LED Street Lighting: A Handbook for Small Communities
Anne Kimber, Jonathan Roberts, Joel Logan, Iowa Association of Municipal Utilities (IAMU)
And Mike Lambert, Brooks Borg Skiles Architecture Engineering LLP / KCL Engineering
Funded by:
American Public Power Association DEED program and The Iowa Energy Center
Disclaimer
While IAMU has attempted to make the information and materials in this handbook current,
IAMU cannot represent nor endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information or
material.
This handbook and information which is made available, is provided "as is" without warranty of
any kind, either expressed or implied, including, but not limited to, the implied warranties of
merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, or non-infringement.
IAMU shall not be liable for any special, direct, indirect, incidental, or consequential damages,
including, without limitation, loss of revenues, profits or data, whether in an action in contract,
negligence, or other tortuous action, which may result from the use of this handbook or the
materials and information contained herein.
Copyright
The American Public Power Association (APPA) owns all rights, title and interest in “LED Street
Lighting: A Handbook for Small Communities” (Handbook), including ownership of the
copyright.
APPA has provided the Iowa Energy Center with a non-exclusive, non-transferable, royalty-free
license to use this Handbook for the purpose of use, reproduction and distribution for
noncommercial, educational purposes.
ii
Table of Contents
Disclaimer.........................................................................................................................................ii
Copyright ..........................................................................................................................................ii
Executive Summary..........................................................................................................................v
Acknowledgements......................................................................................................................... vi
Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1
Technical Background ..................................................................................................................... 2
Advantages of LED Street Lighting .............................................................................................. 2
LED Light Characteristics ............................................................................................................. 6
Design Considerations for LED Street Lights ............................................................................... 8
LED Technology ......................................................................................................................... 11
Federal and State Rules and Design Standards Governing Street Lighting .............................. 13
Impacts of LED Technology on Roadway Lighting Design ......................................................... 13
New LED Roadway Lighting: Three Example Designs ................................................................... 16
Sample Roadway Lighting Descriptions .................................................................................... 16
Typical Residential Street .......................................................................................................... 17
Typical Collector Road ............................................................................................................... 19
Typical Downtown Main Street District .................................................................................... 21
Tools to evaluate the costs and benefits of an LED retrofit ......................................................... 24
Street Light Inventory................................................................................................................ 24
LED Street Light Financial Calculators: MSSLC and IAMU ........................................................ 26
Developing a Request for Proposals ............................................................................................. 27
Guide to the DOE MSSLC Specification ..................................................................................... 28
Case studies .................................................................................................................................. 30
Case Study 1: Algona, Iowa ...................................................................................................... 32
Case Study 2: Auburn, Iowa ..................................................................................................... 37
iii
Case Study 3: Independence, Iowa ........................................................................................... 40
Case Study 4: Montezuma, Iowa ............................................................................................... 43
Case Study 5: Mount Pleasant, Iowa ......................................................................................... 47
Case Study 6: Muscatine, Iowa ................................................................................................. 51
Case Study 7: Pocahontas, Iowa ............................................................................................... 55
Case Study 8: Spencer, Iowa .................................................................................................... 58
Case Study 9: Waverly, Iowa .................................................................................................... 61
References .................................................................................................................................... 64
MSSLC Model Specification for LED Roadway Luminaires ........................................................... 67
iv
Executive Summary
This handbook is written for a small community considering an LED streetlight retrofit. It can be
used as background to learn about LED street lighting, to analyze the costs and benefits of an
LED streetlight retrofit, to develop specifications leading to bid documents, and to learn from
other small communities’ recent projects.
Funded by the American Public Power Association’s Demonstration of Energy Efficient
Developments (DEED) program and the Iowa Energy Center, the handbook includes 9 case
studies of small Iowa communities that installed retrofit LED luminaires in 2011 and 2012, a
calculator to determine costs and payback, technical considerations in street light design and
luminaire specifications, three simple roadway designs for new installations, and guidance for
developing RFPs for luminaires.
v
Acknowledgements
We wish to thank the cities that assisted with the development of the handbook: Algona
Municipal Utilities, the City of Auburn, Independence Light and Power, Montezuma Municipal
Light and Power, Mount Pleasant Municipal Utilities, Muscatine Power and Water, the City of
Pocahontas, Spencer Municipal Utilities, and Waverly Light and Power. We are also grateful for
the help provided by Edward Smalley from the Department of Energy Municipal Solid-State
Street Lighting Consortium, by Jason Tuenge from the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory,
and by Clayton Gordon from the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America.
This project was supported by the Iowa Energy Center under Grant 11D-01, and by a grant from
the American Public Power Association’s Demonstration of Energy Efficient Developments
(DEED).
vi
Introduction
LED street lighting is a technology that continues to evolve and develop and the
way we light roadways today could be very different than a decade from
now. However, for those communities who invest now, there are many tools
available to assure they select the appropriate fixture for their applications. These
communities then have the ability to take the savings and invest in other services,
such as police and fire.
Edward Smalley, Director of the Department of Energy (DOE) Municipal SolidState Street Lighting Consortium (MSSLC), July 2012.
Many Iowa municipal utilities replaced their existing streetlights with Light Emitting Diode (LED)
streetlights1 between 2010 and 2012. These communities turned their attention to energy
efficiency in street lighting in part because street lighting energy consumption has been a
significant part of a city’s energy use: in a study of 17 Iowa communities involved in the Iowa
Association of Municipal Utilities (IAMU) 2010 Whole Town Audit project2, street lights
consumed an average of 26% of municipal energy use. A street lighting project remains one of
the most visible energy efficiency projects a small community can undertake, and, because
streetlight expenses are borne by the whole community, efficiency improvements similarly
benefit the entire community.
Grant funding from the Iowa Community Grants program and from the federal American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (EECBG)
program enabled communities to buy down the cost of LED luminaires3, at the same time that
rapid advancements in LED street light technology were occurring and prices were decreasing.
