for 2009 D.2.1 Substrate materials 

Demonstrate an OLED with reasonable performance and low degradation using a substrate material that is lowcost and shows reduced water and oxygen permeability. Other considerations may include processing and operational stability, weight, cost, optical and barrier properties, and flexibility. 

$/m2 including 

substrate plus TCO or equivalent; Water Permeability; Oxygen Permeability; Lifetime as compared to existing technology 

Glass: $50/m2 w/o 

TCO, no Water Permeability; Flexible: $100/m2, 10

6 g/m2-day Water 

Permeability

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. 

Capital Cost; Material Use; Deposition Rate; Uniformity; Total Actual Cycle (TAC) Time; $/klm, klm/time 

Deposition Rate=5 min/m2 

D.6.1 Large-area OLED 

Investigate barriers unique to the fabrication of OLED panels (assemblies of devices). Demonstrate a highefficiency OLED panel with good thermal performance, employing low-cost designs and materials and with the potential for large-scale manufacturing. Demonstrate that the panel reduces conductive (I*R) losses, defect density, or shorting density and increases color and luminance uniformity of light. Areas of focus may include light extraction and encapsulation techniques suitable for large-area panels. 

Lumen Output; Color; X-step MacAdam Ellipse away from Planckian locus 

Date: March 2009 91 
Table 4.5.7: Other Identified OLED Core Technology Tasks 

Task Description Metric 2008 Status 

Other Identified OLED Core Technology Tasks 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. L70 L50=20 kHrs 

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. 

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. 

C.6.3 Light extraction approaches Devise new optical and panel designs for improving OLED panel light extraction. Light Extraction Efficiency 40% 

Date: March 2009 92 
Table 4.5.8: Other Identified OLED Product Development Tasks 

Task Description Metric 2008 Status 

Other Identified OLED Product Development Tasks D.1.1 

Practical 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. 

Efficacy; L70; 

Lumen Output; CRI;64 CCT 

102 lm/W; L50=20kHrs; 70 CRI 

D.1.5 Device failure Understand the failure modes of an OLED at the device level. L70 L50=20 kHrs 

D.2.2 Low-cost electrodes 

Demonstrate a high-efficiency OLED employing a transparent electrode technology that is low-cost, lowvoltage, and stable, with the potential for large-scale manufacturing. Design could include a conducting grid. 

Effective Ohms/Square; Transparency over the visible spectrum; $/m2 

(material + deposition) 

<10 Ohms/sq; 92% Transparency; Cost ~ $20/m2 

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. 

64 CRI and CCT metrics are useful only if color point is <0.005 distance away from black-body locus in CIE color space. 

Date: March 2009 93 
Table 4.5.8: Other Identified OLED Product Development Tasks (Continued) 

Task Description Metric 2008 Status 

Other Identified OLED Product Development Tasks 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. 

Useful light output from luminaire/total light generated by OLED panel 

90% 

D.4.2 Luminaire mechanical design 

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. 

Luminaire Efficacy; Lifetime; Cost; Lumen Output 

No product existing 

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. 

Lifetime; Case Temperature 

D.4.5 Electrical interconnects Develop standard connections for integration of OLED panels into the luminaire. 

Date: March 2009 94 
Table 4.5.8: Other Identified OLED Product Development Tasks (Continued) 

Task Description Metric 2008 Status 

Other Identified OLED Product Development Tasks 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. 

Color shift over luminaire lifetime; Efficiency of control electronics 

D.5.2 Smart controls Develop integrated lighting controls and sensors that save energy over the life of the luminaire. 

Efficiency of control electronics; Offstate power consumption; Power saved 

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. 

Conversion efficiency; component lifetime; Cost; Color maintenance at low light levels 

Date: March 2009 95 
Table 4.5.8: Other Identified OLED Product Development Tasks (Continued) 

Task Description Metric 2008 Status 

Other Identified OLED Product Development Tasks D.6.2 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 fields should also be considered. Demonstrate a high-efficiency OLED panel that employs such a packaging design and exhibits improved lifetime. 

Light Extraction Efficiency; Panel Operating Lifetime; Panel Shelf Life; $/m2; 

Water and Oxygen Permeability 

D.6.3 Panel outcoupling Demonstrate manufacturable approaches to fabricate OLED panels with improved light extraction efficiency. Light Extraction Efficiency 

D.6.4 Panel reliability 

Analyze and understand failure mechanisms of OLED panels and demonstrate a packaged OLED panel with significant improvements in lifetime. 

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: March 2009 96 
 

 

 

4.6 Interim Product Goals 

To provide some concrete measures of progress for the overall program, the committee 

identified several milestones that will mark progress over the next ten years. These 

milestones 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 emphasize the identified milestone. 

4.6.1 Light-Emitting Diodes 

The FY08 LED milestone goal was to produce an LED product with an efficacy of 80 

lm/W, an OEM price of $25/klm (device only), and a life of 50,000 hrs with a CRI 

greater than 80 and a CCT less than 5000K. These performance characteristics represent 

a “good” general illumination product that can achieve significant market penetration. 

These goals have been met individually. In fact, some commercial products have 

achieved device efficacies greater than 100 lm/W. However, all of the milestone targets 

have not been met concurrently in a single product. For example, a commercial LED that 

has an efficacy of 80 lm/W is currently priced much higher than $25/klm. 

FY10 and FY15 milestones represent efficacy or price targets of LED packages with a 

lifetime of 70,000 hrs. Although all milestones in FY08 were not met concurrently, it is 

expected that the FY10 interim goals of 140 lm/W and a cost <$10/klm for a commercial 

device will be exceeded. Also, DOE expects to see a high efficiency luminaire on the 

market by 2012 that has the equivalent lumen output of a 75W incandescent bulb and an 

efficacy of 126 lm/W. Finally, by FY15, costs should be below $2/klm for LED 

packages while also meeting other performance goals. 

Date: March 2009 97 
 

 

Table 4.6.1: LED Package Milestones 

Milestone Year Milestone Target 

Milestone 1 FY08 80 lm/W, < $25/klm, 50,000 hrs package 

Milestone 2 FY10 > 140 lm/W cool white package; >90 lm/W warm 

white package; < $10/klm 

Milestone 3 FY12 126 lm/W luminaire that emits ~1000 lumens 

Milestone 4 FY15 < $2/klm package 

Assumption: CRI > 80, CCT < 5000°K, Tj = 125oC 

LED subtasks are shown in four phases of development corresponding to the four 

milestones. The first phase, essentially complete, is to develop a reasonably efficient 

white LED package that is sufficient for the lighting market. Phase 2 is to further 

improve efficiency while further decreasing price in order to realize the best possible 

energy savings. This phase should be completed in about two years. Developing a more 

efficient luminaire is the thrust of Phase 3, 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. 

4.6.2 Organic Light-Emitting Diodes 

The FY08 OLED milestone was to produce an OLED niche product with an efficacy of 

25 lm/W, an OEM price of $100/klm (device only), and a life of 5,000 hrs, with a CRI 

greater than 80 and a CCT between 3,000-4,000K. A luminance of 1000 cd/m2 and a 

lumen output greater than 500 lumens should be assumed as a reference level in order to 

compare the accomplishments of different researchers. That is not to say that lighting 

products may not be designed at higher luminance or higher light output levels. 

Although current laboratory devices have reached efficacies between 25 and 102 lm/W 

(at reasonable life, luminance, and CCT), there appears to be just one niche OLED 

product available in the marketplace for general illumination applications. This is a table 

lamp produced by the designer Ingo Maurer and sold in limited quantities. The lamp is 

shown in Figure 4.4 at the beginning of this chapter. With an efficacy of 20 lm/W, it does 

not appear to meet the milestone precisely. The other parameters for this product are 

unknown at this time but the price point has undoubtedly also not been met. 

According to industry experts, major manufacturers are likely to wait for OLED 

laboratory prototypes to achieve higher efficacies before investing in the manufacturing 

infrastructure to produce high efficacy, competitively priced OLED products for general 

illumination purposes. Milestone 2 targets an efficacy of greater than 45 lm/W by FY10. 

At this point the lifetime should be around 5,000 hours. Reaching a marketable price for 

an OLED lighting product is seen as one of the critical steps to getting this technology 

into general use because of the large area of OLED panels, so although the FY08 

milestone may be late in coming, cost reduction remains the focus of the milestone for 

Date: March 2009 98 
 

 

 

 

 

FY12.65 By FY15 the target is to get a 100 lm/W OLED panel. Cost and lifetime should 

show continuous improvement as well. 

Table 4.6.2: OLED Panel Milestones 

Milestone Year Milestone Target 

Milestone 1 FY08 25 lm/W, < $100/klm, 5,000 hrs 

Milestone 2 FY10 > 45 lm/W 

Milestone 3 FY12 < $30/klm 

Milestone 4 FY15 > 100 lm/W 

Assumptions: CRI > 80, CCT < 2700-4100K and luminance = 1,000 cd/m2, and total output ≥ 500 lumens 

for an OLED panel. All milestones assume continuing progress in the other overarching parameters - 

lifetime and cost. 

4.7 Unaddressed Opportunities 

Funding for the research tasks for LEDs and OLEDs is allocated, to the extent possible, 

according to the priorities agreed upon by the LED and OLED Technical Committees, 

DOE, and the annual SSL workshops. These priorities are updated annually based on 

actual progress, as described in this document. The task priorities represent estimates at 

the time of publication as to how best to achieve the program goals, recognizing that 

there are limits to how much can addressed in any year. This process may leave some 

critical tasks unfunded at any given time. These obviously represent unaddressed 

opportunities to accelerate the program or improve performance. This is simply one 

aspect of managing technology risk, which DOE believes is currently under control. 

One area of potential development is to more strongly support improved manufacturing 

of the products. Though this area is outside the scope of the current program, a 

development in this area would represent a substantial opportunity for the industry and 

the country. Several potential benefits of such support are: 

•	 Improved uniformity of processes would improve yields and lower costs as well 

as increase consumer confidence in the quality of SSL products by reducing 

variations of color and other parameters of manufactured SSL systems. 

•	 Advanced automation methods could reduce labor content and potentially make 

domestic production - “made in the USA” - a more attractive option than it is 

today. Currently a considerable amount of LED die production and packaging 

occurs in Asia, although there are a few notable exceptions for white lighting. It 

would be beneficial to retain or grow this domestic capability. 

•	 For OLEDs, the manufacturing issue is particularly acute since the needs for 

displays, the apparent synergistic technology, are actually quite different from 

65 Initially, cost reductions were targeted for FY10, however this was moved to FY12 for the 2009 report as 

products have just begun to enter the market. 

Date: March 2009 99 
 

 

 

what is needed for lighting. This makes the issue of cost reduction a barrier to this 

technology. In particular, fabrication technology breakthroughs are needed to 

produce large-area OLED panels uniformly with low cost. 

While some manufacturing subtasks can be prioritized for core R&D, there is not 

sufficient funding at this time to support advanced manufacturing development to the 

extent contemplated above. 

Date: March 2009 100 
 

5.0 Solid-State Lighting Portfolio Management Plan 

DOE’s SSL R&D program is guided by the seven principles of Government – SSL 

Industry Partnership. Working through the competitive solicitation process, these seven 

guiding principles position DOE’s research partners and projects for success: 

1.	 Emphasis on competition 

2.	 Cost- (and risk-) sharing – exceeding Energy Policy Act of 1992 cost-share 

requirements 

3.	 SSL industry partners involved in planning and funding 

4.	 Targeted research for focused R&D needs 

5.	 Innovative intellectual property provisions 

6.	 Open information and process 

7.	 Success determined by milestones met and ultimately energy-efficient, long-life, 

and cost-competitive products developed 

This chapter presents each of the aspects of the SSL Portfolio management plan, 

including: (1) Doe SSL Strategy, (2) the SSL Operational Plan, (3) the Portfolio 

Decision-Making Process, (4) the SSL Quality Control and Evaluation Plan, (5) the 

Stage-Gate Project Management plan, and the (6) Solid-State Lighting 

Commercialization Support Plan. 

5.1 DOE Solid-State Lighting Strategy 

The U.S. Department of Energy’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 Science, Core 

Technology Research, Product Development, Commercialization Support, Standards 

Development, and an SSL Partnership. Figure 5.1 shows the connections and 

interrelations ships between these elements of the program. 

Figure 5.1: Interrelationships within DOE Solid-State Lighting Activities 

Date: March 2009	 101 
 

Basic research advances fundamental understanding. Projects conducted by the Basic 

Energy Science Program focus on answering basic scientific questions that underlie DOE 

mission needs. These projects target principles of physics, chemistry, and the materials 

sciences, including knowledge of electronic and optical processes that enable 

development of new synthesis techniques and novel materials. 

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 about 

a subject. These projects fill technology gaps, provide enabling knowledge or data, and 

represent a significant advance in our knowledge base. They focus on applied research 

for technology development, with particular emphasis on meeting technical targets for 

performance and cost. 

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. 

Commercialization support activities facilitate market readiness. To ensure that 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: 

•	 ENERGY STAR® designation for SSL technologies and products 

•	 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 highquality, energy-efficient SSL products to the market, and that link these 

products to volume buyers 

•	 Coordination with utility, regional, and national market transformation 

programs. 

Date: March 2009	 102 
 

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. 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 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 

• Supporting DOE voluntary market-oriented programs. 

Standards Development Enables Meaningful Performance Measurement. LEDs 

differ significantly from traditional light sources, and new test procedures and industry 

standards are needed to measure their performance. DOE provides national leadership 

and support for this effort, working closely with IESNA, NEMA, NGLIA, ANSI, and 

other standards setting organizations to accelerate the standards development process, 

facilitate ongoing collaboration, and offer technical assistance. National standards and 

rating systems for new SSL products are expected to be issued in early 2008. 

5.2 SSL Operational Plan 

DOE has structured an operational plan for SSL R&D (see Figure 5.2) that features two 

concurrent, interactive pathways. Core Technology research is conducted primarily by 

academia, national laboratories, and research institutions. Product Development is 

conducted primarily by industry. Although the pathways and participants described here 

are typical, some cross-over does occur. For example, a product development project 

conducted by industry may include focused, short-term applied research, as long as its 

relevance to a specific product is clearly identified and the industry organization abides 

by the solicitation provisions. The operational structure also includes innovative 

intellectual property provisions and an SSL Partnership that provides significant input 

to shape the Core Technology priorities. 

Date: March 2009 103 
 

Figure 5.2: Structure of DOE SSL Operational Plan 

SSL Partnership. In 2004, DOE competitively selected an SSL Partnership composed of 

manufacturers and allies that are individually or collaboratively capable of manufacturing 

and marketing the desired SSL products. Partnership members must comply with 

pertinent DOE guidelines on U.S.-based research and product development. A key 

function of the SSL Partnership related to R&D is to provide input to shape the R&D 

priorities. As SSL technologies mature, any research gaps identified are filled through 

Core Technology research—allowing the SSL industry to continue their development 

process, while much-needed breakthrough technologies are created in parallel. The 

Partnership members confer among themselves and communicate their R&D needs to 

DOE program managers, who in turn, shape these needs into the Core Technology 

solicitations. 

Core Technology. Core Technology research provides the focused research needed to 

advance SSL technology—research that is typically longer-term in nature and not the 

focus of sustained industry investment. DOE funds these research efforts primarily at 

universities, national laboratories, and other research institutions through one or more 

competitive solicitations. Core Technology research supports the SSL program by 

providing problem-solving research to overcome barriers. 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 license. At DOE’s 

discretion, Core Technology projects are peer-reviewed by Government personnel, 

independent organizations, and consultants. 

