Can adding a reliability standard to Energy Star actually hurt LED lighting?

"Asian regulations do not include lifetime/reliability as part of their energy specs." That may be the case, but most CLF's or LED products will be made in China (or a next-door country). I recently bought a low-wattage LED lamp for the basement and it didn't last a year. Keeping the mind the vaild comments on warrenties, maybe someting like this is needed. Besides, all manufacturers will be on a "level playing field" as requards to obtaining approval.

I would go with the Cree opinion any day over Bridgelux. If they want the EnergyStar rating then design and test for a quality product. With the CFL fiasco you cannot buy a product from even a "quality" company with any assurance that the light will last more than 6 months. I vote for Quality!

Efficiency is just one apect of being "Green". The Energy Star ratings should be converted to "Green" Ratings and take into account total lifetime product energy footprint.
Take the case of CFLs. As others have noted, up until recently CFLs have had poor reliability and have not lived up to package claims. Part of the cost of this poor reliability is increased product energy footprint. If the CFLs lived up to their lifetime claims, less would have to be built, meaning less energy would be required to build them. And less would have to be thrown away - meaning less hazardous waste footprint and less recovery cost (and less energy expended for that recovery of hazardous waste).
The problem with Energy Star and "Green" ratings is they don't take the total product life (and death) cycle into account. So I say reliability absolutely should be part of the equation.

DDS commented:
A manufacturer should only have to give a an efficency number like lumens/watt and the government should get out of the way. The market figures out rather quickly if a device lasts long enough for the price.
Yes, the market DOES figure out eventually whether the device lasts long enough to be worth the price. BUT before that happens tens of thousands of bad product made with significant resources and hazardous byproducts are dumped and a significant portion of the market is poisoned by the bad rep caused by a few shoddy manufactuers. SO what if testing takes a year? There is no mandate that products have the energy star rating, as the CEO mentions in his lament that foreign manufacturers do not have to comply. Let him sell his product without an energy star rating until that rating is earned, then put on the stamp and sell to the larger market that is smart enogh to look for the rating. And also, by what twisted logic does the lifetime of a product NOT factor into its energy efficiency? It takes energy to make and distribute any product and so one that does not last very long clearly consumes more energy in the big picture even if it is 10x more efficient at the electric meter.
I've had about enough of whining CEOs. Screw'em.

Reliability and Life are being confused in this article and discussion. LEDs tend to fade as they age. At some point the light output will drop below an acceptable threshold. Thats life. At any time they can also fail, due to design errors process problems or just plain "bad luck". Thats reliability. As a user I need both long life and high reliability. Life should be defined as part of the rating. It can measured and demonstrated. Reliability can only really be covered by a warranty since it can not be proven for an individual light.

Reliability is part any good designs and led industry comes under Semiconductor industry- it is automatically assumed to be high reliable and definately and it asscesories must be upto some standards to perform more Better. Just for the sake cost cutting people design chep luminaries which will fail in short time. Like any other industry led lighting industry must also have reliablity standard rating

Whole thing sounds like typical manufacturer whining under pressure of actually doing something more than maximizing their own profit. Companies don't have moral and thus should be encouraged to get one. Standards for consumer electronics reliability are LATE already, or has anybody seen one lately? Not only lacking them contributes to tons of waste every single day, but may well be the single largest spill of hazardous chemicals by man so far. Anybody caring dip s**t about their environment should see the necessity of seeing it end. What I have seen all these years I've been working as an electronics engineer is more and more products that are intentionally built for early failure. That's A) a risk for safety, B) underappreciation statement for all the work/people involved in making and marketing it and C) total failure to comply with any energy efficiency regulations by the amount of energy wasted in heating my brain.

Hi I believe that reliability begins with the design, a highly reliable CCFL or LED light-fixture does not have to be any more costly to manufacture than a less reliable part. It is the designer who does not watch the specs of the parts he is using who is at fault here. For instance using a capacitor at or often above ratings is asking for early failures. Things like this ruins the reliability and the reputation of a product. I have designed high reliability >10 years that cost less than the less reliable part. If the LED or CFL lasts, the electronic ballast can, and should be designed to outlast it.

Energy Star has rightly moved beyond just an efficiency standard. In lighting, at least, it is a quality mark that consumers can use to separate the wheat from the chaff. Reliability and product life belong in Energy Star. This does not distort the goal of the program.
Mr. Watkins would have us believe that the government is mandating that he conduct life tests, and the government is interfering with his "constitutional right" to sell potentially low quality products. The truth is that Energy Star is a voluntary program. He is not forced to have his products meet the Energy Star requirements. However, if he does want to display the Energy Star logo to show potential customers that his products meet the energy AND quality standards of Energy Star, then he needs to follow the rules.

The color of CFLs is rudely different from incandescent lamps. The same for LEDs. It is not always a problem, but save me the possibility of the choice: I wish to use ALSO incandescent bulbs!