During this period, the Department of Energy (DOE) provided new guidance on LED street
lighting design and project information through the Municipal Solid-State Street Lighting
Consortium (MSSLC). The timing was right for communities to pursue street lighting projects, but
most small communities lacked readily available independent sources of information to help
1
LED lighting is one type of solid state lighting (SSL), that produces visible light through electroluminescence, rather
than by heating up a metal filament (incandescent lighting), exciting a gas (fluorescent lighting), or creating an arc
that produces a plasma (high intensity discharge lighting such as high pressure sodium or metal halide ).
2
Funded by the American Public Power Association DEED program and the State of Iowa Community Grants
program
3
“Luminaire” – a complete lighting unit consisting of a lamp or lamps together with the parts designed to distribute
the light, to position and protect the lamps and to connect the lamps to the power supply. Sometimes includes
ballasts and photocells. Per IES RP-8.
1
them determine whether an LED street light project had merit and how to select luminaires that
would perform at least as well as their current lighting, while meeting roadway lighting
standards. Their challenges and solutions are the basis for this guide.
Technical Background
Embarking on an LED lighting project can be daunting because there are many new products and
claims as the industry evolves. There may be uncertainty about how a community will react to
new lighting and concern about whether new lighting will provide adequate safety to drivers and
pedestrians. Historically LED roadway lighting has been more expensive than other standard
options, like High Pressure Sodium (HPS) lighting, leading to uncertainty about whether the
energy and maintenance savings from an LED retrofit will be worth the effort.
Here are some Frequently Asked Questions and answers from technical resources and recent
community experiences:
Advantages of LED Street Lighting
Why do we have street lighting?
Street lighting is as commonplace as roads themselves. Street lighting is used extensively in
urban settings, along small town downtown main streets, in residential neighborhoods, in
commercial districts, in industrial parks, at interstate highway interchanges, and rural
intersections. While most people take street lighting for granted, good street lighting
contributes to the safe movement of vehicles and pedestrians, the aesthetics of an area, and the
ability of commerce to extend into the evening and nighttime hours. According to the American
National Standard Practice for Roadway Lighting (1)4, street lighting provides four main
functions:




Reduction in night accidents, attendant human misery, and economic loss;
Aid to police protection and enhanced sense of personal security;
Facilitation of traffic flow;
Promotion of business and the use of public facilities during the night hours.
Different areas of a community have different requirements for street lighting. Along a
downtown main street with businesses operating in the evening, top safety concerns may
include sidewalks, street-side parking, intersections, and crosswalks. The area will need to be
4
Numbers in parentheses refer to literature cited in the References section
2
lighted to provide safety for the pedestrians, vehicles traveling down the street, and vehicles
entering and exiting parking spaces. If the community wants to create an inviting atmosphere,
the aesthetics of the lighting come into play. The area may need to be lit to a higher level than
necessary for safety, and specialty decorative luminaires may be used. Along major roadways
through the community, safety for vehicles and pedestrians may be the main concern. On local
roads in residential areas, with limited traffic and pedestrian usage at night, lower light levels
may be sufficient for safety and a sense of security.
How is LED lighting different than other street lighting technologies such as high pressure
sodium, metal halide or mercury vapor lamps?
Since High Intensity Discharge (HID) lamps are high-intensity near-point sources, the optical
design for these luminaires can cause the area directly below the luminaire to have a much
higher illuminance than areas farther away from the luminaire (hot spots). In contrast, the
smaller, multiple point-source and directional characteristics of LEDs can allow better control of
the distribution with a resulting improvement in uniformity (2).
Will LED street lighting improve the lighting quality?
Any street lighting project should seek to maintain or enhance the ability of the lighting to
perform the four functions given above. A primary consideration should be how the street
lighting system illuminates the target area. LED street lighting offers several advantages over
traditional technology that may improve overall lighting quality:

Uniformity: LED luminaires consist of arrays of many LED chips, with each chip
producing a point source of light. These many small sources of light allow the optics of
an LED luminaire to distribute the light more effectively than luminaires using HID
lamps bulbs. This can result in the illumination levels being more uniform—there is
less difference between the minimum and maximum light illumination levels.

Correlated Color Temperature: The color of the light produced by a light source is
quantified as the correlated color temperature (CCT) (2). HPS lamps produce light with
a CCT of around 2,000 Kelvin, while the most efficient LED luminaires produce light
with a CCT of 4,000 K or higher. HPS light is yellow orange, while LED light is bright
white to bluish-white. Growing evidence is showing that the higher blue light content
of LEDs contribute to visibility at the light levels associated with street lighting (4).

Color Rendering Index: The ability of a light source to show the color of objects is
called the color rendering index (CRI). HPS lamps have a very poor CRI of around 22.
Under lights with poor CRI, there is little contrast between colors, and visual
3
performance is decreased. Research has found that visual performance improves
under LED lighting compared to HPS lighting (5).
Will LED street lighting save energy?
One of the most touted benefits of LED street lighting is their lower energy use compared to
standard street lighting technologies such as HPS. In most applications, LED street lights do save
energy. As documented in the Iowa community case studies, LED street lighting has reduced
energy consumption of the retrofitted luminaires between 29% and 63%. The energy savings for
a specific project depend on many factors, including existing lighting technology, new lighting
technology, control strategies, and whether or not the illumination level is changed during the
retrofit.
The efficiency of a light source in producing light is measured as light output (lumens) per power
input (watts), and is referred to as luminous efficacy (lumens per watt). Traditionally HPS lamps
have been used because of their high efficacy. However, the efficacy of an HPS luminaire
depends not only on the efficacy of the HPS lamp but also on how well the optics get the light
out of the luminaire and deliver to the area to be illuminated. Over the past several years great
progress has been made in improving the efficacy of LED street light luminaires, such that they
are now comparable to HPS luminaires.
LED luminaires are also better at directing the light where it is needed, and thus they waste less
of the light output of the luminaire. HPS and metal halide lamps are high intensity near point
sources of light. The optics of near point source light often causes the area directly below the
luminaire to be over lit, while areas farther away from the luminaire are under lit. The over lit
area under the luminaire can represent wasted light and wasted energy. In contrast, the many
small LED light sources in an LED luminaire allow the luminaire optics to direct the light to where
it is needed. This results in a much more even illumination, without the bright spot beneath the
luminaire. A well designed LED street lighting layout should be able to have a more uniform
distribution of light with lower maximum illuminance values and lower energy consumption than
traditional street lighting technology. This has been documented in the Iowa case studies
described in the report and several DOE GATEWAY Demonstration projects.