Product Development. DOE solicits proposals from interested companies (or teams of 

companies) for product development, demonstrations, and market conditioning. DOE 

expects these proposals to include comprehensive work plans to develop a specific SSL 

product or product family. Since 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 

Date: March 2009 104 
 

not only have all the technical requirements to develop the desired SSL technology, but 

also must have reasonable access to manufacturing capabilities and targeted markets to 

quickly move their SSL product from the industry laboratory to the marketplace. 

High-Level Timeline. Figure 5.3 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, Core Technology to National Labs (Lab Call), and the 

SSL Product Development 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)
 

•	 At DOE’s discretion, provide a peer review of Core Technology and Product 

Development projects 

•	 Provide individual project reviews by DOE 

Figure 5.3: SSL Operational Plan Process 

5.3 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. The portfolio decisionmaking process is based upon (1) the output of R&D planning workshops, (2) a 

competitive solicitation process based on the seven guiding principles of the SSL 

program (see Section 5.3.3), and (3) consultation with the SSL partnership. Each of these 

three components of the portfolio decision making process is discussed below. 

5.3.1 Consultative Workshops 

The SSL R&D program hosts consultative workshops every one to two years to solicit 

input from industry and researchers on the near-term priority R&D activities. Stakeholder 

consultation and participation are integral to the SSL R&D agenda planning process. 

Industry, national laboratories, and academia participated in the R&D agenda planning 

process to provide input to future SSL R&D Portfolio priorities DOE may pursue through 

several consultative workshops held by DOE: 

Date: March 2009	 105 
 

•	 March 2009. Denver, CA. CALiPER roundtable to gather feedback from SSL 

representatives on CALiPER test results and procedures as well as additional testing 

needs for SSL. 

•	 February 2009. San Francisco, CA. Planning workshop to further refine and reprioritize 

DOE’s SSL R&D research portfolio. 

•	 September 2008. Washington, DC. Roundtable session with SSL researchers and 

industry representatives to begin the reprioritization of DOE’s SSL R&D research 

portfolio. 

•	 July 2008. Portland, OR. Planning workshop for DOE and outside experts to address 

market introduction of solid-state lighting. 

•	 May 2008. Washington, DC. Workshop for manufacturers to review the DOE 

ENERGY STAR criteria for SSL, the status of related test procedures, and the program 

launch and qualification process. 

•	 March 2008. Chicago, IL. Workshop with the International Association of Lighting 

Designers to examine SSL market and technology issues and gather feedback on 

designers’ experiences and recommendations for SSL. 

•	 January 2008. Atlanta, GA. Planning workshop on LEDs and OLEDs to review and 

reprioritize DOE’s SSL R&D portfolio. 

•	 November 2007. Washington, DC. CALiPER roundtable to solicit feedback on 

CALiPER test results and procedures and additional testing needs for SSL. 

•	 July 2007. Boston, MA. Workshop to explore how federal, state and private sectors can 

work together to guide the market introduction of SSL products. 

•	 April 2007. Pasadena, CA. Workshop to explore how federal, state and private sectors 

can work together to guide the market introduction of SSL products. 

•	 January 2007. Phoenix, AZ. Planning workshop on LEDs and OLEDs to review and 

reprioritize DOE’s SSL R&D portfolio. 

•	 May 2006. Bethesda, MD: Workshop to bring together SSL experts to address the 

Basic Energy Science Research needs for SSL. 

•	 February 2006. Orlando, FL: Workshop to bring together SSL experts to address multidisciplinary, multi-industry, science-to-market challenges facing SSL technology 

•	 February 2005. San Diego CA: Planning workshop on LEDs and OLEDs to reprioritize DOE’s SSL R&D portfolio. 

Date: March 2009	 106 
 

 

•	 November 2003. Crystal City, VA: Planning workshop on LEDs and OLEDs to review 

and prioritize DOE’s SSL R&D portfolio. 

•	 May 2002. Albuquerque, NM: LED technical workshop to refine targets, challenges 

and approaches. 

•	 April 2002. Berkeley, CA: OLED technical workshop to refine targets, challenges and 

approaches. 

•	 November 2000. Berkeley, CA: OLEDs for general illumination. 

•	 October 2000. Albuquerque, NM: LEDs for general illumination. 

The February 2005 workshop, held in San Diego, had four primary goals: (1) to convey 

DOE’s vision for SSL technology to the R&D community, (2) to present the broad-based 

government funding opportunities related to SSL, (3) to communicate current successes 

and challenges for SSL from an industry perspective, and (4) to prioritize the SSL R&D 

tasks to ensure a focused, quality research agenda. One hundred seventy participants from 

industry, universities, trade associations, research institutions, and national laboratories 

reviewed, discussed, and prioritized more than sixty-five research and development tasks 

and subtasks within the DOE SSL R&D agenda. DOE considers input from these 

consultative workshops and other sources when developing its needs statements for 

future SSL solicitations. The results of the prioritization process from the 2005 workshop 

have been published in a DOE report.66 

The February 2006 workshop, held in Orlando, Florida, focused on advancing SSL 

technologies from the laboratory to the marketplace. This workshop represented the third 

annual meeting of DOE's program to accelerate advances in SSL technology, and 

included for the first time a Basic Energy Sciences (BES) Contractors' Meeting. This 

format enabled BES and SSL researchers to exchange research highlights and results, 

identify needs, and foster new ideas and collaborations. Specifically, the workshop 

provided a forum for sharing updates on basic research underlying SSL technology, SSL 

core technology research, product development, commercialization support, and the 

ultimate goal of bringing energy-efficient, cost-competitive products to the market. 

The January-February 2007 workshop, held in Phoenix, Arizona, was the fourth annual 

DOE SSL workshop. This workshop focused on “Getting SSL to Market” by providing a 

forum for building partnerships and strategies to accelerate technology advances and 

guide market introduction of high efficiency, high-performance SSL products. In 

addition, workshop participants were able to review and comment on proposed revisions 

66 “Solid-State Lighting Program Planning Workshop Report”, April 2005, Navigant Consulting. Available 

at http://www.netl.doe.gov/ssl/PDFs/DOE_SSL_Workshop_Report_Feb2005.pdf. 

Date: March 2009	 107 
 

 

to the DOE SSL R&D roadmap priorities. The results of the prioritization process from 

the 2006 workshop have been published in a DOE report.67 

The February 2008 workshop, held in Atlanta, GA, also focused on advancing SSL 

technologies from the laboratory to the marketplace. The workshop, entitled 

“Transformations in Lighting,” represented the fifth annual meeting of DOE's program to 

accelerate advances in SSL technology. This workshop provided a forum for lighting 

industry leaders, fixture manufacturers, researchers, academia, trade associations, lighting 

designers, energy efficiency organizations, and utilities to share perspectives on the 

rapidly evolving SSL market. 

The February 2009 workshop represented DOE’s sixth annual SSL R&D workshop. 

Lighting industry leaders, chip makers, fixture manufacturers, researchers, academics, 

lighting designers, architects, trade association representatives, energy efficiency 

organization representatives, and representatives of utilities gathered in San Francisco to 

share insights and updates on technology advances and market developments. Attendees 

also had an opportunity to provide input that will guide updates to the DOE SSL R&D 

Multi-Year Program Plan. 

5.3.2 BES Workshop and Coordination 

The U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Science, Basic Energy Sciences Program, and 

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Program, 

hosted a workshop on May 22-24, 2006 in Bethesda, Maryland, focused on basic research 

needs for solid-state lighting (SSL). James Brodrick, DOE Lighting Program Manager, 

provided an overview of the EERE/BTP SSL portfolio strategy, a comprehensive 

approach that includes coordination with the BES Program as well as core technology 

research, product development, commercialization support, DOE ENERGY STAR® 

criteria for SSL, standards development, and an SSL partnership with industry. At the 

workshop, scientists from leading universities and national laboratories identified basic 

research needs and opportunities underlying light-emitting diode and related 

technologies, with a focus on challenges that impact on energy-efficient SSL. The 

research directions identified at this workshop will impact DOE program planning in the 

future. 

5.3.3 Competitive Solicitations 

The SSL R&D program has two separate funding mechanisms, one directed at core 

technology researchers, and the other at product developers. The Core Technology 

competitive solicitation works to ensure that the R&D portfolio addresses research in to 

technologies that can be readily and widely applied to existing and future lighting 

products. Applications are sought that are truly innovative and groundbreaking, fill 

technology gaps, provide enabling knowledge or data, and represent a significant 

advancement in the SSL technology base. The Product Development solicitation works 

67 “Solid-State Lighting Program Planning Workshop Report”, April 2005, Navigant Consulting. Available 

at: http://www.netl.doe.gov/ssl/PDFs/07SSLWorkshop%20Report_3.pdf 

Date: March 2009 108 
 

 

 

to solicit applications from industrial organizations that examine high priority product 

development activities to move SSL beyond its present nascent state. These funding 

opportunities seek to advance and promote the collaborative atmosphere of the LR&D 

SSL program to identify product concepts and develop ideas that are novel, innovative 

and groundbreaking. 

5.3.4 Cooperative Agreements 

Because the purpose of the SSL Program is to develop advanced solid-state lighting 

technologies that are much more energy-efficient, longer-lasting and cost-competitive, 

the program uses financial assistance awards.68 In addition, there are 2 types of financial 

assistance, specifically, cooperative agreements and grants. Cooperative agreements and 

grants are the same except cooperative agreements include “substantial involvement” by 

the government. Given the innovative structure of the SSL Program, it is imperative that 

the government be given the opportunity to assist the Recipients, the entity awarded the 

cooperative agreement, in managing the project to successful completion The role of the 

federal Project Manager is: 

•	 Responsible for all technical aspects of project management of all SSL projects 

•	 Primary interface with Recipients and Principal Investigators 

•	 Provides technical direction when necessary by preparing modifications to the 

Recipient’s statement of project objectives or schedule of deliverables. All 

technical direction is documented and officially approved by the Contracting 

Officer 

•	 Provides technical input when necessary on field work plans, milestones or any 

other project aspect that does not require approval by the Contracting Officer. 

•	 Receives, reviews and accepts all project deliverables. 

5.3.5 Government-Industry Alliance 

In February 2005, DOE signed a Memorandum of Agreement with the Next Generation 

Lighting Industry Alliance, creating and clarifying the expectations for the Partnership. 

The NGLIA, administered by NEMA, is an alliance of for-profit corporations, established 

to accelerate SSL development and commercialization through government-industry 

partnership. As of June 2008, the NGLIA was made up of fifteen corporations 3M, 

Acuity Brands Lighting, Air Products & Chemicals, Inc., Applied Materials, Inc., CAO 

Group Inc., Corning, Inc., Cree Inc., Eastman Kodak Company, GE-Lumination, 

Lumination LLC, Light Prescriptions Innovators, LLC (LPI, LLC), LSI Industries, 

OSRAM Sylvania Inc., Philips Solid-State Lighting Solutions, QuNano, Inc., and Ruud 

68 Financial Assistance awards are used when the principal purpose of the relationship is to affect a public 

purpose of support or stimulation. In contrary, an acquisition contract is used when the principal purpose is 

to acquire goods and services for the direct benefit or use of the Federal Government 

Date: March 2009	 109 
 

 

 

 

Lighting, Inc.69  though NEMA is actively seeking to extend membership to any firms 

active in SSL R&D. 

In selecting the NGLIA to serve as its partner, DOE improved its access to the technical 

expertise of the organization’s members. The Alliance provides input to shape DOE’s 

SSL R&D program priorities, and as requested by DOE, provides technical expertise for 

proposal and project reviews. In addition, the Alliance will accelerate the 

implementation of SSL technologies by: 

•	 Communicating SSL program accomplishments 

•	 Encouraging the development of metrics, codes, and standards 

•	 Promoting demonstrations of SSL technologies for general lighting applications 

•	 Supporting DOE voluntary market-oriented programs 

The NGLIA’s mission involves public advocacy on issues related to SSL, promotion and 

support of SSL technology and DOE’s research program in SSL, and facilitation of 

communications among members and other organizations with substantial interest in the 

NGLIA activities. For more information on NGLIA, see their website at: 

http://www.nglia.org. To see a complete version of the MOA, see Appendix B. 

5.4 Quality Control and Evaluation Plan 

The Solid-State Lighting Research & Development Portfolio uses a quality control and 

evaluation plan (QC&E) to judge both the merit of individual projects as well as the 

soundness of the overall portfolio. At key intervals, comprehensive reviews are 

conducted, supported by analysis and objective review and recommendations by panels 

of experts (merit review/peer review). Performance is a criterion in project selections and 

performance evaluation is used to reshape plans, reassess goals and objectives, and rebalance the overall portfolio. 

This QC&E plan for the Lighting Research and Development program, of which the SSL 

portfolio is a part, has three objectives: 

1.	 Improve the performance, cost-effectiveness and timeliness of individual 

contracts; 

2.	 Improve the portfolio of projects in the LR&D program; and 

3.	 Assure future quality by bringing new high quality researchers into the 

solicitation process.
 

The QC&E plan for the LR&D program is built around the four critical stages of the 

annual program cycle. At each stage, the objectives, questions, quality assurance tools 

and metrics, and performance schedules are discussed. The four stages are: 

69 Current NGLIA Members.June 2, 2008. Next Generation Lighting Industry Alliance. Available at: 

http://www.nglia.org/membership.html 

Date: March 2009	 110 
 

Attain Milestones

Program Objectives Findings and

Recommendations

For Future Work

Evaluation:

• Outside (Peer) Reviewers

• Industry / Academic Workshops

Top Experts identified and

invited to participate

Policy / Guidance from:

• Congress

• DOE

• Office of EERE

• Buildin echnolo

1. Planning the LR&D program direction; 

2. Selection process for LR&D projects; 

3. Concurrent monitoring and evaluation; and 

4. Post project evaluation and review. 

These four discrete stages occur sequentially throughout the fiscal year and feed directly 

into each other. However, there could be feedback mechanisms such as a project’s final 

findings and recommendations resulting in a slight modification to the overall program 

direction or the selection of future projects. 

The figure below illustrates the four critical stages and some of the most important 

interactions. Using this framework, this plan identifies all the QC&E tools and processes 

in place designed to keep the LR&D program in step with the current objectives of the 

DOE and the research and development interests of industry, academia and the National 

Laboratories. 

Attain Milestones 

Program Objectives Findings and 

Recommendations 

For Future Work 

Top Experts identified and 

invited to participate 

g T gy 

Policy / Guidance from: 

• Congress 

• DOE 

• Office of EERE 

• Building Technology 

LR&D 

Program 

Plan 

Select 

LR&D 

Projects 

Technical 

Monitoring 

and 

Evaluation 

Post 

Project 

Review 

1 

2 

3 

4 

Evaluation: 

• Outside (Peer) Reviewers 

• Industry / Academic Workshops 

Figure 5.4: Four-Step Quality Control and Evaluation Plan for LR&D Program 

Date: March 2009 111 
 

 

 

5.4.1 Planning LR&D Program Direction 

Objective of the Planning Stage: 

•	 Review the LR&D Program Plan and determine if it conforms with the 

goals of Congress, the DOE, EERE, the Building Technologies Program, 

and key stakeholders and researchers.
 