A manufacturer should only have to give a an efficency number like lumens/watt and the government should get out of the way. The market figures out rather quickly if a device lasts long enough for the price.

Let says you buy a LED lamp for $20 to replace a 99c light bulb. The light bulb last 1000 hours and the LED despite all the green rating last 100 hours then did you save the environment (the 99c light bulb cost less to material and labor to fabricate). Adding the life span rating does make sense, don't you think?

How about keeping the "Energy Star" rating as an energy efficiency rating, and a separate rating for reliability. Then, it might be possible to force the least reliable 50% of suppliers out of business, and all of us would benefit. We can make our own choices about how efficient we want to be, and that rating should not be mingled with a lifetime rating. It would be changing the meaning of a word in mid story, which is bound to create LOTS OF CONFUSION among those who shop. So lets not corrupt one rating symbol byn adding and changing it's meaning. A separate lifetime rating is the way to go.

Warrantees are marketing window dressing.
Manufacturers have no intent of honoring warrantees
I have never had an electronics warranty honored:
1) Where is the original sales slip?
2) Did you register your unit with us? What was the confirmation number?
3) Do you have your original copy of the warranty?
4) We no longer carry that model. You will have to send it to the factory (and pay shipping)
4b) That unit is no longer in production. You will have to send it to our service center (pay shipping) and they will fix it (usually not, they are a 3rd party contractors and there are no parts)
4c) You didn't pack it according to our guidelines
4d) This number is no longer in service.&.404 not found
5) Our test show you were operating our product outside of its intended voltage...temperature...moist environment....exposed to sun......etc
Watkins expects customers to run this gauntlet for a $50 light bulb??

What an astute consumer is interested in is the total effect on his wallet; i.e. total cost per lumen-hour. That is, acquisition cost plus energy cost. (Plus disposal cost, potentially). So, to prevent the lead-time problem stressed in the article, lets put reliability and total cost into a separate rating that can be issued AFTER the Energy Star rating.

These are all interesting points, but let’s review the past history of both electronic fluorescent ballasts and Edison-based CFL’s and see what we can learn. When electronic ballasts were introduced in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s, there were massive early failures; names such as XO, Thomas, Thunderbolt, and LG totally messed-up the reputation of what was potentially an energy saving product. It took the passage of several years and the extension of the product warranty to five years to restart the growth of electronic fluorescent ballasts. Similar disasters occurred with many Edison-based CFL’s upon their introduction into the marketplace. Warranties are wonderful in providing some recourse for the buyer –IF—the company that provide the product and warranty is still around to honor it.
Hence, the EPA, and previously the DOE, do have valid concerns about manufacturers introducing SSL products that do not live up to their own performance claims including life, or do not meet published standards such as IES LM79 or LM80. We as an industry do not need a repeat of the field issues and performance problems that occurred with the introduction of the original linear electronic fluorescent ballast or CFL products.
Remember, SSL luminaires consist of metal, plastic, light sources, and electronics. For the purpose of defining luminaire lifetime, we can generally disregard metal and plastic, and focus on the light sources and electronics. Currently, light source life is difficult to predict; however, the IES is working on methods of prediction or extrapolation of life. Every reputable electronics manufacturer with whom I am familiar has some type of accelerated life test (ALT) as part of the design process
What good is it for a consumer to purchase a product that is indeed more energy efficient, but duos not last as long as long or perform as promised? By including performance requirements including minimum life times in their specifications, the EPA Energy Star program is providing assurance to consumers and users of LED products that these products will indeed function for their rated life in a reliable and pleasing manner. This will accelerate the acceptance of LED products in the marketplace and continue to fuel their growth.

I question the value of a "Energy Star" rating.
A number that will likely be useful for comparing options at the time of purchase... but, very hard to compare with next generation of product.
Will a 2008 light fixture with a rating of "8" be worth replacing for better energy efficiency in 2012 with a light fixture rated at "5"?
Is it assumed no one will replace a fixture for energy reduction in the future - regardless of it working or not ?
Just give me a simple, unambiguous efficiency measurement...
and a simple, unambiguous expected reliability value.
Two numbers.. is that so complicated?
other wise.. "energy star" starts to mean as much as "organic" in the food store.
People today.. are expected to know all above the differences between the many types of fat in their food.. "watts per lumen" and "MTBF" isn't any more complicated than this...

I agree that the Energy-Star rating system for lighting should include a lifetime, but we should have a two-tier rating system. One should be purely related to energy consumption (with a passing mention of power factoring), and the other should be reliability related. Reliability ratings should also be sub-divided residential/easily replaceable with a 5-year (15,000 hour) requirement, commercial (large replaceable installations) with a 10-year (35,000 hour) requirement and commercial (semi-permanent installations) with a 20-year (75,000 hour) requirement.