When selecting an LED luminaire, it is important to make sure the illuminance provided is
adequate but not excessive. Some existing street light configurations may be over lighting an
area. In Auburn, Iowa, 400 Watt HPS were used along residential streets and the result was
excessive light levels, wasted energy, and high electricity costs. When the city retrofitted these
luminaires to LED luminaires, they installed a luminaire marketed to replace a 150 Watt HPS
lamp rather than a 400 Watt lamp. The result is greater energy and cost savings, and an
appropriate illuminance level. A report by Efficiency Vermont (6) provides additional guidance
4
on eliminating unnecessary street lighting. Computer modeling using photometric files or
installing several test luminaires is very helpful in determining if LED luminaires will provide
adequate visual acceptability.
Do LED street lights last longer than HID lighting?
A well designed LED street luminaire should have a longer useful life than a HPS or metal halide
lamp. As with HID luminaires, an LED luminaire is made up of many components, and the failure
of any individual component could be the end of the LED luminaire’s life. LED chips don’t
typically fail by “burning out” as traditional HPS or metal halide lamps do. Rather, LED chips
gradually get dimmer over a long period of time. Therefore, an LED luminaire will need to be
replaced when the light output has diminished to point where it is not providing adequate
illumination. An LED luminaire is typically deemed to not provide sufficient light when the
output has diminished to 70% of the original output. This is referred to as the L70 lumen
maintenance life of a luminaire.
There is no standard for measuring or estimating the life or reliability of LED streetlights, and
manufacturers make a variety of life expectancy claims. When purchasing LED street lights, it is
strongly recommended to obtain a good warranty from the manufacturer. A warranty of at least
five years should be requested.
How will LED street lights reduce our maintenance costs?
Because good LED luminaires have a much longer life than HPS or metal halide lamps, they have
the potential to lower maintenance costs. Whether a community performs group relamping or
performs maintenance on an as needed basis as lights burn out, LED luminaires should reduce
the frequency and cost of repairs. Maintenance crews will then have more time for other work.
When installing long life LED luminaires, it is important to think about the other components
that could also fail. If other components consistently fail before the luminaires, then the full
maintenance savings will not be realized. For example, if the street lights are controlled by
photocontrols, long life photocontrols should be installed along with the LED luminaires.
Common, low cost photocontrols may not last as long as an LED luminaire, and early failure will
mean emergency maintenance to replace just the photocontrol.
LED street lights are expensive, and our city is trying to cut costs. Will installing LED street
lights reduce our costs?
Currently high quality LED luminaires are generally more expensive than equivalent HPS or metal
halide luminaires. However, LED street lighting can reduce energy and maintenance costs while
improving lighting quality. When evaluating different types of street lighting, it is important to
5
consider the costs over the lifetime of the luminaire. Beyond the initial cost of the luminaire, the
energy and maintenance costs of the luminaire must be estimated. The MSSLC and IAMU have
developed spreadsheet based calculators to analyze the financials of a street light retrofit
project. More information on these calculators is contained in the section titled “LED Street
Light Financial Calculators: MSSLC and IAMU.”
LED Light Characteristics
LED lighting is very white. In other installations, has the public liked the change from the
yellow-orange of HPS to the white-blue of LED?
Many people like the whiter light and better color rendering index of LED street lights, however
the change in lighting will likely not be universally praised. Before performing a mass retrofit of
street lights, it is wise to install a test section of lights and then solicit public feedback on the test
installation. A test installation of one or several city blocks in a prominent location in the
community is typical for obtaining community feedback. The feedback can be used to improve
on plans for future retrofits of street lights to LED luminaires.
The case study section of this handbook contains details on LED street light retrofit projects from
communities across Iowa. Anecdotally, these projects have received positive feedback from the
public in the community and surrounding communities. The MSSLC website,
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ssl/resources.html, contains links to DOE GATEWAY
demonstration project reports that assess the performance of LED lighting in actual installations.
Several of these reports contain the results of surveys of public perception of LED street lighting
compared to the incumbent technology.
Are there health benefits or concerns with LED street lights?
Currently there is significant research being conducted on the health effects of night time
lighting in general. It is known that the eye provides input to the brain for both visual and nonvisual neurological functions. The eye provides input to the pineal gland, which regulates the
production and secretion of the hormone melatonin. Melatonin, which is produced in larger
quantities at night than during the day, helps regulate the human’s circadian rhythm. The
circadian rhythm, in turn, regulates many physiological rhythms of the body. Research has
shown that melatonin production is suppressed when humans are exposed to light at night. It
has also been found that melatonin suppression in humans is most strongly influenced by light in
the blue portion of the spectrum.
In 2010 the DOE hosted a panel of experts in nighttime light exposure to discuss the current
state of science on the effects of the nighttime light exposure on health. The discussion is
summarized in a white paper, “Light at Night: The Latest Science” (7). The conclusion of the
6
paper was, “Given the available research, it is unclear what changes, if any, should be made to
current best-practice lighting design.” The panel provided a list of research questions that
needed to be answered and other steps that need to be taken to address potential negative
effects from night time lighting.
Our community is concerned about light pollution and improving dark skies. Do LED street
lights reduce light pollution?
The effect of excess night lighting on the health of humans and wildlife has gained scrutiny in
recent years. The satellite image below of North America shows the significant amount of light
directed or reflected upward at night. Every small town and large metropolitan area is clearly
visible in outer space from the glow of street lights and other outdoor lighting. While some light
pollution is unavoidable, much of the light emitted upward represents a waste of light and of
energy.