Questions in the Planning Stage: 

•	 Does this program plan solicit projects where there is a clear public 

benefit and result in energy conservation? 

•	 Does this program plan identify and solicit research investment barriers 

perceived by private-sector researchers? 

•	 What are the priority lighting-use areas and technologies that are 

consuming the most energy?
 

• Which technologies show the most promise of energy savings benefit? 

•	 Is the plan structured to capture incremental improvements that could 

capture energy savings potential? 

•	 How should the portfolio of projects be modified based on the review of 

the preceding year’s projects?
 

LR&D 

Program 

Plan 

Select 

LR&D 

Projects 

Technical 

Monitoring 

and 

Evaluation 

Post 

Project 

Review 

1 

2 

3 

4 

•	 What are the research priorities and how should funding be appropriated, 

given all these inputs? 

Analysis for the Planning Stage: 

•	 The LR&D Program conducts analyses that provide input to the strategy and 

planning phase. Some examples include: 

o	 Lighting Market Characterization - Volume I: National Lighting Inventory 

and Energy Consumption Estimate: a national estimate of the number of 

lamps, operating and performance metrics, and energy consumption. 

Completed September 2002.70 

o	 Lighting Market Characterization - Volume II: Technology Options and 

Energy Savings Estimate: a review and prioritization of all the energy 

savings opportunities in lighting technology. Completed September 

2005.71 

o	 Lighting Market Characterization - Volume III: Economic and Market 

Performance Targets. Analysis of lighting market milestones and targets 

that must be achieved in order to secure adoption and transformation. 

Ongoing assignment, as needed. 

o	 Solid-State Lighting Energy Savings Forecast – Specific to SSL, this study 

looks at a series of “what-if” scenarios of the energy savings potential if 

SSL achieves certain price and performance targets. Based on the national 

70 This report is located at http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/info/documents/pdfs/lmc_vol1_final.pdf 71 This report is located at http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/info/documents/pdfs/ee_lightingvolII.pdf 

Date: March 2009	 112 
 

 

 

 

lighting inventory (Phase I) and a detailed market model based on 

paybacks. First edition completed April 2001. Second edition completed 

November 2003. Third edition completed December 2006.72 

•	 The LR&D Program may sponsor periodic workshops to better understand 

research priorities and opportunities. The result of a previous example of a multiyear, private and public interactive activity is the Solid-State Lighting Roadmap. 

Implementation of QC&E in the Planning Stage: 

•	 Planning for the coming fiscal year starts in April / May by reviewing the present 

year’s projects: 

o	 Review progress made in the context of the aforementioned planning tools 

o	 Assess any new or appropriate alternative technologies and/or approaches 

•	 Determine new or revise existing milestones and performance targets for the next 

year’s projects, based on the broad range of analysis tools available to the DOE for 

the Planning Stage 

•	 Develop a needs statement to use in a competitive solicitation / evaluation / awards 

process which ensures applicants are cognizant of and specifically address the 

LR&D’s focus on lighting performance and efficiency in their proposals. Applicants 

must demonstrate: 

o	 Technical research 

o	 Energy savings 

o	 Resources for research 

o	 Path to commercialization 

•	 Identify opportunities for Intergovernmental Cooperation / Synergy (e.g., DOD, 

NIST, other DOE organizations including Basic Energy Science (BES)) – explore 

opportunities for cost share. 

•	 Internal program reviews by Building Technology (BT) staff 

o	 FY spend plan review – project by project discussion of suggested funding 

level: contractors, funding, brief scope, milestones 

o	 BT Program Review– presentation of program: strategy, R&D preview, 

technology goals, overall funding, and major program elements in R&D 

•	 Peer program review – DOE periodically organizes external experts to review the 

LR&D program and its portfolio of projects. 

•	 DOE actively participates in industry workshops and professional conferences 

applicable to the technologies of interest to the LR&D program. Maintenance of a 

strong technical level of expertise and visible profile helps keep the LR&D program 

current and accessible to all interested parties, and it helps to attract new participants. 

72 This report is located at: 

http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/publications/pdfs/ssl/ssl_energy_savings_potential_report_2006_fin 

al4.pdf 

Date: March 2009	 113 
 

Table 5.1.1: LR&D Program – Outreach Meetings and Events 

Company Topic Date 

Fundamental Research Needs in 

Organic Electronic Materials – Salt 

Lake City, UT 

SSL R&D – OLEDs 5/23/03 

Society for Information Display – 

Phoenix, AZ 

SSL R&D – OLEDs 9/16/03 

Solid State Lighting Program Planning 

Workshop #1 – Washington, DC 

SSL R&D 11/13/03 – 

11/14/03 

SPIE Fourth International Conference 

in SSL – Denver, CO 

SSL R&D 8/3/04 

Solid State Lighting Program Planning 

Workshop #2 – San Diego, CA 

SSL R&D 02/03/05 – 

02/04/05 

Briefing to Staff of House Science 

Committee – Washington, DC 

SSL R&D 5/9/05 

SPIE Fifth International Conference in 

SSL – San Diego, CA 

SSL R&D 8/1/05 

Solid State Lighting Program Planning 

Workshop#3 – Orlando, FL 

SSL R&D 02/01/06 – 

02/03/06 

Solid State Lighting Program Planning 

Workshop#4 – Phoenix, AZ 

SSL R&D 1/31/07-2/02/07 

Solid State Lighting Program Planning 

Workshop#5 – Atlanta, GA 

SSL R&D 1/29/08-1/31/08 

Solid State Lighting Program Planning 

Workshop#6 – San Francisco, CA 

SSL R&D 2/3/09-2/5/09 

5.4.2 Selection Process for LR&D Projects 

Objective of the Selection Stage: 

•	 Strategically and competitively select projects that offer energy savings, 

incorporate milestones, and identify the path to market. Projects should be from 

contractors who have demonstrated technical leadership and have the resources to 

conduct the research. The resultant portfolio of projects should be balanced and 

reflect the overarching LR&D program plan and objectives. 

Date: March 2009	 114 
 

 

 

Questions in the Selection Stage: 

•	 Will this project help achieve the mission and goals of EERE and the 

LR&D program?
 

• Are the lighting energy conservation benefits reasonable? 

• Is the project technically and economically feasible? 

•	 How well does this project build on existing technology and is it 

complementary to related LR&D activities?
 

•	 How well does this project incorporate industry involvement? What is 

the level of industry cost-sharing of the program? Is there other 

Government investment in this area? 

•	 Does the project offer sound, tangible performance indicators and/or 

milestones to facilitate monitoring? 

• Does the project incorporate “off-ramps” and a clear end-point? 

•	 How far from commercialization will the technology be when the 

project is complete? What is the commercialization time line (short, 

medium or long range)? 

•	 What is the extent of technological risk inherent in the research? Is it 

cost-shared?
 

•	 For a project proposal, is there clear consensus among the internal and 

external reviewers?
 

LR&D 

Program 

Plan 

Select 

LR&D 

Projects 

Technical 

Monitoring 

and 

Evaluation 

Post 

Project 

Review 

1 

2 

3 

4 

Implementing QC&E in the Selection Stage: 

•	 The sequence of technology maturation envisioned by the DOE is illustrated in 

Figure 5.5. It demonstrates how the overall SSL activity spans four technology 

maturation stages. The SSL program will conduct a series of actions to complete 

the levels of the continuum. DOE maintains a number of “open solicitations” that 

are released at various times during any given fiscal year. “Open” means that any 

and all stakeholders are invited to apply for cooperative research financial support 

via these established and well structured solicitations. The solicitations are 

publicized widely through the DOE’s website, media press, industry trade 

organizations and at relevant technical conferences. As is shown in the figure 

below, each solicitation has a specific objective for participation (i.e., academic, 

small business, manufacturers, etc.) and level of technology maturity. 

Date: March 2009	 115 
 

Figure 5.5: Approximate Technology Maturity Coverage of Selected DOE R&D 

Programs 

•	 Develop new and utilize existing competitive solicitations: 

o	 Basic Science proposals are solicited throughout the year and are 

administered by BES according to their own Annual Operating Plan 

(AOP). However, there is considerable opportunity for technical 

collaboration between BES and the LR&D program in the nature of the 

basic research supported. Since BES does not support applied research, 

any successful basic research completed must be transitioned to more 

applied organizations such as BT and the LR&D program. BES also 

participates in the SBIR program, which tailors some solicitations to focus 

on lighting related issues. 

o	 The annual BT/NETL (National Energy Technology Laboratory) “Energy 

Efficient Building Equipment and Envelope Technologies” solicitation 

ensures competition among interested manufacturers, research institutions, 

and academia for projects that meet defined LR&D program goals and 

energy conservation requirements. 

o	 SBIR proposals are issued annually and represent an excellent opportunity 

to attract small business to the LR&D program. While of modest size, 

these projects have historically played pivotal roles in establishing the 

technical viability of novel approaches to overcoming key technology 

issues. 

o	 DOD and other Government agencies often solicit proposals for research 

specifically tailored to their own needs and AOPs. The LR&D program 

can enjoy a synergistic benefit of this research particularly that which is 

completed by the DOD. Often the DOD is an early adopter of emerging 

technology and can be very instrumental in establishing the technical 

Date: March 2009	 116 
 

viability of a potential product whose military benefits offset constraints 

imposed by commercial markets. Many times, expensive technologies are 

first introduced into military applications and are subsequently reduced (in 

cost and sometimes technical complexity) to meet civilian applications. 

•	 The LR&D program periodically organizes external technical and programmatic 

reviews to include internationally renowned expertise. This is utilized especially 

during the evaluation of proposals submitted to the “open” solicitations. The 

“evaluation criteria” includes technological risk, energy conservation potential, 

cost-sharing and other critical elements. 

•	 To facilitate quantitative performance assessment, the LR&D program requires 

participants to explicitly state the performance targets they expect to achieve for 

their project during the period of performance along with justification. 

•	 BT/NETL – projects are selected by votes from: 

o	 Expert (technical) reviewers – usually three 

o	 Technical managers at Building Technology 

o	 Merit Review Committee 

Date: March 2009	 117 
 

 

5.4.3 Concurrent Monitoring and Evaluation 

Objective of the Monitoring Stage: 

•	 To manage current projects effectively through good communication and 

the monitoring of various project progress metrics. Determine 

appropriate remedial action for projects going off-track. Controls 

“scope-drift”. 

Questions in the Monitoring Stage: 

• Ongoing Monitoring: 

o	 Are the projects meeting performance milestones on schedule and 

within budget? 

o Is reassessment of the project’s objectives or milestones required? 

o	 Are the principal investigators providing sufficient updates on 

their progress? 

o	 Does the principal investigator present a logical R&D plan (with 

milestones) for next budget period? 

o	 Are required deliverables being satisfied? Are progress reports 

comprehensive and timely? 

LR&D 

Program 

Plan 

Select 

LR&D 

Projects 

Technical 

Monitoring 

and 

Evaluation 

Post 

Project 

Review 

1 

2 

3 

4 

o	 Should the NETL PMC Project Manager conduct a spot inspection or 

arrange an interim meeting to assess progress? 

o	 If the project is failing to achieve its milestones, should it be discontinued 

or redefined? 

o	 Are the objectives of the project still relevant to the LR&D goals and the 

EERE mission? 

o Is the project progressing against a reasonable cost plan? 

• Project Completed: 

o Did the contractor complete the project to the satisfaction of DOE? 

o Was the project on time? 

o Was the project within budget? 

o Were the technical objectives met? 

o	 Do the results encourage further investigation / research into this particular 

project area? Or, another project area? 

o	 A “Close Out Questionnaire” is under development and may include some 

of the following draft suggestions (see Section 5.4.5): 

Date: March 2009	 118 
 

Implementing QC&E in the Monitoring Stage: 

•	 Conduct detailed technical and programmatic reviews of each individual project 

on a regular basis. Maintain good dialogue with all principal investigators and 

solicit feedback on progress in accordance with stated milestones and objectives. 

•	 The NETL PMC Project Manager requires comprehensive periodic written 

progress reports (monthly, quarterly) from principal investigators pertaining to 

their progress. 

o	 Review these reports in relation to the stated milestones in the proposals 

o	 Consider remedial options if project is failing to meet deliverables or 

milestones (e.g., reprioritization, termination) 

o	 Re-assess the probability of success of the project 

•	 Anytime spot check reviews – as needed, the NETL PMC Project Manager may 

select projects (or subtasks of a project) that are experiencing technical or 

programmatic difficulty. At his discretion, he may ask for a performance reviews 

at the contractor’s facility or invite the contractor to some other location. This 

process allows the LR&D manager to keep a watchful eye on technical progress 

and helps ensure that problems are identified early and that deviations from the 

scope of work are identified quickly to get the project back on course. 

•	 Annually, each project is critically reviewed sometimes with outside expertise. 

Each participant is expected to present the results of their research in progress and 

rationale for continued support. Previous milestones are reviewed and a 

determination of achievement is made. Future milestones are assessed and 

adjusted if necessary. In this way, research priorities are adjusted annually 

according to technical merit and relevance. 

Milestone QC&E Meetings for FY’09: 

The following schedule represents the project review meetings for FY’09 that cover the 

NETL, SBIR, and other project areas. At these meetings, DOE will be using the QC&E 

tools described above to assess technical and programmatic performance. 

Date: March 2009	 119 
 

 

Table 5.1.2: LR&D Program Project Review Meetings for FY’09 

PI and Contract Title Funding 

Source Objective Date 

DE-FC26-08NT01575 

Add-Vision Inc. 

LR&D 

Direct 

Budget Period # 1 

Progress Review Sep-09 

DE-FC26-08NT01576 

Arkema, Inc. 

LR&D 

Direct 

Budget Period # 1 

Progress Review Sep-09 

DE-FC26-08NT01577 

Cree, Inc. 

LR&D 

Direct 

Budget Period # 1 

Progress Review Mar-09 

DE-FC26-08NT01578 

Crystal IS, Inc. 

LR&D 

Direct 

Budget Period # 1 

Progress Review Apr-09 

DE-FC26-08NT01579 

GE Global Research 

LR&D 

Direct 

Budget Period # 1 

Progress Review Apr-09 

DE-FC26-08NT01580 

Georgia Institute of Technology 

LR&D 

Direct 

Budget Period # 1 

Progress Review Aug-09 

DE-FC26-08NT01581 

Lehigh University, Office of 

Research and Sponsored 

Programs 

LR&D 

Direct 

Budget Period # 1 

Progress Review May-09 

DE-FC26-08NT01582 

Osram Sylvania Development 

Inc 

LR&D 

Direct 

Budget Period # 1 

Progress Review Jun-09 

DE-FC26-08NT01583 

Philips Lumileds Lighting, LLC 

LR&D 

Direct 

Budget Period # 1 

Progress Review Sep-09 

DE-FC26-08NT01584 

PhosphorTech Corporation 

LR&D 

Direct 

Budget Period # 1 

Progress Review May-09 

DE-FC26-08NT01585 

Universal Display Corporation 

LR&D 

Direct 

Budget Period # 1 

Progress Review Jul-09 

DE-FC26-06NT42855 

University of Florida 

LR&D 

Direct Final Briefing Aug-09 

DE-FC26-06NT42856 

Georgia Tech Research 

Corporation 

LR&D 

Direct Final Briefing Dec-09 

DE-FC26-06NT42857 

University of California, Santa 

Barbara 

LR&D 

Direct Final Briefing Jul-09 

DE-FC26-06NT42859 

University of North Texas 

LR&D 

Direct Final Briefing Feb-09 

DE-FC26-06NT42860 

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute 

LR&D 

Direct Final Briefing Aug-09 

DE-FC26-06NT42861 

Research Triangle Institute 

LR&D 

Direct 

Budget Period # 2 

Progress Review Mar-09 

DE-FC26-06NT42862 

Purdue University 

LR&D 

Direct Final Briefing Apr-09 

DE-FC26-06NT42932 

Color Kinetics Incorporated 

LR&D 

Direct Final Briefing Mar-09 

DE-FC26-06NT42933 

Eastman Kodak Company - 

1999 Lake Ave. 

LR&D 

Direct Final Briefing Mar-09 

DE-FC26-06NT42934 

GE Global Research 

LR&D 

Direct Final Briefing Sep-09 

DE-FC26-07NT43128 

Consortium for Energy 

Efficiency, Inc. 

