Lighting Standards: When is Doing Something, Better than Doing Nothing?

The lighting industry is amid transformations enabled by rapid advances in solid-state light generation and control and an ever-increasing understanding of how lighting contributes to human health. New technologies and scientific understandings influence design practice, standards, and codes—which in turn influences legislative requirements and legal obligations. While informed by an understanding of science and technology, standards and codes are ultimately products of consensus and compromise.

The constituencies involved in writing consensus documents—including representatives from government agencies, design professionals, equipment manufacturers, and scientific researchers—almost always have different priorities. A researcher may prioritize technical accuracy even if it causes disruption to the way that lighting products are characterized and marketed. A manufacturer may prioritize continuity and believe that revisions are akin to “changing the rules,” unless the revision will facilitate customer acceptance or be leveraged as a commercial advantage.

Consider a few examples of lighting standards and codes that are making societal impacts, but which have also prompted dissidence.

Early versions of the WELL Building Standard endeavored to support circadian photobiology, but the requirements ignored time of day and were defined with reference to visual rather than nonvisual needs (IWBI 2015). While the intent was laudable, the recommendations were irrational. The current version is an improvement because the criteria considers the time of day, employs more sensible units, and disentangles visual and nonvisual requirements ([IWBI] International Well Building Institute 2020). Even though the numerical recommendations for circadian lighting design are still only tenuously supported by scientific understanding, the general trend in the recommendations is compatible with current knowledge.

IES TM-30-15 (IES 2015) provided a method for characterizing light source color rendition that is an objective improvement over any prior system. When introduced, however, it was incomplete because it did not provide guidance for setting design criteria using TM-30 indices (David et al. 2015). This limitation was addressed with a multi-year research and consensus building effort that led to the publication Annexes E and F (IES 2019a, 2019b) of ANSI/IES TM-30-18 (ANSI/IES 2018), and a revised computational tool. Annex E providesspecification guidance based on benchmarking, empirical evidence from human factors studies, and experience. The revised computational tool provides a standardized output that facilitates reporting and product comparisons.

These first two examples show how standards can adapt and mature in response to critical feedback and industry needs. In these cases, the initial efforts, despite being faulty or incomplete, were tested in practice and revised to become better.

In 2016, the California Energy Commission (CEC) adopted a voluntary minimum specification for “California Quality” LED lamps that require lamps for residential use to have individual color rendering index (R_i) scores of 72 or greater (Soheila et al. 2016). Practically, this requires a general color rendering index (CRI, or R_a) of 90 or greater. This policy was adopted as part of Title 20 in 2017 (CEC 2017) despite opposition from NEMA (2016) and others. CEC reaffirmed the policy in 2018 (CEC 2018), 2019 (CEC 2019a) and 2020 (CEC 2019b, 2019c). The policy has the benefit of ensuring that color quality will not be poor, but it inhibits sources that would have other benefits, such as better color preference, higher luminous efficacy, or lower cost. Despite good intentions, CEC’s policy is a free market intervention that blocks innovation and limits consumer choice.

In 2016, the American Medical Association (AMA) made recommendations about outdoor lighting (AMA 2016) that some considered to be misguided (e.g., IALD 2017; IES 2017a, 2017b; Houser 2017; Rea and Figueiro 2016). At root, the AMA policy fails to adequately characterize both the physical stimulus and the biological response. Rather than accepting counsel that would have improved their recommendations, the AMA reasserted their tenuous position (Stevens and Motta 2017). The policy is still active today (AMA 2020).

These second two examples show how organizations may resist revision. There is little doubt that CEC and AMA believe they are acting in the public’s best interest. Indeed, just as reasonable people can disagree, so can institutional bodies. Unfortunately, CEC and AMA have reasserted policies that are only partially compatible with their well-intentioned outcomes. Counterproductively, resistance to cooperation leads to distrust and hampers wider adoption.

When motivations are true, doing something is better than doing nothing. Yet, with standards and codes, doing something new should merely be the entry point. This is especially true today since we are in a period of rapid progress in lighting technology and scientific understanding. Failure to revise in response to rational criticism will leave potential unrealized. Listening, followed by reflective revision, is a recipe for amplifying outcomes.

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.