Figure 1. Nighttime light of North American as seen from space. Source: NASA
5
Debate exists as to whether or not LED street lighting will reduce light pollution. On the one
hand, because most LED luminaires contain many small point light sources, the light output can
often be more easily controlled and directed where it is needed. This can result in the LED
luminaire needing to output less light compared to a HID luminaire to provide equivalent or
5
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/NIGHTLIGHTS.html
7
better roadway lighting. Also because most LEDs are inherently directional, the luminaires can
be easily designed to minimize or eliminate the amount of light that exits the luminaire at high
angles and contributes to sky glow. On the other hand, the greater content of blue wavelength
light from LED products is somewhat more easily scattered by the atmosphere and could create
more sky glow than with light from HPS (8, 9).
The International Dark Sky Association (IDA) has worked to promote awareness of the problem
of light pollution and advocate solutions. The IDA partnered with the Illuminating Engineering
Society to develop a Model Lighting Ordinance (10). Communities can adopt the MLO to
regulate and reduce light pollution and glare.
We get complaints about street lights shining in people’s windows? Will LED street lights
solve this problem?
Complaints about street lights shining in a bedroom window is due to light trespass—the light
from the street light is going beyond its intended target (the road and sidewalk) and is shining on
a nearby residence. A traditional strategy to deal with this issue is to install an external light
shield on the backside of the luminaire. LED streetlights have the potential to eliminate light
trespass without the use of such a shield. Because the light from an individual LED is easily
controlled with optics, LED luminaires can be designed with very sharp light cutoffs. When
selecting an LED luminaire, look at the light distribution pattern and select the best distribution
for your application. With the right light distribution, it is possible to light the intended target,
with little or no light directed onto adjacent properties.
Design Considerations for LED Street Lights
Are there best practice design guides for street lighting?
In North America, cities use the ANSI/IESNA RP-8, American National Standard Practice for
Roadway Lighting, or the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO) GL-6 Roadway Lighting Design Guide (11). Both were published in 2005.
How do we know if a luminaire’s light distribution is appropriate?
The light distribution pattern from street lights is classified into seven major standard types by
the IESNA. These distribution patterns are shown in Figure 2. As can be seen below, some
distributions are appropriate for roadways, and others are for intersection or area lighting.
Information on a luminaire’s light distribution pattern should be contained in the literature from
the manufacturer. Frequently, manufacturers provide the same luminaire with multiple light
distribution patterns.
8
A luminaire should not be selected based on its light distribution pattern alone. Photometric
calculations should be performed to determine if the luminaire will provide adequate lighting.
As discussed above the IESNA RP-8 can be followed as a standard for street lighting.
Figure 2. Luminaire light distribution patterns. Modified with permission from Lighting for Exterior Environments
(RP-33-99) published by the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America.
Are there any local, state, or national regulations regarding street lighting?
Regulations regarding street lighting within a community have been set by local jurisdictions.
Some jurisdictions have adopted the ANSI/IESNA RP-8, “American National Standard Practice for
Roadway Lighting”, which specifies minimum illuminance levels for roadway lighting. Other
jurisdictions may have developed their own standards. However, many small communities have
no standards for street lighting, and base their street lighting decisions on rules of thumb.
Before proceeding with an LED street lighting project, a community should check local, county,
and state regulations to determine if there are any regulations that apply to them.
In addition to standards for minimum illuminance, some jurisdictions have adopted ordinances
to limit light pollution such as the International Dark-Sky Association MLO as a guide for
communities wanting to limit light pollution. These ordinances may specify characteristics a
luminaire must have, maximum illuminance levels, and prohibitions on certain lighting
techniques. Again, an LED lighting retrofit should comply with any light pollution ordinances if
they exist.
See the section titled “Federal and state rules and design standards governing roadway lighting”
for more information on street lighting regulations.
Should we hire a lighting professional to help select the LED luminaires and the layout?
A community may currently follow a basic model of street lighting using different wattages of
lights in different locations, and this model may have stayed the same for many years. LED
9
lighting is a fundamentally different technology than traditional sources such as HPS or metal
halide lamps. A qualified lighting designer will be able to develop a roadway lighting plan that
takes advantage of all the benefits that LED luminaires offer. This can be especially helpful for
designing for a new development.
Because of the rapidly changing field of LED lighting, and wide range in performance of LED
luminaires, selecting the best luminaire for application can be challenging. Working with a
lighting professional to develop a specification for a formal request for proposals and review the
applications received can ease the burden on city staff and help the city select a high quality
luminaire at a good price.
Can we install the LED luminaires on the existing poles and arms?
In a retrofit project, it is possible that the existing pole location or spacing is not optimal.
However, it is often impractical or impossible to relocate the poles to optimal locations. If the
community does not have a lighting standard, then it is only necessary to ensure that the LEDs
provide adequate illumination. This may mean matching the existing illumination level, or
reducing the illumination level if the existing level is deemed excessive.
Most LED luminaires designed to replace existing HPS or metal halide luminaires are designed to
fit on the same arms as the old luminaires. Ask the manufacturer what mounting configurations
are available, and if there are options, make sure to specify the configuration that works with
the existing arms.
We have decorative luminaires on Main Street and the decorative LED luminaires are very
expensive. Does it make sense to replace these street lights with LED luminaires?
The handbook focuses on barn light and cobra head replacements because these projects are
relatively straightforward to analyze and implement. Many communities have decorative street
lighting in their downtown areas, or historic areas. If your community is considering retrofitting
decorative street lighting, be aware that specifying retrofits for decorative lighting is not as
simple as retrofitting barn lights or cobra heads, because there are many options for decorative
street lighting but, today, not as many cost-effective options to replace the luminaire within the
decorative luminaire. For example, a 2011 DOE MSSLC study of decorative LED street lighting in
Sacramento (12) found that the costs to retrofit with LED were greater than the energy savings
benefit. Rapid technology advances should bring down the costs of decorative LED retrofits, and
we anticipate that communities will want to pursue these retrofits because of the aesthetic
benefits of LED light to downtown areas and because citizens may want similar lighting quality
throughout their community.
10
LED Technology
How do we know if we are getting a good product?
In order to ensure your community selects a product that best meets its needs, it is
recommended that a product specification be developed and distributed to potential suppliers.