LR&D 

Direct 

Budget Period # 2 

Progress Review Jul-09 

Date: March 2009 120 
 

 

 

Table 5.1.2: LR&D Program Project Review Meetings for FY’09 (Continued) 

PI and Contract Title Funding 

Source Objective Date 

DE-FC26-07NT43129 

Northeast Energy Efficiency 

Partnership (NEEP) 

LR&D 

Direct 

Budget Period # 2 

Progress Review May-09 

DE-FC26-07NT43225 

Cree, Inc. 

LR&D 

Direct Final Briefing Sep-09 

DE-FC26-07NT43226 

GE Global Research 

LR&D 

Direct 

Budget Period # 2 

Progress Review Dec-09 

DE-FC26-07NT43227 

Yale University 

LR&D 

Direct 

Budget Period # 2 

Progress Review Sep-09 

DE-FC26-07NT43229 

Carnegie Mellon University 

LR&D 

Direct 

Budget Period # 2 

Progress Review Sep-09 

M6642865 

Sandia National Laboratories 

(SNL) - NM 

LR&D 

Direct Final Briefing Sep-09 

M6642866 

Pacific Northwest National 

Laboratory (PNNL) 

LR&D 

Direct Final Briefing Sep-09 

M6642869 

Lawrence Berkeley National 

Laboratory (LBNL) 

LR&D 

Direct Final Briefing Jun-09 

M6642870 

Los Alamos National 

Laboratory (LANL) 

LR&D 

Direct Final Briefing Jul-09 

M6743230 

Sandia National Laboratories 

(SNL) - NM 

LR&D 

Direct Final Briefing Aug-09 

M6743231 

Pacific Northwest National 

Laboratory (PNNL) 

LR&D 

Direct 

Budget Period # 2 

Progress Review Jul-09 

M6743232 

Lawrence Berkeley National 

Laboratory (LBNL) 

LR&D 

Direct 

Budget Period # 2 

Progress Review Sep-09 

M68003934 

Sandia National Laboratories 

(SNL) - NM 

LR&D 

Direct 

Budget Period # 1 

Progress Review Mar-09 

M68004043 

Pacific Northwest National 

Laboratory (PNNL) 

LR&D 

Direct 

Budget Period # 1 

Progress Review Mar-09 

DE-FG02-06ER84567 

Physical Optics Corporation SBIR Final Briefing Aug-09 

DE-FG02-06ER84582 

Universal Display Corporation SBIR Final Briefing Aug-09 

DE-FG02-08ER84809 

Universal Display Corporation SBIR Budget Period # 1 Progress Review Aug-10 

DE-FG02-08ER84810 

Universal Display Corporation SBIR Budget Period # 1 Progress Review Aug-10 

DE-FG02-07ER86293 

Add-Vision Inc. SBIR Budget Period # 1 Progress Review Aug-09 

Date: March 2009 121 
 

 

 

5.4.4 Post Project Evaluation and Review 

Objective of the Review Stage: 

•	 Review the DOE objective and determine if further work in this area is 

warranted. Review the process and identify improvements. 

Questions in the Review Stage: 

• Questions from the draft Close-Out Quiz for Principle Investigators: 

o	 As a program participant, what are the important lessons you 

learned? 

o	 Has the project opportunity helped your organization achieve their 

strategic goals? 

o	 Do you have a commercialization plan for the technology you 

developed under this project? 

o	 Would you like the DOE to assist your organization to develop 

such a commercialization plan? 

o	 Looking back on the project, from solicitation to completion, can 

you make any specific recommendations to the DOE for 

improvement? 

LR&D 

Program 

Plan 

Select 

LR&D 

Projects 

Technical 

Monitoring 

and 

Evaluation 

Post 

Project 

Review 

1 

2 

3 

4 

o As a program participant, what, if anything, would you do differently? 

o Would you like to see the program continue in the future? 

•	 Questions for DOE 

o	 What did we learn? 

o What did we accomplish? 

o	 Does the task completed in that area satisfy the original statement of 

needs? 

o	 Do the results encourage further evaluation of this project area? Or, have 

the target objectives of the DOE been met with the milestones achieved in 

this project? 

o How could we have improved the process – setting the plan, selecting the 

project and/or monitoring and evaluating the project? 

 Should there have been higher project goals? 

 Should there have been more interim reviews? 

 Should there have been more reporting (e.g., monthly instead of 

quarterly)? 

o	 Tie back to the Planning Stage, how do the results relate to the goals and 

objectives of the program and the interim milestone for DOE? Has the 

DOE achieved (completed) research in a particular area? 

Date: March 2009	 122 
 

Implementing QC&E for the Review Stage: 

•	 Recalibrate (if necessary) the LR&D 

objectives in a particular area based on 

findings from this research. 

•	 Determine if milestones achieved will 

“close the chapter” in a particular area of 

research (e.g., evaluation of tungsten 

oxide research now determined to be 

complete). 

•	 Review metrics of “success” for the 

project: 

o	 Number of Patents 

o	 Number of Conference Papers / 

Citations in Technical Literature 

o	 Product(s) delivered to market 

o	 Quantified energy savings impact 

•	 Government Performance Results Act 

(GPRA) metrics? 

•	 Publish results? 

Unplanned Events 

Occasionally, an event that is beyond the 

control of the DOE technical manager 

may occur which disrupts the normal 

project management framework. Some 

examples include: 

•	 Delay in funding from Congress 

•	 Increase or reduction in LR&D 

budget over planned 

•	 Contractor actions, including: slow 

progress and funding spend rate; 

termination of contract; fast progress 

with need for additional funding; 

technical concept does not mature / 

can’t meet project goals 

These unplanned events will result in 

additional work by the program manager 

to alter contracts and/or funding levels 

for the LR&D program, to achieve 

original fiscal year goals. 

Date: March 2009	 123 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5.4.5 QC&E Closeout Questionnaire 

Draft EERE BT/NETL Energy Efficient Building Equipment and Envelope 

Technologies Competitive Solicitation 

Contract Close Out Questionnaire
 

Overall, how would you rate your experience as a participant in the DOE’s Building Envelope Technologies 

Program in the following categories: 

Good Medium Bad 

1. Contractual/Administration     

2. Technical     

3. Financial     

4. Level of project success     

As a program participant, what are the important lessons you learned? 

Has the project opportunity help your organization achieve their strategic goals? 

Do you have a commercialization plan for the technology you developed under this project? 

Would you like the DOE to assist your organization to develop such a commercialization plan? 

Looking back on the project, from solicitation to completion, can you make any specific recommendations to 

the DOE for improvement?
 

As a program participant, what, if anything, you do differently?
 

Would you like to see the program continue in the future? 

5.5 Stage-Gate Project Management Plan 

The SSL Team developed a white paper to clearly elucidate the stages of Lighting 

Research and Development, which is intended to provide a management tool for the 

projects in the SSL portfolio.73 A stage-gate system74, tailored to the LR&D program, I 

applied to each project in the portfolio, and creates a lexicon for discussion, decisions, 

and planning which is mutually beneficial to the National Energy Technology Laboratory 

portfolio manager and contractors. This framework was developed as a tool to assist in 

guiding the research, technical and business actions and decisions that are necessary to 

move a concept from a scientific phenomenon to a marketable product. As a technical 

concept advances through the continuum of technology stages, it must demonstrate that it 

meets the criteria at each gate before it advances to the next stage. By constructing this 

type of framework, DOE and its contractors will be properly reviewing the R&D projects 

and asking the right questions to lead to successful commercialization of energy-saving 

products. 

73 Managing Research and Development: The Technology Continuum of the Lighting Research and 

Development Portfolio. James R. Brodrick. November 2005.

74 Robert Cooper, “Winning at New Products, Accelerating the Process from Idea to Launch.” 3rd Edition. 

2001. 

Date: March 2009 124 
 

In addition, DOE will be cognizant of where its contractors are located in the overall 

process of new product development. The stage-gate system also offers management an 

opportunity to terminate poorly performing projects and allocate resources to better 

projects. A summary of this method, The Technology Continuum of the Lighting 

Research and Development Portfolio (November 2005) is described below. 

Cooper’s stage-gate system for Industry R&D portfolio management spans the complete 

spectrum from concept to product development. The stage-gate system divides the 

development process into discrete, multifunctional stages interspersed with gates that 

function as potential off-ramps. Gates are decision points where R&D managers review 

analytical data and make a decision whether to continue developing a project or to 

terminate it. Stages represent the analytical effort expended by the company to assess 

research and market analysis on a particular technology or project. Each stage involves a 

set of parallel activities conducted in different functional areas of a company. 

Several of Cooper’s stages, shown in the top portion of Figure 5.6, such as preliminary 

investigation and market launch, fall outside the scope of work supported by the LR&D 

program. The focus of the LR&D program is primarily on stages 2 through 4 of the 

industry model, as shown in Figure 5.6. The LR&D model adapts these three generic 

stages into more specific stages, providing finer differentiation and focus on the activities 

within each stage. The mapping of the generic industry stages to the more specific LR&D 

program stages is shown in Figure 5.6. 

Cooper’s Stage-gate System for Industry R&D 

1 3 4

Gate 

Validation 2 5 

Stage 1: 

Investigation Investigation Development Market Gate Gate Gate Gate Preliminary 

Stage 2: 

Detailed Stage 3: Testing and 

Stage 5: 

Launch 

Concept 

Stage 4: 

Basic 

Research 

Exploratory Advanced 

Development 

Engineering 

Research 

Applied 

Development Development 

Product 

Demonstration 

Management System for the Lighting Research & Development Portfolio 

Figure 5.6: Mapping Cooper’s Stage-Gate System to the LR&D Portfolio 

On the following page, a diagram summarizes the LR&D technology development 

stages, providing the technical activities, gate expectations and deliverables required at 

each gate. This stage-gate system was developed primarily as a management system. In 

addition, it could assist in proposal targeting. For instance, if a solicitation intends to 

support applied research, a proposal centered on engineering development or product 

demonstration would be inappropriate. Proposals that are not matched to the solicitation 

objectives waste the time of stakeholders in their development as well as the DOE in their 

review. 

Date: March 2009 125 
Figure 5-7: LR&D Technology Development Stages and Gates 

Technology Development Stag

Basic Science 

Research* 

1 

Applied 

Research 

2 

Exploratory 

Development 

3 

Advanced 

Development 

4 

Eng

Deve

Technical

Activities 

Knowledge-Base Expansion 

• Scientific principles 

formulated and proven 

• Empirical data and/or 

theoretical derivation 

Idea Generation 

• Set performance 

milestones for Gate 2 

• Fundamental lab testing 

• Create “hard” lab data to 

support physical principle 

• Math models of science 

• Scanning for match of 

science to application 

Proof of TechnologyProduct Definition 

• Lab bread board of concept 

• Select technologies that 

have the best market entry potential 

• Identify and prioritize 

alternative approaches for performance/energy savings 

Proof of Technology- Working Model 

• Fully functional lab prototypes 

• Specific application and 

approach 

• Testing of prototype on several 

performance parameters 

• Proof of “design concept” 

testing 

Engineering 

• Testing of 

and performperformanc

• Field ready 

• Field testin

feedback 

• Preparation 

manufacturcertificatio

Deliverables Required

for Gate Decisions 

Peer-reviewed paper or journal article Documentation of proof of concept 

Correlation with building end use Analytical and/or empirical evidence of technology Performance viability, preferably lab data Written report of above Possible verification testing at another laboratory 

Set performance milestones for Gate 3 

Performance status and expectation for market entry Comparison to available technology baseline Preliminary market assessment 

• Cost • Performance 

Estimate of national energy savings potential 

Attributes and benefits of approach Set performance & cost milestones for Gate 4 

Product specifications defined Cost/Benefit analysis for owners/operators Detailed market assessment 

• Cost • Performance • Market penetration 

Estimates of national energy savings potential Identification of issues and technology status 

• Technical performance • Market barriers • Public acceptance • Legal – regulatory • Health and safety 

Set performance & cost milestones for Gate 5 

Partnership ag

• Manufac• Licensing 

Resolution of advanced devField test resuadjustments in Evaluation of savings potenUpdate detaileassessment Cost/Benefit amarket Set performanmilestones for 

Gate

Expectations 1 2 3 4 

9 New concept or principle proven 9 Theoretical or empirical proof 9 Met performance 

milestones 

9 Address priority 

building end use 

9 Proof of technical 

performance 

9 Met performance 

milestones 

9 Prove clear 

advantage over available technology 

9 Met performance 

milestones 

9 Meet owner / operator cost/benefi

requirements (1-5 yr. payback) 

9 Demonstrate significant end-user 

demand 

9 Technology status issues defined 9 Met performance & cost mileston

* Note: The Basic Science Research stage precedes the program mission of the Solid State Lighting Portfolio 

Adapted from Robert Cooper, “Winning at New Products, Accelerating the Process from Idea to Launch.” Perseus Books Group. 3rd Edition. 2001. ISBN: 0738204633 

Lighting Research and Development, Building Technologies Program
 

The LR&D technology development stages consist of seven stages, providing the 

technical activities, gate expectations and deliverables required at each gate. Each of the 

seven stages is discussed briefly below. 

Technology Maturation Stage 1 – Basic Science Research 

Fundamental science exploration is performed to expand the knowledge-base in a given 

field. Scientific principles (with data-empirical and/or theoretical derivation) are 

formulated and proven. The output from these projects would generally be peer-reviewed 

papers published in recognized scientific journals. Specific applications are not 

necessarily identified in Stage 1. 

Technology Maturation Stage 2 - Applied Research 

Scientific principles are demonstrated, an application is identified, and the technology 

shows potential advantages in performance over commercially available technologies. 

Lab testing and/or math modeling is performed to identify the application(s), or provide 

the options (technical pathways) to an application. Testing and modeling add to the 

knowledge base that supports an application and point to performance improvements. 

Technology Maturation Stage 3 – Exploratory Development 

A product concept addresses an energy efficiency priority. From lab performance testing, 

down select from alternative technology approaches for best potential performance, via 

selection of materials, components, processes, cycles, and so on. With lab performance 

testing data, down select from a number of market applications to the initial market entry 

ideas. This product concept must exhibit cost and/or performance advantages over 

commercially available technologies. Technical feasibility should be demonstrated 

through component bench-scale testing with at least a laboratory breadboard of the 

concept. 

Technology Maturation Stage 4 – Advanced Development 

Product concept testing is performed on a fully functional lab prototype – “proof of 

design concept” testing. Testing is performed on prototypes for a number of performance 

parameters to address issues of market, legal, health, safety, etc. Through iterative 

improvements of concept, specific applications and technology approaches are refocused 

and “down selected.” Product specification (for manufacturing or marketing) is defined. 