Let's put everybody on a level playing field. Instead of a separate standard for energy usage and reliability, calculate, based on some arbitrary average energy cost, the lifetime energy cost of each device, including manufacturing energy, and use that as the standard. You could have a bar graph like they have on water heaters, but label it with the average for each type of light and the specific point on the scale for this particular light. That will answer everybody's need for information and give a true comparison for every type of lighting. In addition, all items, including lights, that cost less than USD 40 or so should be required to be refunded or exchanged by the retailer for at least the first year. Manufacturers would be allowed to use a warranty during the time before the Energy Star label was available for their product, with a listed reliability, but the warranty would have to be for a period of at least the expected or claimed reliability for that class of products. After the certification was completed, the warranty would have to be for at least the average life of the product. That solves most of the problems of lighting and other small purchases, giving the consumer both convenience and confidence in their purchases.

12 years ago, I hopped onto the CFL bandwagon and paid $15 each for Phillips 60w equiv.lamps. I bought 8 of them, and 2 are still working. Over the years, I replaced all the lamps with CFLs. I also replaced (24) 4 ft lamps with T-8s and electronic ballasts. All these years, our electric bill never exceeds $70, and usually much less. That's about $30 per month over 12 years. It's good enough for me.

I haven't ever had to replace a Philips CFL. I've had them for years and they are still working.
Total cost of ownership is what counts. All those people whining about how the new energy efficient refrigerators will cost people more - forgetting to mention that they will save people hundreds of dollars in electricity over their lifetime.
Sorry - but the free market system doesn't work in this field. Planned obsolescence was the norm.

Watkins comment that it take 9-12 months to do a reliability test on a product is bogus.
It is done on routine basis for a number of products .. much more complex than Light systems...
Is is a pain in the butt?
yes... (I have done them)
Is it a reasonable task? yes.
Will worst case MTBF numbers make products look bad? .. at first - very likely..
But it will be a good metric for improvement and comparison of products.

If I care about total energy, that includes what it took to make, and whether I have to buy one or six.
Having been screwed (heh) countless times by CCFL lamps rated for 7 years and dying in one, I'm all for this. It's always the electronics that have failed and I fully expect electronics to be the Achilles' heel of LED lamps too - all minimum-cost, as usual.
If you think I'll pay 20X for a bulb over incandescent, you'd better man up on the lifetime, Billy.

The cost of ownership for a product is both the initial cost and the lifetime energy usage. Since using a lower energy device must show a payback within the lifetime of the product reliability (ie MTBF) must be factored into the overall cost. If there is no payback then use a $.59 incandescent. For a product like this the warranty is not generally viable since it requires at best returning the product to the store (using gas) or sending it to some address postage paid (using gas an postage)and waiting 16 weeks. Warranties on these products typically are not used because of the cost anc convenience trade offs. So for the manufacturer producing a cheap product generally outweighs the warranty costs since most products that fail after a couple hundred hours are never returned.
Since most of these are produced in China with their supply chain, high stress components like electrolytics are substituted with very low cost varieties with at best questionable parentage. This lowers the cost at the expense of reliability.
I disagree with Bill Watkins and think the reliability requirement should be included in the specification. If energy costs are to be optimized then all energy associated with the product life cycle needs to be included. This includes not just operating energy usage but energy needed to produce, transport, and replace the product over its life time.

Warranty life does NOT equal expected life of product...
Warranties are often based on many other factors.
- expected percentage of product returned
(if they move, are they going to take the light fixtures/bulbs with them?)
- odds of typical life of product vs expected minimum life of product (often very different)
- cost to process warranty
- risk of law suits...
Way too complex for average consumer...
and makes warranty life a poor indicator of product life.
Mean Time Between Failure (MTBF) .. much less ambiguous info for consumer.

If you REALLY want consumers to be informed....
- List actual efficiency.. not a label of "green" based on a moving standard of acceptable efficiency.
- List MTBF (mean time between failure) rating for products.
Not just for lighting products .....
This will give consumers information of real value... and give manufacturers real feed back on what the customers are willing to pay for.

His comments are very cogent because many building inspectors lack the expertise to know that an LED meets (or exceeds) the requirements for high efficency lighting in new construction. Having experienced this first hand, I can tell you that lumens per watt should be the ONLY measure that Energy Star cares about.
Of course than we could talk about the vendors that have "bought" their Energy Star ratings .... but that is another topic.

my warrenty experience with CFLs
1. mought a house full of CFLs from a reliable retailer.
2. they were warrented for 5 years on the package.
3. used them in a variety of fixtures.
4. marked each with date of service entry.
5. as they died I returned them one by one and got a new one (or three)
6. new bulbs come with now warrenty on package.

Ever try to exercise a warranty on a CCFL? Madness. Watkins is just plain copping out on quality. Remind me not to buy Bridgelux.