A request for specification should list all the criteria that the LED luminaire should meet.
Developing a specification can be daunting, but fortunately, the MSSLC has developed a model
specification that a community can customize to meet its needs (13). For more information on
using the MSSLC model specification, see the section titled Developing a Request for Proposals
on page 27.
Are there standard LED replacement luminaires for existing luminaires?
The LED lighting industry is evolving very rapidly, and manufacturers are constantly improving
and updating LED street light luminaires. While the common luminaires for HPS and metal
halide street lighting are relatively standardized, at this point there are no standard
replacements for common HID luminaires. Manufactures are continually developing new
designs, as they attempt to optimize LED configurations, optics, driver electronics, housings, and
controls. One manufacturer’s replacement for a 100 Watt HPS luminaire may look significantly
different than another manufacturer’s model. Because design modifications are being
implemented so rapidly, a luminaire from a single manufacturer may change over the course of
a year.
Because of the variability in LED luminaire performance, some communities have chosen to test
multiple LED luminaires in situ to determine which ones perform the best. Kansas City, Missouri,
with support from the MSSLC, is conducting a demonstration project in which they are testing 9
different LED luminaires in residential and commercial applications to determine which ones
perform the best (14). The MSSLC also supported a similar study in Portland, Oregon that
compared the performance of three LED luminaires, one induction luminaire, and one ceramic
metal halide luminaire along a residential collector road (15). A similar study was completed
recently in Pittsburgh by the Remaking Cities Institute (16).
Should we use an LED lamp that simply screws into the existing high pressure sodium or metal
halide luminaire?
The optics required to control and direct LEDs are distinctly different that the optics needed to
direct the light from a conventional HID lamp. Therefore, the full benefit of improved lighting
quality and energy savings may not be realized if an existing luminaire is retrofitted to
accommodate LED technology. A high quality luminaire specifically designed for LED street
lighting will optimize light distribution.
11
LED luminaires must also manage the heat produced by the LEDs. As LED chips heat up their
efficacy and life decrease. Again, a luminaire designed specifically for LEDs should have proper
thermal management.
Are there any replaceable parts in an LED street light? What happens when the light “burns
out”?
The individual chips in a well-designed luminaire are unlikely to burn out in the same way that
traditional light bulbs burn out. LED chips are much more likely to dim slowly over a long period
of time. Eventually they will have dimmed to a point where they are no longer producing
adequate light. A common metric for defining the end of life for an LED luminaire is the point at
which the LEDs have dimmed to 70% of their original light output. This is called the L70 of the
luminaire.
A typical LED street fixture, or luminaire, is made up of the housing, LED chips, driver (similar to
the ballast for HID lamps), a photo control and wiring. In a well-designed luminaire, it is likely
that the LED chips will last longer than the driver or photo control.
Should we use standard photocells to control LED luminaires?
Standard photo controls are typically designed to have lives that roughly correspond to the life
of standard lighting technologies—HPS or metal halide lamps. Because LED luminaires can have
significantly longer lives than standard lighting technology, standard photo controls should not
be used with LED luminaires. If standard photo controls are used with LEDs, unnecessary
maintenance costs will be incurred as the photo controls will need to be replaced before the end
of life of the LED luminaires. Long life photo controls should be used with LED luminaires.
Are there more advanced ways to control LED luminaires?
One very promising quality of LED street lighting is their ability to be used with advanced control
strategies. HPS or metal halide lamps have limited advanced control opportunities because they
have an initial warm up period, a restrike period, and have limited dimming capabilities. In
contrast, LEDs are instant on and can be effectively dimmed. The controllability of an LED street
light offers the promise of additional energy savings while maintaining appropriate light levels.
For example, a road may need higher levels of lighting in the evening and early nighttime when
traffic levels are high. Later, in the middle of the night, when traffic levels have dropped, a lower
light level may be appropriate. LED street lights could be operated at full output during the
hours with high traffic, and then be dimmed when traffic is lower. Operating the LED luminaires
at a lower light level for part of the night will save energy and can extend the life of the
luminaire.
12
Federal and State Rules and Design Standards Governing Street Lighting
Before proceeding to design a project and specify luminaires, communities need to understand
the rules that apply to any street lighting project. Within the corporate limits of a city the
standards and design of roadway lighting have been a local matter, so that pole spacing, pole
height and lighting illuminance have been determined by local standards. Projects may however
also be subject to recent new state laws setting minimum efficacy (lumens per watt) standards
for retrofit luminaires.
IAMU contacted the DOE MSSLC, Edison Electric Institute (EEI), the National Association of
Regulatory Commissioners (NARUC) and the International Dark Sky Association to determine
whether there is a comprehensive list of state laws governing street light efficacy. There is no
such list in 2012, but states are enacting new laws governing roadway lighting efficacy. In 2010
Iowa enacted a new statute (17) requiring solid-state lighting (SSL) luminaires used for outdoor
lighting to have a minimum efficacy of 66 lumens/watt, and in 2011 Minnesota enacted 216C.19,
a statute requiring a minimum efficacy of 70 lumens/watt (18). It is likely that as LED roadway
lighting becomes more common other states will adopt minimum efficacy standards, and these
should be checked as part of due diligence in specifying luminaires.
The National Standard Practice for Roadway Lighting, RP-8 has governed the design of roadway
lighting beyond city corporate boundaries. The current version (2005) does not consider how
light quality (e.g. the “white” light of LEDs versus the yellow of HPS) could affect the design
parameters for different applications, but it is expected that the next revision will include
considerations of light quality and spectrum.
Iowa has a program of Statewide Urban Design and Specifications (SUDAS) for public
improvements. These include specifications for roadway lighting (19) that reference ANSI/IESNA
RP-8 but go beyond it to include design criteria and specifications for LED roadway lighting. The
SUDAS standards also reference the 2010 Iowa law on minimum efficacy for solid-state lighting.
Other states may have similar processes that reference the National Standard and add additional
criteria for state roadway lighting.