Technology should identify clear advantages over commercially available technologies, 

and alternative technologies, from detailed assessment. 

Technology Maturation Stage 5 – Engineering Development 

“Field ready prototype” system is developed to refine product design features and 

performance limits. Performance mapping is evaluated. Performer conducts testing of a 

field-ready prototype/system in a representative or actual application with a small number 

of units in the field. The number of units is a function of unit cost, market influences 

(such as climate), monitoring costs, owner/operator criteria, etc. Feedback from the 

owner/operator and technical data gathered from field trials are used to improve 

prototype design. Further design modifications and re-testing are performed as needed. 

Date: March 2009 127 
 

Technology Maturation Stage 6 – Product Demonstration 

Operational evaluation of the demonstration units in the field is conducted to validate 

performance as installed. Third party monitoring of the performance data is required, 

although less data is recorded relative to the “field ready prototype” test in Stage 5. Preproduction units may be used. Size of demo is a function of unit cost, monitoring cost, 

etc., and involves relatively more visibility. Energy savings are measured, with careful 

analysis of economic viability and field durability for specific applications. 

Technology Maturation Stage 7 – Commercialization and Sales 

The final stage of the technology development continuum focuses on commercialization 

and sales. This stage involves the implementation of the marketing and manufacturing 

plans, culminating in the successful launch of a new energy saving product. 

While the DOE is currently funding SSL projects in the early stages of the technology 

development spectrum, over the years as the technology evolves and improves, 

solicitations in the advanced development, engineering development and product 

demonstration are planned. The expectation is that future projects will build on the 

foundation of applied research and exploratory development, catalyzing innovations in 

lamp materials, systems, fixtures, electronics, and device infrastructure. Eventually, 

demonstration projects in various sectors may also be warranted, to measure and 

document the beneficial aspects of this revolutionary technology. 

5.6 Solid-State Lighting Commercialization Support Plan 

The U.S. Department of Energy has developed a comprehensive national strategy to 

guide solid state lighting technology from lab to market. To leverage DOE’s $100 million 

investment in SSL technology research and development, and to increase the likelihood 

that this R&D investment pays off in commercial success, DOE has developed a 

commercialization support plan. The plan focuses DOE resources on strategic areas to 

move the SSL market toward the highest energy efficiency and the highest lighting 

quality. 

DOE’s plan draws on key partnerships with the SSL industry, research community, 

standards setting organizations, energy efficiency groups, utilities, and others, as well as 

lessons learned from the past. Commercialization support activities are closely 

coordinated with research progress to ensure appropriate application of SSL products, 

and avoid buyer dissatisfaction and delay of market development. DOE’s role is to: 

•	 Help consumers, businesses, and government agencies differentiate good products 

and applications 

•	 Widely distribute objective technical information 

•	 Coordinate SSL commercialization activities among federal, state, and local 

organizations 

•	 Communicate performance targets to industry 

Date: March 2009	 128 
 

 

 

Figure 5.8: DOE SSL Commercialization Support Plan 

DOE SSL Pathways to Market 

CALiPER. Using test procedures currently under development by standards 

organizations, DOE’s SSL testing program provides unbiased information on the 

performance of a widely representative array of commercially available SSL products for 

general illumination. Test results guide DOE planning for R&D, the Lighting for 

Tomorrow design competition, technology procurement activities, and ENERGY 

STAR®, in addition to furnishing objective product performance information to the 

public and informing the development and refinement of standards and test procedures 

for SSL products. http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ssl/caliper.html 

GATEWAY Technology Demonstrations. Demonstrations showcase high performance 

LED products for general illumination in a variety of commercial and residential 

applications. Demonstration results provide real-world experience and data on state-ofthe-art SSL product performance and cost effectiveness. Performance measurements 

include energy consumption, light output, color consistency, and interface/control issues. 

The results connect DOE technology procurement efforts with large-volume purchasers 

and provide buyers with reliable data on product performance. 

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ssl/gatewaydemos.html 

Technology Procurement. Technology procurement is an established process for 

encouraging market introduction of new products meeting certain performance criteria. 

DOE has successfully used this approach with other lighting technologies, including subCFLs and reflector CFLs. Technology procurement will encourage adoption of new SSL 

Date: March 2009 129 
 

 

 

 

 

systems and products that meet established energy efficiency and performance criteria, 

and link these products to volume buyers and market influencers. 

Lighting for Tomorrow. In partnership with the American Lighting Association and the 

Consortium for Energy Efficiency (CEE), DOE sponsors Lighting for Tomorrow, a 

design competition that encourages and recognizes excellence in design of energyefficient residential light fixtures. In the 2007 competition, 24 companies submitted 45 

entries in the SSL category, with winning fixtures including a downlight, a desk lamp, an 

undercabinet fixture, and an outdoor wall lantern. In the 2008 competition, awards were 

given for an SSL undercabinet light, an SSL recessed can lamp, SSL task lights, an SSL 

spotlight luminaire, an SSL architectural lay-in, and an SSL module. 

http://www.lightingfortomorrow.com 

ENERGY STAR for SSL. ENERGY STAR is a voluntary energy efficiency labeling 

program identifying products that save energy, relative to standard technology. Final 

ENERGY STAR criteria for SSL luminaires were released in September 2007, with an 

effective date of September 2008, contingent on related standards and test procedure 

finalization. http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ssl/energy_star.html 

Technical Support for Standards. LEDs differ significantly from traditional light 

sources, and new test procedures and industry standards are needed to measure their 

performance. DOE provides national leadership and support for this effort, working 

closely with the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America, the National 

Electrical Manufacturers Association, the Next Generation Lighting Industry Alliance, 

the American National Standards Institute, and other standards setting organizations to 

accelerate the standards development process, facilitate ongoing collaboration, and offer 

technical assistance. National standards and rating systems for new SSL products were 

ssued in early 2008. http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ssl/standards.html 

TINSSL. DOE’s Technical Information Network for SSL increases awareness of SSL 

technology, performance, and appropriate applications. Members include representatives 

from regional energy efficiency organizations and program sponsors, utilities, state and 

local energy offices, lighting trade groups, and other stakeholders. The Northeast Energy 

Efficiency Partnerships and the CEE support DOE in this effort, collaborating with DOE 

to produce SSL information and outreach materials, host meetings and events, and 

support other outreach activities. http://www.ssl.energy.gov/technetwork.html 

SSL Quality Advocates. This program is jointly developed by the DOE and the NGLIA. 

It is a voluntary program where participants pledge to accurately represent the 

performance of SSL products in SSL marketing literature. This will encourage market 

acceptance of SSL lighting systems. Specifically, companies pledge to accurately report 

lumens, efficacy, watts, CCT, and CRI as measured by the industry standard IESNA LM79-2008. http://www.lighting-facts.com/ 

L Prize. The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 directed DOE to establish 

the Bright Tomorrow Lighting Prizes (L Prize) competition to accelerate development 

and adoption of SSL products to replace the common light bulb. In May 2008, DOE 

Date: March 2009 130 
 

 

launched the L Prize competition at LIGHTFAIR® International. The competition 

challenges industry to develop replacement technologies for two of today’s most widely 

used and inefficient products: 60W incandescent lamps and PAR 38 halogen lamps. 

Winners will be eligible for cash prizes, opportunities for federal purchasing agreements, 

utility programs, and other incentives. 

Four California utilities – Pacific Gas & Electric, Sacramento Municipal Utility District, 

San Diego Gas & Electric, and Southern California Edison – worked closely with DOE to 

establish rigorous technical requirements for the competition. These utilities also signed a 

Memorandum of Understanding with DOE (shown in Appendix C), agreeing to work 

cooperatively to promote high-efficiency SSL technologies. These L Prize partners will 

conduct field assessments of proposed products and play an important role in promoting 

and developing markets for the winning L Prize products. Since the competition’s launch, 

a number of additional partners have signed on. http://www.lightingprize.org/. 

Next Generation Luminaires Competition. In May 2008, DOE launched a parallel 

competition focused on commercial luminaires: the Next Generation LuminairesTM SSL 

Design Competition. DOE has partnered with IESNA and IALD to organize this new 

competition, which 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 the high lighting quality and consistency, 

glare control, lumen maintenance, and luminaire appearance needed to meet specification 

lighting requirements. Entries were due in October 2008, and winners were announced at 

Strategies in Light in February 2009. http://www.ngldc.org/. The Memorandum of 

Understanding between DOE and IESNA is located in Appendix G, and the 

Memorandum of Understanding between DOE and the IALD is located in Appendix H. 

Table 5.6.1 shows the DOE meetings related to SSL commercialization. 

Table 5.6.1: DOE SSL Commercialization Support Meetings 

Company Topic Date 

CALiPER Roundtable SSL Testing and Standards March 2009 

DOE SSL Market Introduction 

Workshop 

SSL Commercialization July 2008 

Lighting Designer Roundtable SSL Commercialization March 2008 

CALiPER Roundtable SSL Testing November 2007 

DOE LED Industry Standards 

Workshop 

SSL Standards November 2007 

DOE SSL Market Introduction 

Workshop 

SSL Commercialization July 2007 

DOE SSL Market Introduction 

Workshop 

SSL Commercialization April 2007 

DOE SSL Commercial Product 

Testing Program Workshop 

SSL Testing January 2007 

DOE LED Industry Standards 

Workshop 

SSL Standards March 2006 

Date: March 2009 131 
 

Below are descriptions of a few of the most recent commercialization-related meetings 

listed in Table 5.6.1. 

March 2009 – CALiPER Roundtable 

Over 30 experts from organizations such as the Illuminating Engineering Society of 

North America (IESNA), International Association of Lighting Designers (IALD), 

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), National Electrical 

Manufacturers Association (NEMA), American National Standards Institute (ANSI), 

independent photometric testing laboratories, SSL manufacturers, and research 

laboratories met in Denver, Colorado to discuss current issues related to SSL testing and 

related standards development. The roundtable focused on topics such as SSL luminaire 

photometry, subcomponent LED photometry, and market needs for SSL testing. 

July 2008 - DOE SSL Market Introduction Workshop 

More than 270 attendees gathered in Portland, Oregon, to attend the annual DOE SSL 

Market Introduction Workshop, sharing updates, market trends, lessons learned, and 

strategies to guide market introduction of SSL products. 

May 2008 - ENERGY STAR® Manufacturer Stakeholder Meeting 

DOE hosted a workshop in Washington, D.C., for manufacturers to review the DOE 

ENERGY STAR criteria for SSL, the status of related test procedures, and the program 

launch and qualification process, as well as to learn more about future plans for the DOE 

ENERGY STAR program for SSL. 

March 2008 - Lighting Designer Roundtable 

DOE, the International Association of Lighting Designers (IES), and the Illuminating 

Engineering Society of North America (IALD) hosted a Lighting Designer Roundtable in 

Chicago. Sixteen lighting designers, along with DOE representatives, gathered to discuss 

SSL market and technology issues and share experiences and recommendations regarding 

the SSL industry. 

Date: March 2009 132 
 

 

 

 

6.0 Solid-State Lighting Portfolio Evaluation Plan 

6.1 Internal DOE Evaluation 

6.1.1 Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) 

The 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). 

PNNL estimates the fiscal year energy, environmental, and financial benefits (i.e., 

metrics) of the technologies and practices for the 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 for solid-state lighting are calculated using the National 

Energy Modeling System (NEMS). NEMS can link the costs 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.75 

The most recent Government Performance Results Act benefit analysis based on DOE’s 

FY2009 Budget Request estimates that the energy savings from SSL in 2030 will be 

approximately 79 TWh, which is 13% of all of the energy used to light commercial and 

residential buildings in 2001. Looking cumulatively across the analysis period of 2008 to 

2030, SSL is projected to save 8.2 quadrillion British Thermal Units (Btu) of primary 

energy, valued at approximately $75 billion at today’s energy prices. This is equivalent 

to approximately 759 terawatt-hours of cumulative site electricity savings in commercial 

75 Documentation for FY2003 BTS GPRA Metrics, Building Technology, State and Community Programs, 

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

Date: March 2009 133 
 

 

 

 

and residential buildings. These savings have the potential to eliminate the need for more 

than twelve new 1000 MW power plants in 2030. This analysis considers some – but not 

all – sectors and applications, so the energy savings could be higher as SSL displaces 

other incandescent and fluorescent light sources. 

6.1.2 Peer Review 

In November 2005, DOE conducted a formal peer review of 21 DOE-funded SSL 

projects completing their first year. A second formal peer review of 30 selected projects 

from the SSL portfolio was conducted in the summer of 2007. A third formal review of 

12 projects from the SSL portfolio was conducted in the summer of 2008. These reviews 

were conducted by panels of highly qualified scientists, engineers, and independent 

technical consultants who evaluated each project based on technical approach, 

accomplishments, productivity, and relevance of the work to DOE goals. The panel 

identified areas of concern and areas to be commended, and the results of the peer review 

process were shared with the project team and DOE. 

6.2 External Evaluation 

6.2.1 National Academies of Science Review 

EPACT 2005, passed in August 2005, requires the SSL program enter into an agreement 

with the National Academy of Sciences to conduct periodic reviews of the Solid-State 

Lighting Initiative. However, even before the passage of EPACT 2005, the National 

Research Council (NRC) was tasked by Congress to develop a methodology for the 

prospective assessment of DOE program impacts. Starting in December of 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 solid state lighting 

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 solid state 

lighting R&D. The NRC published a report, Prospective Evaluation if Applied Research 

and Development at DOE (PHASE ONE): A First Look Forward 76 

•	 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 riskadjusted benefit is $50 billion (p. 151). This benefit is over and above that to be 

realized by the private and foreign R&D funding during these years, which is 

twice the assumed DOE funding. 

•	 The NRC notes that the potential benefits associated with full funding are large, 

76 To download a PDF version of this report, please visit http://www.nap.edu/books/0309096049/html. 

Date: March 2009	 134 
 

even if the stretch performance goals are not achieved. 

•	 The panel notes that the large projected benefits were for a relatively conservative 

reference scenario, and the other scenarios not analyzed would have shown even 

larger benefits (p. 64). It notes that the projected benefits even under baseline 

conditions are high enough to justify the authorized $500 million SSL DOE 

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 believes the technical goals will 

not be achieved. 

•	 Even if the R&D results were to be considerably less than the stretch goal, the 

panel estimates that the benefits would substantially exceed the cost of the 

program. 

The panel believes that DOE funding is an important catalyst to other R&D funding, and 

is a catalyst to spur such non-DOE funding. Huge environmental benefits would also 

flow from the program results, once implemented. Estimates of these 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: March 2009	 135 
 

Appendix A Approval of Exceptional Circumstances 

Determination for Inventions Arising Under the Solid State 

Lighting (SSL) Program 

Date: March 2008 A-1 











 

Appendix B Memorandum of Agreement between the U.S. 

Department of Energy and the Next Generation Lighting 

Industry Alliance 

Date: March 2008 B-1 







 

Appendix C Memorandum of Understanding between the 

U.S. Department of Energy and L-Prize Partners 

The following document contains a template Memorandum of Understanding that has 

been signed by all partners currently collaborating with the Department of Energy on the 

L-Prize. The list of partners as of March 2009 is below. 

• Cape Light Compact 

• Commonwealth Edison 

• DTE Energy 

• Efficiency Vermont 

• Energy Trust of Oregon 

• Eugene Water & Electric Board 

• Midwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (covers 9 states) 

• Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships (covers 8 states) 

• NSTAR Electric 

• NV Energy 

• Pacific Gas & Electric 

• Puget Sound Energy 

• Sacramento Municipal Utility District 

• San Diego Gas & Electric 

• Seattle City Light 

• Southern California Edison 

• Wisconsin Energy Conservation Corporation 

Date: March 2008 C-1 
____________________ 

 

The United States Department of Energy 

and 

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING 

DOE Bright Tomorrow Lighting Prizes
 

DOE and ___________________ (company) intend to work together toward the following 

objectives: 

By this Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and 

___________________ (company) agree to work cooperatively to improve the efficient use of 

energy and to minimize the impact of energy use on the environment. 

1) Encourage the development of solid-state lighting (SSL) products to significantly 

decrease lighting energy use and maintain or improve lighting service, compared to 

traditional light sources through support of the Bright Tomorrow Lighting Prize. 

2)	 Coordinate information-sharing regarding the evaluation of SSL products to the extent 

permissible. 

3) Develop and implement cooperative programs to speed the market introduction, retail 

availability, and consumer acceptance of the selected SSL products. Such programs may 

include cooperative marketing, consumer education, distribution chain incentives, and/or 

field testing, among other possible strategies. 

In conducting activities pursuant to this MOU, the parties understand and agree that DOE 

will not endorse any particular company or its products. The parties further understand and 

agree that the DOE logo shall not be used without the prior written authorization of DOE. 

This MOU is neither a fiscal nor a funds obligation document. Nothing in this MOU 

authorizes or is intended to obligate the Parties to expend, exchange, or reimburse funds, 

services, or supplies, or transfer or receive anything of value. 

All agreements herein are subject to, and will be carried out in compliance with, all 

applicable laws, regulations, and other legal requirements. 

This MOU in no way restricts either of the parties from participating in any activity with 

other public or private agencies, organizations, or individuals. 

This MOU is strictly for internal management purposes of the parties. It is not a contract for 

acquisition of supplies or services, is not legally enforceable, and shall not be construed to 

create any legal obligation on the part of either party, or any private right or cause of action 

for or by any person or entity. 
 

 

This MOU will become effective upon signature by the Assistant Secretary of EERE, DOE 

and ___________________ (representative), ___________________ (company). It may be 

modified or amended by written agreement between both parties, and such amendments shall 

become part of, and shall be attached to this MOU. 

This MOU shall terminate at the end of three (3) years from the later of the dates indicated 

below, unless revised or extended at that time by written agreement of the parties. It may be 

terminated at any time by either party, upon 90 days written notice to the other. Its provisions 

will be reviewed annually and amended/supplemented if mutually agreed upon in writing. 

The Department of Energy enters into this MOU under the authority of section 646 of the 

Department of Energy Organization Act (Pub. L. No. 95-91, as amended; 42 U.S.C. 7256). 

_________________________ __________ _______________________ __________ 

John Mizroch Date Signature Date 

_______________________ 

Acting Assistant Secretary 

Office of Energy Efficiency 

and Renewable Energy 

US Department of Energy 

Name 

_______________________ 

Title 

_______________________ 

Company 
 

Appendix D 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 solidstate 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 solid state lighting 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; 

Date: March 2008 D-1 
 

(B) National Laboratories; and 

(C) institutions of higher education. 

(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: March 2008 D-2 
 

 

 

 

 

Appendix E List of Patents Awarded Through DOEFunded Projects 

As of December 2008, a total of twenty two solid-state lighting patents have been granted 

as a result of Department of Energy-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 

90 patents applications have been applied for or awarded as follows: large businesses - 

44, small businesses - 16, universities - 26, and national laboratories - 4. 

Primary Research 

Organization Title of Patent Application (Bolded titles indicates granted patents) 

Agiltron, Inc. Two patent applications filed. 

Formation of Textured III-Nitride Templates for the Fabrication of Efficient 

Boston University Optical Devices 

Formation of Textured III-Nitride Templates for the Fabrication of Efficient 

Optical Devices 

Nitride LEDs Based on Flat and Wrinkled Quantum Wells 

Optical Devices Featuring Textured Semiconductor Layers 

Light Emitting Diode with Porous SiC Substrate and Method for 

Cree, Inc. 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 

Three other patent applications filed. 

Fairfield Crystal 

Technology Method and Apparatus for Aluminum Nitride Monocrystal Boule Growth 

GE Global Light-Emitting Device with Organic Electroluminescent Material and 

Research 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

 Hybrid Electroluminescent Devices 

OLED Area Illumination Source 

Eight other patent applications filed. 

Georgia Tech 

Research 

Corporation One patent application filed. 

Date: March 2008 E-1 
 

 

 

 

 

 

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 

Two 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 Quality 

Light for Illumination 

Novel Method to Generate High Efficient Devices, which Emit High Quality 

Light for Illumination 

 OLED with Phosphors 

Polymer and Small Molecule Based Hybrid Light Source 

Polymer Small Molecule Based Hybrid Light Source 

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. 

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 

Sandia National 

Laboratory Cantilever Epitaxial Process 

One additional patent application filed. 

Universal Display 

Corporation 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 solid state lighting applications 

Two additional patent applications filed. 

University of 

California, Santa 

Barbara Plasmon Assisted Enhancement of Organic Optoelectronic Devices 

Date: March 2008 E-2 
 

 

Primary Research 

Organization Title of Patent Application (Bolded titles indicates granted patents) 

Silicone Resin Encapsulants for Light Emitting Diodes 

Five other patent applications filed. 

University of North 

Texas One patent application filed. 

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: March 2008 E-3 
 

Appendix F Definition of Core Technology and Product 

Development 

DOE defines Core Technology and Product Development as follows: 

Core Technology - Core Technology research encompasses scientific efforts that focus 

on comprehensive knowledge or understanding of the subject under study, with possible 

multiple applications or fields of use in mind. Within Core Technology research areas, 

scientific principles are demonstrated, technical pathways to solid-state lighting (SSL) 

applications are identified, and price or performance advantages over previously 

available science/engineering are evaluated. Tasks in Core Technology are truly 

innovative and groundbreaking, fill technology gaps, provide enabling knowledge or 

data, and represent a significant advancement in the SSL knowledge base. Core 

Technology research focuses on gaining pre-competitive 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 program goals. 

Some examples of Core Technology research: molecular scale study of light generation 

and extraction; theory, fabrication and measurement of material properties of substrates, 

encapsulants, or polymers; software tools that capture scientific principles to expedite the 

design process; modeling of heat transfer principles to estimate temperature profiles 

within a semiconductor reactor; and mapping of scientific principles that explain the 

interactions of materials to create light of a specified spectrum. 

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. Product 

Development can also include “focused-short-term” applied research, but its relevance to 

a specific product must be clearly identified. 

Product Development activities include laboratory performance testing on prototypes to 

evaluate product utility, market, legal, health, and safety issues. Feedback from the 

owner/operator and technical data gathered from testing are used to improve prototype 

designs. 

Date: March 2008 F-1 
 

Appendix G Memorandum of Understanding between the 

U.S. Department of Energy and the Illuminating 

Engineering Society of North America 

Date: March 2009 G-1 


 

Appendix H Memorandum of Understanding between the 

U.S. Department of Energy and the International 

Association of Lighting Designers 

Date: March 2009 H-1 


 

Appendix I Legislative Directive: EISA 2007 

Subtitle B--Lighting Energy Efficiency 

Sec. 321. Efficient Light Bulbs. 

(a) Energy Efficiency Standards for General Service Incandescent Lamps- 

(1) DEFINITION OF GENERAL SERVICE INCANDESCENT LAMPSection 321(30) of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 

U.S.C. 6291(30)) is amended-- 

(A) by striking subparagraph (D) and inserting the following: 

`(D) GENERAL SERVICE INCANDESCENT LAMP- 

`(i) IN GENERAL- The term `general service incandescent 

lamp' means a standard incandescent or halogen type 

lamp that-­

`(I) is intended for general service applications; 

`(II) has a medium screw base; 

`(III) has a lumen range of not less than 310 lumens 

and not more than 2,600 lumens; and 

`(IV) is capable of being operated at a voltage range 

at least partially within 110 and 130 volts. 

`(ii) EXCLUSIONS- The term `general service 

incandescent lamp' does not include the following 

incandescent lamps: 

`(I) An appliance lamp. 

`(II) A black light lamp. 

`(III) A bug lamp. 

`(IV) A colored lamp. 

`(V) An infrared lamp. 

`(VI) A left-hand thread lamp. 

`(VII) A marine lamp. 

`(VIII) A marine signal service lamp. 

`(IX) A mine service lamp. 

`(X) A plant light lamp. 

`(XI) A reflector lamp. 

`(XII) A rough service lamp. 

`(XIII) A shatter-resistant lamp (including a shatterproof lamp and a shatter-protected lamp). 

`(XIV) A sign service lamp. 

`(XV) A silver bowl lamp. 

`(XVI) A showcase lamp. 

`(XVII) A 3-way incandescent lamp. 

`(XVIII) A traffic signal lamp. 

`(XIX) A vibration service lamp. 

`(XX) A G shape lamp (as defined in ANSI C78.20­

2003 and C79.1-2002 with a diameter of 5 

inches or more. 

`(XXI) A T shape lamp (as defined in ANSI 

C78.20-2003 and C79.1-2002) and that uses 

Date: March 2009 I-1 
 

not more than 40 watts or has a length of 

more than 10 inches. 

`(XXII) A B, BA, CA, F, G16-1/2, G-25, G30, S, or 

M-14 lamp (as defined in ANSI C79.1-2002 and 

ANSI C78.20-2003) of 40 watts or less.'; and 

(B) by adding at the end the following: 

`(T) APPLIANCE LAMP- The term `appliance lamp' means 

any lamp that-- 

`(i) is specifically designed to operate in a household 

appliance, has a maximum wattage of 40 watts, and is 

sold at retail, including an oven lamp, refrigerator lamp, 

and vacuum cleaner lamp; and 

`(ii) is designated and marketed for the intended 

application, with--

`(I) the designation on the lamp packaging; and 

`(II) marketing materials that identify the lamp as 

being for appliance use. 

`(U) CANDELABRA BASE INCANDESCENT LAMP- The term 

`candelabra base incandescent lamp' means a lamp that uses 

candelabra screw base as described in ANSI C81.61-2006, 

Specifications for Electric Bases, common designations E11 

and E12. 

`(V) INTERMEDIATE BASE INCANDESCENT LAMP- The 

term `intermediate base incandescent lamp' means a lamp that 

uses an intermediate screw base as described in ANSI 

C81.61-2006, Specifications for Electric Bases, common 

designation E17. 

`(W) MODIFIED SPECTRUM- The term `modified spectrum' 

means, with respect to an incandescent lamp, an incandescent 

lamp that-­

`(i) is not a colored incandescent lamp; and 

`(ii) when operated at the rated voltage and wattage of the 

incandescent lamp-- 

`(I) has a color point with (x,y) chromaticity 

coordinates on the Commission Internationale 

de l'Eclairage (C.I.E.) 1931 chromaticity 

diagram that lies below the black-body locus; 

and 

`(II) has a color point with (x,y) chromaticity 

coordinates on the C.I.E. 1931 chromaticity 

diagram that lies at least 4 MacAdam steps (as 

referenced in IESNA LM16) distant from the 

color point of a clear lamp with the same 

filament and bulb shape, operated at the same 

rated voltage and wattage. 

`(X) ROUGH SERVICE LAMP- The term `rough service lamp' 

Date: March 2009 I-2 
 

means a lamp that-- 

`(i) has a minimum of 5 supports with filament 

configurations that are C-7A, C-11, C-17, and C-22 as 

listed in Figure 6-12 of the 9th edition of the IESNA 

Lighting handbook, or similar configurations where 

lead wires are not counted as supports; and 

`(ii) is designated and marketed specifically for `rough 

service' applications, with-- 

`(I) the designation appearing on the lamp 

packaging; and 

`(II) marketing materials that identify the lamp as 

being for rough service. 

`(Y) 3-way incandescent lamp- The term `3-way incandescent 

lamp' includes an incandescent lamp that-­

`(i) employs 2 filaments, operated separately and in 

combination, to provide 3 light levels; and 

`(ii) is designated on the lamp packaging and marketing 

materials as being a 3-way incandescent lamp. 

`(Z) SHATTER-RESISTANT LAMP, SHATTER-PROOF LAMP, 

OR SHATTER-PROTECTED LAMP- The terms `shatterresistant lamp', `shatter-proof lamp', and `shatter-protected 

lamp' mean a lamp that-- 

`(i) has a coating or equivalent technology that is compliant 

with NSF/ANSI 51 and is designed to contain the glass 

if the glass envelope of the lamp is broken; and 

`(ii) is designated and marketed for the intended 

application, with--

`(I) the designation on the lamp packaging; and 

`(II) marketing materials that identify the lamp as 

being shatter-resistant, shatter-proof, or shatterprotected. 

`(AA) VIBRATION SERVICE LAMP- The term `vibration 

service lamp' means a lamp that-- 

`(i) has filament configurations that are C-5, C-7A, or C-9, 

as listed in Figure 6-12 of the 9th Edition of the IESNA 

Lighting Handbook or similar configurations; 

`(ii) has a maximum wattage of 60 watts; 

`(iii) is sold at retail in packages of 2 lamps or less; and 

`(iv) is designated and marketed specifically for vibration 

service or vibration-resistant applications, with-­

`(I) the designation appearing on the lamp 

packaging; and 

`(II) marketing materials that identify the lamp as 

being vibration service only. 

`(BB) GENERAL SERVICE LAMP- 

`(i) IN GENERAL- The term `general service lamp' 

Date: March 2009 I-3 
 

includes--

`(I) general service incandescent lamps; 

`(II) compact fluorescent lamps; 

`(III) general service light-emitting diode (LED or 

OLED) lamps; and 

`(IV) any other lamps that the Secretary determines 

are used to satisfy lighting applications 

traditionally served by general service 

incandescent lamps. 

`(ii) EXCLUSIONS- The term `general service lamp' does 

not include--

`(I) any lighting application or bulb shape described 

in any of subclauses (I) through (XXII) of 

subparagraph (D)(ii); or 

`(II) any general service fluorescent lamp or 

incandescent reflector lamp. 

`(CC) LIGHT-EMITTING DIODE; LED-

`(i) IN GENERAL- The terms `light-emitting diode' and 

`LED' means a p-n junction solid state device the 

radiated output of which is a function of the physical 

construction, material used, and exciting current of the 

device. 

`(ii) OUTPUT- The output of a light-emitting diode may be 

in-­

`(I) the infrared region; 

`(II) the visible region; or 

`(III) the ultraviolet region. 

`(DD) ORGANIC LIGHT-EMITTING DIODE; OLED- The terms 

`organic light-emitting diode' and `OLED' mean a thin-film 

light-emitting device that typically consists of a series of 

organic layers between 2 electrical contacts (electrodes). 

`(EE) COLORED INCANDESCENT LAMP- The term `colored 

incandescent lamp' means an incandescent lamp designated 

and marketed as a colored lamp that has-- 

`(i) a color rendering index of less than 50, as determined 

according to the test method given in C.I.E. publication 

13.3-1995; or 

`(ii) a correlated color temperature of less than 2,500K, or 

greater than 4,600K, where correlated temperature is 

computed according to the Journal of Optical Society 

of America, Vol. 58, pages 1528-1595 (1986).'. 