Impacts of LED Technology on Roadway Lighting Design
The options for roadway lighting are changing rapidly, and as new lighting technology, such as
LEDs, becomes available, design practices are also changing. This section describes lighting
design criteria and discusses how these criteria are changing.
In practice, RP-8 (R2005) is typically used to determine the light levels appropriate for different
roadways- residential streets, collector streets, etc. RP-8 provides criteria for both illuminance
13
and luminance levels, as well as ratios of maximum/minimum, and average/minimum for both
illuminance and luminance.
Luminance can be thought of as the brightness of visible light produced by a luminaire in a
particular direction. It is also the measure of the brightness of light that reflects from a road
surface as seen by an observer. That means luminance is affected by the road surface
characteristics, and RP-8 has factors to account for different surfaces that are applied to the
luminance values seen by observers. Luminance is measured as candela per square meter
(cd/m2), where candela is the measurement of the luminous intensity—or luminous flux
(lumens) per unit solid angle (steradian)—thus 1 candela = 1 lumen/steradian (20).
While luminance refers to street lighting design criteria, luminous flux is a characteristic of a
luminaire, and manufacturers provide lumen ratings for their luminaires. The lumen rating takes
into account the eye’s sensitivity to light at different wavelengths. It is the sum of the lighting
power at each wavelength (the spectral power distribution of a luminaire) weighted by the eye’s
response to each wavelength. Each source of light has its own spectral power distribution.
In contrast, the input power to a luminaire is measured in Watts. The efficacy of a luminaire is
measured in lumens/Watt (lm/W), which is the ratio of power emitted as light (photopicallyweighted) to the total input power to the luminaire.
Roadway lighting design also includes calculation of required “illuminance”, measured in
footcandles (lumens/ft2) or lux (lumens/m2), which represents the luminous flux projected on an
area.
Roadway lighting designs have been developed from illuminance or luminance values based on
the way our eyes work in daylight, or “photopic” conditions: a luminance of at least 5 cd/m 2. At
these light levels the cones in the retina of our eyes sense color, and are most sensitive to green
light, with peak sensitivity occurring at 555 nanometers of wavelength. In contrast, in very low
light “scotopic” conditions, such as a moonless night far away from street lights, with luminance
of 0.001 cd/m2 or less, our vision is provided by the rods in our eyes. Scotopic vision is most
sensitive in light that is more blue, with peak sensitivity occurring at 500 nm wavelength.
Luminances ranging from 0.001 to 5 cd/m2 are termed “mesopic”. These are the light levels for
which we provide street lighting (IESNA RP-8 recommends luminances of 0.3 to 1.2 cd/m2). In
these conditions both rods and cones contribute to vision, and the result is that our eyes are
more sensitive to white light than to light from HPS. Our increased sensitivity to white light at
night means that less white light is required to provide the same visibility as a non-white light
source, so that less energy is required for roadway lighting.
14
Figure 3 The photopic (black) and scotopic (green) luminosity functions, normalized for equal peak
sensitivity (21). The horizontal axis is wavelength in nanometers (nm).Source: Wikipedia (22)
The change from HPS to LED lighting has been challenging because designing to mesopic
conditions has required a new way of calculating the effectiveness of white light. Current street
light design standards, such as RP-8, and luminaire photometric performance are both based on
photopic conditions.
Both the International Council on Illumination (CIE) and the IESNA have provided recent
guidelines for the calculations of appropriate light levels in mesopic conditions. In 2010 CIE
published Recommended System for Mesopic Photometry Based on Visual Performance (23),
which included lumen effectiveness multipliers to calculate the performance of white light. In
June 2012, the IES published TM-12-12, Spectral Effects of Lighting on Visual Performance at
Mesopic Lighting levels (4).
IES TM-12-12 discusses using the ratio of the scotopic luminous flux to photopic luminous flux
(the S/P ratio) to rank the performance of light sources as light levels decrease, and provides an
extensive table of representative S/P ratios for different light source types including 250 HPS
(S/P ratio 0.63) and White LED 4300 K (S/P ratio 2.04). TM-12-12 also provides a method to
convert photopic luminance to mesopic luminance using an Effective Luminance Factor based on
S/P ratio and the base photopic luminance. S/P ratios less than one (e.g., HPS) have a negative
adjustment for white light effectiveness, meaning that the given photopic luminance will be
15
effectively reduced under mesopic conditions. Conversely, S/P ratios greater than one (like the
LED 4300 K luminaire) have a positive adjustment for white light effectiveness, meaning the
given photopic luminance will be effectively increased (24).
The City of San Jose’s Streetlight Design Guide (February 2011) uses CIE lumen effectiveness
multipliers to select luminaires for retrofit and new designs for mesopic conditions. Part of the
calculations use an equation to estimate S/P ratio for any luminaire based on its Correlated Color
Temperature (CCT). However, TM-12-12 notes that two luminaires with identical CCTs may have
different spectral power distributions (SPD) which would mean that their S/P ratios could differ.
Manufacturers may begin to include S/P ratios for their products now that TM-12-12 has been
released. We expect that as roadway lighting designs for mesopic condition become more
common, luminaire data for mesopic conditions will become more available. The IES Lighting
Handbook conservatively recommends only applying mesopic multipliers on streets with a
posted speed limit of 25mph or lower, but TM-12 does not specify any such restriction.
New LED Roadway Lighting: Three Example Designs
Sample Roadway Lighting Descriptions
Following are three simple roadway lighting designs illustrating the kinds of roadway lighting
applications a typical small community might encounter. These are intended as representative
references only and not as complete lighting system designs considered suitable for a specific
community's needs. These designs were prepared using the software package AGi32 (25).
Roadway Classifications
The ANSI/IESNA RP-8 Roadway Lighting standard lists various roadway classifications according
to the nature and volume of the traffic carried, the types of community areas served, whether
the road has access controls such as those for a freeway, and other stipulations. RP-8 names six
road classifications, Freeway Class A, Freeway Class B, Expressway, Major, Collector and Local.
Pedestrian Vehicle Conflict Areas
Each of the six road types mentioned also have three Pedestrian Conflict Area categories named
to help identify the likelihood of possible pedestrian and vehicle conflicts. These conflict areas
are High, Medium, and Low and the category for an individual roadway can be determined by a
count of pedestrians using both sides of the street or crossing at other than intersections. This
count sampling is usually done along a typical one or two block area during the average annual
first of hour of darkness. A High pedestrian vehicle conflict area would have more than 100
16
pedestrians, Medium is considered in the range of 11-100 pedestrians, and Low having less than
10 pedestrians.
Pavement Classifications
RP-8 also classifies pavement types according to the type of material used (concrete, asphalt,
etc.) and the reflective properties of those materials. The four Pavement Classifications
recognized by RP-8 are R1, R2, R3, and R4. It should be noted that, many roadway lighting
calculations in North America are completed assuming the roadway under consideration is
classified as R-3, which is asphalt having a dark rough surface.
Lighting Calculations
IES RP-8 contains three separate metrics for roadway lighting design calculations, which are
illuminance, luminance, and Small Target Visibility (STV).
In the United States, the majority of calculations are computed using the illuminance metric,
which measures lumens of light arriving at a unit of road surface area (footcandles or lux). Each
combination of individual roadway / pedestrian vehicle conflict / pavement classifications carries
a specific recommended target illuminance or footcandle design criterion. Additional
parameters for these recommendations deal with how evenly lighting is distributed along the
roadway, and the metrics used for these considerations are uniformity ratios. Uniformity ratios
measure differences between the maximum, minimum and average footcandle levels on the
roadway area being considered.
Typical Residential Street
Many small community roadway systems are comprised largely of residential streets which are
classified by the ANSI/IESNA RP-8 standard as local roads. The Low Pedestrian Vehicle Conflict
category applies in many instances for these roads during hours of darkness.
The sample local road lighting design represents a 24' wide two lane road, with 53 Watt LED
luminaires placed on either side of the road in a staggered configuration on 130' spacing. The
poles are 24' tall with a 4' long arm, and the LED luminaire type has a Type II distribution.
The RP-8 illuminance recommendation for an R3 roadway of this type with low vehicle
pedestrian conflict is 0.4 footcandles average. The recommended average to minimum
footcandle uniformity ratio is 6:1. This sample layout calculation, using a light loss factor (LLF) of
0.725, results in 0.48 footcandles average with an average to minimum uniformity ratio of 2:1.
The criteria for this example are summarized in Table 1. Diagrams of this layout are shown in
Figure 4.
17
Table 1. Residential street model criteria.
Residential Street Criteria
Two lane local road
Width
24 feet
Speed Limit
25 mph
Pedestrian-Vehicle Conflict
Low
Pole Placement
Staggered
Distance Between Poles
130 feet
Fixture Mounting Height
25 feet
Arm Length
4 ft
Pole Setback from Curb
3 ft
Pavement Classification
R3
Luminaire Wattage
53
Lumens
3,913
IESNA Light Distribution
Type II
Average Illuminance (fc)
0.4
Avg/Min Illuminance Ratio
2.0
Figure 4. Schematic view of local roadway with staggered pole placement.
18
Figure 5. Local two lane roadway with staggered pole placement.
Typical Collector Road
A collector road is probably the highest road classification to be generally found in most small
communities. This may be a State or US Highway passing through town, or a road connecting
the local road system with a downtown or other commercial area. Speed limits may vary widely
but in most cases would not exceed 45 MPH. Although there may exist the potential for
pedestrian and vehicle conflict it is unlikely the medium category would ever be exceeded.
The sample collector road lighting design included is a for a 52' wide two lane road, with
luminaires placed on either side of the road in a staggered configuration on 140' spacing. The
poles are 30' tall with a 6' long arm, and the LED luminaires are 210 Watts with a Type III
distribution.
The RP-8 illuminance recommendation for an R3 roadway of this type with medium vehicle
pedestrian conflict is 0.9 footcandles average. The recommended average to minimum
footcandle uniformity ratio is 4:1. This sample layout calculation results in0.92 footcandles
average with an average to minimum uniformity ratio of 1.84:1. The criteria for this example are
summarized in Table 2. Renderings of the collector street model are shown in Figure 6 and
Figure 7.
19
Table 2. Collector street model criteria.
Collector Street Criteria
Four lane state or county road through town
Width
52 feet
Speed Limit
30 to 45 mph
Pedestrian-Vehicle Conflict
Medium
Pole Placement
Staggered
Distance Between Poles
140 feet
Fixture Mounting Height
30 feet
Arm Length
6 ft
Pole Setback from Curb
5 ft
Pavement Classification
R3
Luminaire Wattage
210 W
Lumens
15,986
IESNA Light Distribution
Type III
Average Illuminance (fc)
0.92
Avg/Min Illuminance Ratio
1.84
Figure 6. Schematic of four lane collector road with staggered pole placement.
20
Figure 7. Four lane collector roadway with staggered pole placement.
Typical Downtown Main Street District
This area type is not specifically addressed separately by RP-8, however decorative street
lighting projects for these commercial areas are common in many small communities. They may
be generally characterized by the presence of both collector and local roadway intersections or
any combination of the two roadway types. Because of the possibility of pedestrians walking in
relatively close proximity to vehicular traffic, the lighting of adjoining intersections should be
carefully considered. A pedestrian vehicle conflict category of medium would likely apply in
many cases.
The sample downtown Main Street lighting design included is for a 66' wide two lane road with
adjacent parking and decorative post-top luminaires placed on either side of the road in an
opposite configuration on 70' spacing. The poles are 16' tall and the luminaire type has a Type III
distribution.
Additionally, there are two roadway style luminaires at each intersection at opposite corners. As
a general rule, intersection lighting should be greater than the lighting along the roadways
involved. For this sample layout it is assumed that a local road is intersecting the Main Street
collector road. The intersection poles are 30' tall with a 6' long arm, and luminaires are oriented
diagonally across the intersection. The luminaires have a Type III distribution.