(2) COVERAGE- Section 322(a)(14) of the Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(14)) is amended by inserting `, 

general service incandescent lamps,' after `fluorescent lamps'. 

(3) ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS- Section 325 of the 

Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6295) is amended-- 

Date: March 2009 I-4 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

(A) in subsection (i)--

(i) in the section heading, by inserting `, General Service 

Incandescent Lamps, Intermediate Base Incandescent 

Lamps, Candelabra Base Incandescent Lamps,' after 

`Fluorescent Lamps'; 

(ii) in paragraph (1)--

(I) in subparagraph (A)--

(aa) by inserting `, general service incandescent 

lamps, intermediate base incandescent lamps, 

candelabra base incandescent lamps,' after 

`fluorescent lamps'; 

(bb) by inserting `, new maximum wattage,' after 

`lamp efficacy'; and 

(cc) by inserting after the table entitled 

`INCANDESCENT REFLECTOR LAMPS' the 

following: 

`GENERAL SERVICE INCANDESCENT LAMPS 

Rated Lumen Ranges Maximum Rate Wattage Minimum Rate Lifetime 

Effective Date 

1490-2600 72 1,000 hrs 1/1/2012 

1050-1489 53 1,000 hrs 1/1/2013 

750-1049 43 1,000 hrs 1/1/2014 

310-749 29 1,000 hrs 1/1/2014 

`MODIFIED SPECTRUM GENERAL SERVICE INCANDESCENT 

LAMPS 

Rated Lumen Ranges Maximum Rate Wattage Minimum Rate Lifetime 

Effective Date 

1118-1950 72 1,000 hrs 1/1/2012 

788-1117 53 1,000 hrs 1/1/2013 

563-787 43 1,000 hrs 1/1/2014 

232-562 29 1,000 hrs 1/1/2014'; 

and 

(II) by striking subparagraph (B) and inserting the 

following: 

`(B) APPLICATION-

`(i) APPLICATION CRITERIA- This subparagraph 

applies to each lamp that-­

`(I) is intended for a general service or general 

illumination application (whether incandescent 

or not); 

Date: March 2009 I-5 
 

`(II) has a medium screw base or any other screw 

base not defined in ANSI C81.61-2006; 

`(III) is capable of being operated at a voltage at 

least partially within the range of 110 to 130 

volts; and 

`(IV) is manufactured or imported after December 

31, 2011. 

`(ii) REQUIREMENT- For purposes of this paragraph, 

each lamp described in clause (i) shall have a color 

rendering index that is greater than or equal to-­

`(I) 80 for nonmodified spectrum lamps; or 

`(II) 75 for modified spectrum lamps. 

`(C) CANDELABRA INCANDESCENT LAMPS AND 

INTERMEDIATE BASE INCANDESCENT LAMPS-

`(i) CANDELABRA BASE INCANDESCENT LAMPS- A 

candelabra base incandescent lamp shall not exceed 60 

rated watts. 

`(ii) INTERMEDIATE BASE INCANDESCENT LAMPSAn intermediate base incandescent lamp shall not 

exceed 40 rated watts. 

`(D) EXEMPTIONS-

`(i) PETITION- Any person may petition the Secretary for 

an exemption for a type of general service lamp from 

the requirements of this subsection. 

`(ii) CRITERIA- The Secretary may grant an exemption 

under clause (i) only to the extent that the Secretary 

finds, after a hearing and opportunity for public 

comment, that it is not technically feasible to serve a 

specialized lighting application (such as a military, 

medical, public safety, or certified historic lighting 

application) using a lamp that meets the requirements 

of this subsection. 

`(iii) ADDITIONAL CRITERION- To grant an exemption 

for a product under this subparagraph, the Secretary 

shall include, as an additional criterion, that the 

exempted product is unlikely to be used in a general 

service lighting application. 

`(E) EXTENSION OF COVERAGE- 

`(i) PETITION- Any person may petition the Secretary to 

establish standards for lamp shapes or bases that are 

excluded from the definition of general service lamps. 

`(ii) INCREASED SALES OF EXEMPTED LAMPS- The 

petition shall include evidence that the availability or 

sales of exempted incandescent lamps have increased 

significantly since the date on which the standards on 

general service incandescent lamps were established. 

Date: March 2009 I-6 
 

`(iii) CRITERIA- The Secretary shall grant a petition under 

clause (i) if the Secretary finds that-- 

`(I) the petition presents evidence that demonstrates 

that commercial availability or sales of 

exempted incandescent lamp types have 

increased significantly since the standards on 

general service lamps were established and 

likely are being widely used in general lighting 

applications; and 

`(II) significant energy savings could be achieved 

by covering exempted products, as determined 

by the Secretary based on sales data provided to 

the Secretary from manufacturers and 

importers. 

`(iv) NO PRESUMPTION- The grant of a petition under 

this subparagraph shall create no presumption with 

respect to the determination of the Secretary with 

respect to any criteria under a rulemaking conducted 

under this section. 

`(v) EXPEDITED PROCEEDING- If the Secretary grants a 

petition for a lamp shape or base under this 

subparagraph, the Secretary shall--

`(I) conduct a rulemaking to determine standards for 

the exempted lamp shape or base; and 

`(II) complete the rulemaking not later than 18 

months after the date on which notice is 

provided granting the petition. 

`(F) DEFINITION OF EFFECTIVE DATE- In this paragraph, 

except as otherwise provided in a table contained in 

subparagraph (A), the term `effective date' means the last day 

of the month specified in the table that follows October 24, 

1992.'; 

(iii) in paragraph (5), in the first sentence, by striking `and 

general service incandescent lamps'; 

(iv) by redesignating paragraphs (6) and (7) as paragraphs 

(7) and (8), respectively; and 

(v) by inserting after paragraph (5) the following: 

`(6) STANDARDS FOR GENERAL SERVICE LAMPS- 

`(A) RULEMAKING BEFORE JANUARY 1, 2014- 

`(i) IN GENERAL- Not later than January 1, 2014, the 

Secretary shall initiate a rulemaking procedure to 

determine whether-­

`(I) standards in effect for general service lamps 

should be amended to establish more stringent 

standards than the standards specified in 

paragraph (1)(A); and 

Date: March 2009 I-7 
 

`(II) the exemptions for certain incandescent lamps 

should be maintained or discontinued based, in 

part, on exempted lamp sales collected by the 

Secretary from manufacturers. 

`(ii) SCOPE- The rulemaking--

`(I) shall not be limited to incandescent lamp 

technologies; and 

`(II) shall include consideration of a minimum 

standard of 45 lumens per watt for general 

service lamps. 

`(iii) AMENDED STANDARDS- If the Secretary 

determines that the standards in effect for general 

service incandescent lamps should be amended, the 

Secretary shall publish a final rule not later than 

January 1, 2017, with an effective date that is not 

earlier than 3 years after the date on which the final 

rule is published. 

`(iv) PHASED-IN EFFECTIVE DATES- The Secretary 

shall consider phased-in effective dates under this 

subparagraph after considering--

`(I) the impact of any amendment on manufacturers, 

retiring and repurposing existing equipment, 

stranded investments, labor contracts, workers, 

and raw materials; and 

`(II) the time needed to work with retailers and 

lighting designers to revise sales and marketing 

strategies. 

`(v) BACKSTOP REQUIREMENT- If the Secretary fails 

to complete a rulemaking in accordance with clauses 

(i) through (iv) or if the final rule does not produce 

savings that are greater than or equal to the savings 

from a minimum efficacy standard of 45 lumens per 

watt, effective beginning January 1, 2020, the 

Secretary shall prohibit the sale of any general service 

lamp that does not meet a minimum efficacy standard 

of 45 lumens per watt. 

`(vi) STATE PREEMPTION- Neither section 327(b) nor 

any other provision of law shall preclude California or 

Nevada from adopting, effective beginning on or after 

January 1, 2018--

`(I) a final rule adopted by the Secretary in 

accordance with clauses (i) through (iv); 

`(II) if a final rule described in subclause (I) has not 

been adopted, the backstop requirement under 

clause (v); or 

`(III) in the case of California, if a final rule 

Date: March 2009 I-8 
 

described in subclause (I) has not been 

adopted, any California regulations relating to 

these covered products adopted pursuant to 

State statute in effect as of the date of 

enactment of the Energy Independence and 

Security Act of 2007. 

`(B) RULEMAKING BEFORE JANUARY 1, 2020- 

`(i) IN GENERAL- Not later than January 1, 2020, the 

Secretary shall initiate a rulemaking procedure to 

determine whether-­

`(I) standards in effect for general service 

incandescent lamps should be amended to 

reflect lumen ranges with more stringent 

maximum wattage than the standards specified 

in paragraph (1)(A); and 

`(II) the exemptions for certain incandescent lamps 

should be maintained or discontinued based, in 

part, on exempted lamp sales data collected by 

the Secretary from manufacturers. 

`(ii) SCOPE- The rulemaking shall not be limited to 

incandescent lamp technologies. 

`(iii) AMENDED STANDARDS- If the Secretary 

determines that the standards in effect for general 

service incandescent lamps should be amended, the 

Secretary shall publish a final rule not later than 

January 1, 2022, with an effective date that is not 

earlier than 3 years after the date on which the final 

rule is published. 

`(iv) PHASED-IN EFFECTIVE DATES- The Secretary 

shall consider phased-in effective dates under this 

subparagraph after considering--

`(I) the impact of any amendment on manufacturers, 

retiring and repurposing existing equipment, 

stranded investments, labor contracts, workers, 

and raw materials; and 

`(II) the time needed to work with retailers and 

lighting designers to revise sales and marketing 

strategies.'; and(B) in subsection (l), by adding 

at the end the following: 

`(4) ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR CERTAIN LAMPS­

`(A) IN GENERAL- The Secretary shall prescribe an energy 

efficiency standard for rough service lamps, vibration service 

lamps, 3-way incandescent lamps, 2,601-3,300 lumen general 

service incandescent lamps, and shatter-resistant lamps only 

in accordance with this paragraph. 

`(B) BENCHMARKS- Not later than 1 year after the date of 

Date: March 2009 I-9 
 

enactment of this paragraph, the Secretary, in consultation 

with the National Electrical Manufacturers Association, shall- 

`(i) collect actual data for United States unit sales for each 

of calendar years 1990 through 2006 for each of the 5 

types of lamps described in subparagraph (A) to 

determine the historical growth rate of the type of lamp; 

and 

`(ii) construct a model for each type of lamp based on 

coincident economic indicators that closely match the 

historical annual growth rate of the type of lamp to 

provide a neutral comparison benchmark to model 

future unit sales after calendar year 2006. 

`(C) ACTUAL SALES DATA­

`(i) IN GENERAL- Effective for each of calendar years 

2010 through 2025, the Secretary, in consultation with 

the National Electrical Manufacturers Association, 

shall--

`(I) collect actual United States unit sales data for 

each of 5 types of lamps described in 

subparagraph (A); and 

`(II) not later than 90 days after the end of each 

calendar year, compare the lamp sales in that 

year with the sales predicted by the comparison 

benchmark for each of the 5 types of lamps 

described in subparagraph (A). 

`(ii) CONTINUATION OF TRACKING- 

`(I) DETERMINATION- Not later than January 1, 

2023, the Secretary shall determine if actual 

sales data should be tracked for the lamp types 

described in subparagraph (A) after calendar 

year 2025. 

`(II) CONTINUATION- If the Secretary finds that 

the market share of a lamp type described in 

subparagraph (A) could significantly erode the 

market share for general service lamps, the 

Secretary shall continue to track the actual 

sales data for the lamp type. 

`(D) ROUGH SERVICE LAMPS-

`(i) IN GENERAL- Effective beginning with the first year 

that the reported annual sales rate for rough service 

lamps demonstrates actual unit sales of rough service 

lamps that achieve levels that are at least 100 percent 

higher than modeled unit sales for that same year, the 

Secretary shall-- 

`(I) not later than 90 days after the end of the 

previous calendar year, issue a finding that the 

Date: March 2009 I-10 
 

index has been exceeded; and 

`(II) not later than the date that is 1 year after the 

end of the previous calendar year, complete an 

accelerated rulemaking to establish an energy 

conservation standard for rough service lamps. 

`(ii) BACKSTOP REQUIREMENT- If the Secretary fails 

to complete an accelerated rulemaking in accordance 

with clause (i)(II), effective beginning 1 year after the 

date of the issuance of the finding under clause (i)(I), 

the Secretary shall require rough service lamps to-- 

`(I) have a shatter-proof coating or equivalent 

technology that is compliant with NSF/ANSI 

51 and is designed to contain the glass if the 

glass envelope of the lamp is broken and to 

provide effective containment over the life of 

the lamp; 

`(II) have a maximum 40-watt limitation; and 

`(III) be sold at retail only in a package containing 1 

lamp. 

`(E) VIBRATION SERVICE LAMPS-

`(i) IN GENERAL- Effective beginning with the first year 

that the reported annual sales rate for vibration service 

lamps demonstrates actual unit sales of vibration service 

lamps that achieve levels that are at least 100 percent 

higher than modeled unit sales for that same year, the 

Secretary shall-- 

`(I) not later than 90 days after the end of the 

previous calendar year, issue a finding that the 

index has been exceeded; and 

`(II) not later than the date that is 1 year after the 

end of the previous calendar year, complete an 

accelerated rulemaking to establish an energy 

conservation standard for vibration service 

lamps. 

`(ii) BACKSTOP REQUIREMENT- If the Secretary fails 

to complete an accelerated rulemaking in accordance 

with clause (i)(II), effective beginning 1 year after the 

date of the issuance of the finding under clause (i)(I), 

the Secretary shall require vibration service lamps to-­

`(I) have a maximum 40-watt limitation; and 

`(II) be sold at retail only in a package containing 1 

lamp. 

`(F) 3-way incandescent lamps- 

`(i) IN GENERAL- Effective beginning with the first year 

that the reported annual sales rate for 3-way 

incandescent lamps demonstrates actual unit sales of 3­

Date: March 2009 I-11 
 

way incandescent lamps that achieve levels that are at 

least 100 percent higher than modeled unit sales for that 

same year, the Secretary shall-- 

`(I) not later than 90 days after the end of the 

previous calendar year, issue a finding that the 

index has been exceeded; and 

`(II) not later than the date that is 1 year after the 

end of the previous calendar year, complete an 

accelerated rulemaking to establish an energy 

conservation standard for 3-way incandescent 

lamps. 

`(ii) BACKSTOP REQUIREMENT- If the Secretary fails 

to complete an accelerated rulemaking in accordance 

with clause (i)(II), effective beginning 1 year after the 

date of issuance of the finding under clause (i)(I), the 

Secretary shall require that-- 

`(I) each filament in a 3-way incandescent lamp 

meet the new maximum wattage requirements 

for the respective lumen range established 

under subsection (i)(1)(A); and 

`(II) 3-way lamps be sold at retail only in a package 

containing 1 lamp. 

`(G) 2,601-3,300 lumen general service incandescent lampsEffective beginning with the first year that the reported annual 

sales rate demonstrates actual unit sales of 2,601-3,300 lumen 

general service incandescent lamps in the lumen range of 

2,601 through 3,300 lumens (or, in the case of a modified 

spectrum, in the lumen range of 1,951 through 2,475 lumens) 

that achieve levels that are at least 100 percent higher than 

modeled unit sales for that same year, the Secretary shall 

impose-- 

`(i) a maximum 95-watt limitation on general service 

incandescent lamps in the lumen range of 2,601 through 

3,300 lumens; and 

`(ii) a requirement that those lamps be sold at retail only in 

a package containing 1 lamp. 

`(H) SHATTER-RESISTANT LAMPS-

`(i) IN GENERAL- Effective beginning with the first year 

that the reported annual sales rate for shatter-resistant 

lamps demonstrates actual unit sales of shatter-resistant 

lamps that achieve levels that are at least 100 percent 

higher than modeled unit sales for that same year, the 

Secretary shall-- 

`(I) not later than 90 days after the end of the 

previous calendar year, issue a finding that the 

index has been exceeded; and 

Date: March 2009 I-12 
 

 

`(II) not later than the date that is 1 year after the 

end of the previous calendar year, complete an 

accelerated rulemaking to establish an energy 

conservation standard for shatter-resistant 

lamps. 

`(ii) BACKSTOP REQUIREMENT- If the Secretary fails 

to complete an accelerated rulemaking in accordance 

with clause (i)(II), effective beginning 1 year after the 

date of issuance of the finding under clause (i)(I), the 

Secretary shall impose-- 

`(I) a maximum wattage limitation of 40 watts on 

shatter resistant lamps; and 

`(II) a requirement that those lamps be sold at retail 

only in a package containing 1 lamp. 

`(I) RULEMAKINGS BEFORE JANUARY 1, 2025- 

`(i) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in clause (ii), if the 

Secretary issues a final rule prior to January 1, 2025, 

establishing an energy conservation standard for any of 

the 5 types of lamps for which data collection is 

required under any of subparagraphs (D) through (G), 

the requirement to collect and model data for that type 

of lamp shall terminate unless, as part of the 

rulemaking, the Secretary determines that continued 

tracking is necessary. 

`(ii) BACKSTOP REQUIREMENT- If the Secretary 

imposes a backstop requirement as a result of a failure 

to complete an accelerated rulemaking in accordance 

with clause (i)(II) of any of subparagraphs (D) through 

(G), the requirement to collect and model data for the 

applicable type of lamp shall continue for an additional 

2 years after the effective date of the backstop 

requirement.'. 

(b) Consumer Education and Lamp Labeling- Section 324(a)(2)(C) of the Energy 

Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6294(a)(2)(C)) is amended by adding 

at the end the following: 

`(iii) RULEMAKING TO CONSIDER EFFECTIVENESS OF LAMP 

LABELING-

`(I) IN GENERAL- Not later than 1 year after the date of 

enactment of this clause, the Commission shall initiate a 

rulemaking to consider-- 

`(aa) the effectiveness of current lamp labeling for power 

levels or watts, light output or lumens, and lamp 

lifetime; and 

`(bb) alternative labeling approaches that will help 

consumers to understand new high-efficiency lamp 

products and to base the purchase decisions of the 

Date: March 2009 I-13 
 

consumers on the most appropriate source that meets 

the requirements of the consumers for lighting level, 

light quality, lamp lifetime, and total lifecycle cost. 

(II) COMPLETION- The Commission shall-- 

`(aa) complete the rulemaking not later than the date that is 

30 months after the date of enactment of this clause; 

and 

`(bb) consider reopening the rulemaking not later than 180 

days before the effective dates of the standards for 

general service incandescent lamps established under 

section 325(i)(1)(A), if the Commission determines 

that further labeling changes are needed to help 

consumers understand lamp alternatives.'. 

(c) Market Assessments and Consumer Awareness Program- 

(1) IN GENERAL- In cooperation with the Administrator of the 

Environmental Protection Agency, the Secretary of Commerce, the 

Federal Trade Commission, lighting and retail industry associations, 

energy efficiency organizations, and any other entities that the 

Secretary of Energy determines to be appropriate, the Secretary of 

Energy shall--

(A) conduct an annual assessment of the market for general service 

lamps and compact fluorescent lamps-- 

(i) to identify trends in the market shares of lamp types, 

efficiencies, and light output levels purchased by 

residential and nonresidential consumers; and 

(ii) to better understand the degree to which consumer 

decisionmaking is based on lamp power levels or watts, 

light output or lumens, lamp lifetime, and other factors, 

including information required on labels mandated by 

the Federal Trade Commission; 

(B) provide the results of the market assessment to the Federal 

Trade Commission for consideration in the rulemaking 

described in section 324(a)(2)(C)(iii) of the Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6294(a)(2)(C)(iii)); and 

(C) in cooperation with industry trade associations, lighting 

industry members, utilities, and other interested parties, carry 

out a proactive national program of consumer awareness, 

information, and education that broadly uses the media and 

other effective communication techniques over an extended 

period of time to help consumers understand the lamp labels 

and make energy-efficient lighting choices that meet the needs 

of consumers. 

(2) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS- There is authorized to 

be appropriated to carry out this subsection $10,000,000 for each of 

fiscal years 2009 through 2012. 

(d) General Rule of Preemption for Energy Conservation Standards Before 

Date: March 2009 I-14 
 

Federal Standard Becomes Effective for a Product- Section 327(b)(1) of the 

Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6297(b)(1)) is amended-- 

(1) by inserting `(A)' after `(1)'; 

(2) by inserting `or' after the semicolon at the end; and 

(3) by adding at the end the following: 

`(B) in the case of any portion of any regulation that establishes 

requirements for general service incandescent lamps, intermediate 

base incandescent lamps, or candelabra base lamps, was enacted or 

adopted by the State of California or Nevada before December 4, 

2007, except that--

`(i) the regulation adopted by the California Energy Commission 

with an effective date of January 1, 2008, shall only be 

effective until the effective date of the Federal standard for the 

applicable lamp category under subparagraphs (A), (B), and 

(C) of section 325(i)(1); 

`(ii) the States of California and Nevada may, at any time, modify 

or adopt a State standard for general service lamps to conform 

with Federal standards with effective dates no earlier than 12 

months prior to the Federal effective dates prescribed under 

subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) of section 325(i)(1), at which 

time any prior regulations adopted by the State of California 

or Nevada shall no longer be effective; and 

`(iii) all other States may, at any time, modify or adopt a State 

standard for general service lamps to conform with Federal 

standards and effective dates.'. 

(e) Prohibited Acts- Section 332(a) of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act 

(42 U.S.C. 6302(a)) is amended-- 

(1) in paragraph (4), by striking `or' at the end; 

(2) in paragraph (5), by striking the period at the end and inserting `; or'; 

and 

(3) by adding at the end the following: 

`(6) for any manufacturer, distributor, retailer, or private labeler to 

distribute in commerce an adapter that-- 

`(A) is designed to allow an incandescent lamp that does not have a 

medium screw base to be installed into a fixture or 

lampholder with a medium screw base socket; and 

`(B) is capable of being operated at a voltage range at least 

partially within 110 and 130 volts.'. 

(f) Enforcement- Section 334 of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 

U.S.C. 6304) is amended by inserting after the second sentence the following: 

`Any such action to restrain any person from distributing in commerce a 

general service incandescent lamp that does not comply with the applicable 

standard established under section 325(i) or an adapter prohibited under 

section 332(a)(6) may also be brought by the attorney general of a State in the 

name of the State.'. 

(g) Research and Development ProgramDate: March 2009 I-15 
 

(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-

(1) REPORT ON MERCURY USE AND RELEASE- Not later than 1 

year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary, in 

cooperation with the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 

Agency, shall submit to Congress a report describing 

recommendations relating to the means by which the Federal 

Government may reduce or prevent the release of mercury during the 

manufacture, transportation, storage, or disposal of light bulbs. 

(2) REPORT ON RULEMAKING SCHEDULE- Beginning on July 1, 

2013, and semiannually through July 1, 2016, the Secretary shall 

submit to the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of 

Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

of the Senate a report on--

(A) whether the Secretary will meet the deadlines for the 

rulemakings required under this section; 

(B) a description of any impediments to meeting the deadlines; and 

(C) a specific plan to remedy any failures, including 

recommendations for additional legislation or resources. 

(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 solid state lighting 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 

Date: March 2009 I-16 
 

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. 

Subtitle E: Miscellaneous Provisions 

Sec. 655. Bright Tomorrow Lighting Prizes 

(a) Establishment- Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, as 

part of the program carried out under section 1008 of the Energy Policy Act of 

2005 (42 U.S.C. 16396), the Secretary shall establish and award Bright Tomorrow 

Lighting Prizes for solid state lighting in accordance with this section. 

(b) Prize Specifications- 

(1) 60-WATT INCANDESCENT REPLACEMENT LAMP PRIZE - The 

Secretary shall award a 60-Watt Incandescent Replacement Lamp Prize to 

an entrant that produces a solid-state-light package simultaneously capable 

of--

(A) producing a luminous flux greater than 900 lumens; 

(B) consuming less than or equal to 10 watts; 

(C) having an efficiency greater than 90 lumens per watt; 

(D) having a color rendering index greater than 90; 

(E) having a correlated color temperature of not less than 2,750, 

and not more than 3,000, degrees Kelvin; 

(F) having 70 percent of the lumen value under subparagraph (A) 

exceeding 25,000 hours under typical conditions expected in 

residential use; 

(G) having a light distribution pattern similar to a soft 60-watt 

incandescent A19 bulb; 

(H) having a size and shape that fits within the maximum 

dimensions of an A19 bulb in accordance with American National 

Standards Institute standard C78.20-2003, figure C78.20-211; 

(I) using a single contact medium screw socket; and 

(J) mass production for a competitive sales commercial market 

satisfied by producing commercially accepted quality control lots 

of such units equal to or exceeding the criteria described in 

subparagraphs (A) through (I). 

(2) PAR TYPE 38 HALOGEN REPLACEMENT LAMP PRIZE- The 

Secretary shall award a Parabolic Aluminized Reflector Type 38 Halogen 

Replacement Lamp Prize (referred to in this section as the `PAR Type 38 

Halogen Replacement Lamp Prize') to an entrant that produces a solidstate-light package simultaneously capable of-- 

(A) producing a luminous flux greater than or equal to 1,350 

Date: March 2009 I-17 
 

lumens; 

(B) consuming less than or equal to 11 watts; 

(C) having an efficiency greater than 123 lumens per watt; 

(D) having a color rendering index greater than or equal to 90; 

(E) having a correlated color coordinate temperature of not less 

than 2,750, and not more than 3,000, degrees Kelvin; 

(F) having 70 percent of the lumen value under subparagraph (A) 

exceeding 25,000 hours under typical conditions expected in 

residential use; 

(G) having a light distribution pattern similar to a PAR 38 halogen 

lamp; 

(H) having a size and shape that fits within the maximum 

dimensions of a PAR 38 halogen lamp in accordance with 

American National Standards Institute standard C78-21-2003, 

figure C78.21-238; 

(I) using a single contact medium screw socket; and 

(J) mass production for a competitive sales commercial market 

satisfied by producing commercially accepted quality control lots 

of such units equal to or exceeding the criteria described in 

subparagraphs (A) through (I). 

(3) TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY LAMP PRIZE- The Secretary shall 

award a Twenty-First Century Lamp Prize to an entrant that produces a 

solid-state-light-light capable of--

(A) producing a light output greater than 1,200 lumens; 

(B) having an efficiency greater than 150 lumens per watt; 

(C) having a color rendering index greater than 90; 

(D) having a color coordinate temperature between 2,800 and 

3,000 degrees Kelvin; and 

(E) having a lifetime exceeding 25,000 hours. 

(c) Private Funds-

(1) IN GENERAL- Subject to paragraph (2), and notwithstanding section 

3302 of title 31, United States Code, the Secretary may accept, retain, and 

use funds contributed by any person, government entity, or organization 

for purposes of carrying out this subsection--

(A) without further appropriation; and 

(B) without fiscal year limitation. 

(2) PRIZE COMPETITION- A private source of funding may not 

participate in the competition for prizes awarded under this section. 

(d) Technical Review- The Secretary shall establish a technical review committee 

composed of non-Federal officers to review entrant data submitted under this 

section to determine whether the data meets the prize specifications described in 

subsection (b). 

(e) Third Party Administration- The Secretary may competitively select a third 

party to administer awards under this section. 

(f) Eligibility for Prizes- To be eligible to be awarded a prize under this section-- 

(1) in the case of a private entity, the entity shall be incorporated in and 

Date: March 2009 I-18 
 

maintain a primary place of business in the United States; and 

(2) in the case of an individual (whether participating as a single 

individual or in a group), the individual shall be a citizen or lawful 

permanent resident of the United States. 

(g) Award Amounts- Subject to the availability of funds to carry out this section, 

the amount of-- 

(1) the 60-Watt Incandescent Replacement Lamp Prize described in 

subsection (b)(1) shall be $10,000,000; 

(2) the PAR Type 38 Halogen Replacement Lamp Prize described in 

subsection (b)(2) shall be $5,000,000; and 

(3) the Twenty-First Century Lamp Prize described in subsection (b)(3) 

shall be $5,000,000. 

(h) Federal Procurement of Solid-State-Lights­

(1) 60-watt incandescent replacement- Subject to paragraph (3), as soon as 

practicable after the successful award of the 60-Watt Incandescent 

Replacement Lamp Prize under subsection (b)(1), the Secretary (in 

consultation with the Administrator of General Services) shall develop 

government wide Federal purchase guidelines with a goal of replacing the 

use of 60-watt incandescent lamps in Federal Government buildings with a 

solid-state-light package described in subsection (b)(1) by not later than 

the date that is 5 years after the date the award is made. 

(2) PAR 38 HALOGEN REPLACEMENT LAMP REPLACEMENTSubject to paragraph (3), as soon as practicable after the successful award 

of the PAR Type 38 Halogen Replacement Lamp Prize under subsection 

(b)(2), the Secretary (in consultation with the Administrator of General 

Services) shall develop governmentwide Federal purchase guidelines with 

the goal of replacing the use of PAR 38 halogen lamps in Federal 

Government buildings with a solid-state-light package described in 

subsection (b)(2) by not later than the date that is 5 years after the date the 

award is made. 

(3) WAIVERS- 

(A) IN GENERAL- The Secretary or the Administrator of General 

Services may waive the application of paragraph (1) or (2) if the 

Secretary or Administrator determines that the return on 

investment from the purchase of a solid-state-light package 

described in paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (b), respectively, is 

cost prohibitive. 

(B) REPORT OF WAIVER- If the Secretary or Administrator 

waives the application of paragraph (1) or (2), the Secretary or 

Administrator, respectively, shall submit to Congress an annual 

report that describes the waiver and provides a detailed 

justification for the waiver. 

(i) Report- Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, and 

annually thereafter, the Administrator of General Services shall submit to the 

Energy Information Agency a report describing the quantity, type, and cost of 

each lighting product purchased by the Federal Government. 

Date: March 2009 I-19 
 

(j) Bright Tomorrow Lighting Award Fund-

(1) ESTABLISHMENT- There is established in the United States 

Treasury a Bright Tomorrow Lighting permanent fund without fiscal year 

limitation to award prizes under paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of subsection 

(b). 

(2) SOURCES OF FUNDING- The fund established under paragraph (1) 

shall accept-- 

(A) fiscal year appropriations; and 

(B) private contributions authorized under subsection (c). 

(k) Authorization of Appropriations- There are authorized to be appropriated such 

sums as are necessary to carry out this section. 

Date: March 2009 I-20