The RP-8 illuminance recommendation for an R3 collector roadway with medium vehicle
pedestrian conflict is 0.9 footcandles average. The recommended average to minimum
21
footcandle uniformity ratio is 4:1. The sample layout calculation results for the Main Street
roadway are 1.16 footcandles average with an average to minimum uniformity ratio of 1.66:1
The RP-8 illuminance recommendation for an R-3 intersection of a collector and local road with
medium vehicle pedestrian conflict is 1.6 footcandles average. The recommended average to
minimum footcandle uniformity ratio is 4:1. This sample layout calculation results for the
intersection are 1.62 footcandles average with an average to minimum uniformity ratio of
1.48:1. The criteria for main street model are shown in Table 3. Renderings of the main street
light model are shown in Figure 8 and Figure 9.
Table 3. Main street model criteria.
Main Street Criteria
Pole top luminaires and intersections
Width
66 feet
Speed Limit
25 MPH
Pedestrian-Vehicle Conflict
High
Pole Placement
Opposite
Distance Between Poles
70 feet
Fixture Mounting Height
16 feet
Arm Length (Intersection)
8 ft
Pole Setback from Curb
6ft
Pavement Classification
R3
Luminaire Watts: Intersection
210 W
Lumens
15,986
Luminaire Watts: Roadway
86 W
Lumens
4,630
IESNA Light Distribution
Type III
Average Illuminance (fc)
0.9
Avg/Min Illuminance Ratio
4.0
22
Figure 8. Schematic of downtown street lighting collector and local roads intersecting.
Figure 9. Post-top street lighting along downtown collector roadway, and overhead lighting at intersection with
local road.
23
Tools to evaluate the costs and benefits of an LED retrofit
Street Light Inventory
To plan an LED street light retrofit project, you first need to catalog your current street lights in
order to estimate current energy use, and determine priorities for retrofit. The following
example table is adapted from the DOE MSSLC system specification (13) could be used as a
template for this inventory.
Note: The table asks for an IES Pavement Classification: R1 = Portland cement concrete road
surface; R2 = Asphalt road surface w/ an aggregate composed of a minimum of 60% gravel or 1020% artificial brightener in aggregate. (Not normally used in the USA.); R3 = Asphalt road surface
(regular and carpet seal) with dark aggregates (e.g. trap rock, blast furnace slag); rough texture
after some months of use (typical highways); R4 = Asphalt road surface with very smooth
texture.
Armed with the inventory you can estimate the existing annual kWh of energy consumption by
the street lights you’re considering for retrofit. You will enter this information into the LED
cost/benefit calculator described below. In addition, you will want to consider your current and
projected energy costs to determine what your existing street lights are costing the city, and
some reasonable projection of future energy costs.
24
STREET DESCRIPTION (street name or location)
SITE PARAMETERS
Roadway classification (freeway, major, collector, local)
If local: Residential, Commercial or Industrial
Lane Width (ft)
ROADWAY DATA:
Number of Lanes, Total on Both Sides of Median
Shoulder Width, Drive lane to Edge of Pavement (ft)
Median Width (ft)
IES Pave. Class.
 R1
 R2

Sidewalk Width (ft)
SIDEWALK DATA:
Edge of Sidewalk to Edge of Roadway Pavement (ft)
LUMINAIRE CRITERIA
LUMINAIRE TYPE:
Describe current fixture (e.g. post-top, cobra head, barn light)
LIGHTING TYPE:
HPS, Mercury Vapor, Metal Halide, Induction, or Incandescent
VOLTAGE:
Nominal Luminaire Input Voltage
NOMINAL LAMP WATTS
Power rating of the lamp, eg 400 W, 250 W, 150 W, etc.
BALLAST INPUT WATTS
This is the power drawn by the ballast powering the lamp
LIGHTING CONTROLS:
LIGHT POLE DATA:
POLE TYPE:
FINISH:
POLE/ARM LOADING:
MOUNTING:
 R4
R3
Describe current lighting controls (e.g. photocell, timer)
POLE AND MOUNTING CRITERIA
Luminaire Mounting Height (ft)
Arm Length, Horizontal (ft)
Fixtures per Pole
Pole Set-back from Edge of Pavement (ft)
Distance between poles (ft)
Layout
 One Side
 Opposite
 Staggered
Describe the material pole is made of (e.g. wood, steel, etc.)
Finish Color and Type
Maximum Luminaire Weight
Fixture Effective Projected Area (EPA), this is important for
calculating the wind load on the arm and pole. The EPA of the
replacement fixture should not exceed the rated EPA of the
pole and arm.
 Post-top
 Side-arm
25
 Trunnion/Yoke
 Median
 Swivel-tenon
LED Street Light Financial Calculators: MSSLC and IAMU
To determine if an LED street light retrofit project makes sense for a community, a financial
analysis should be performed. A financial analysis may range from a back-of-the-envelope
calculation to a complex determination of the project cash flow. While a community may
choose to develop its own financial analysis, several tools have been developed specifically for
financial analysis of street light retrofit projects. Two of these calculators include the MSSLC
Retrofit Financial Analysis Tool, and the IAMU LED Street Light Retrofit Calculator.
In February 2012 the DOE MSSLC released its Lighting Retrofit Financial Analysis Tool (26). This
Excel spreadsheet tool enables the user to analyze the cost and return-on-investment from
lighting retrofit projects. The MSSLC tool is well documented and comprehensive, with the
ability to include, for example, price escalation rates, finance discount rate, multi-year projects,
detailed installation and maintenance costs, and options for financing. The tool estimates the
cash flow of the project over 15 years and provides several project metrics including simple
payback, internal rate of return, net present value, energy and energy cost saved, maintenance
savings, and reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.
IAMU has developed a simplified street light retrofit financial calculator. The IAMU calculator is
also an Excel-based calculator that allows users to calculate the annual energy and maintenance
savings associated with an LED street light retrofit along with the simple payback of the project.
To help facilitate the analysis of a retrofit project, the calculator contains information on a
variety of generic common street lighting sources such as HPS and metal halide luminaires. User
inputs include electricity rate, labor rates, information on existing luminaires and new
luminaires, controls information, and other user defined costs. While incorporating key features
of a basic financial analysis, the IAMU calculator should be useful for those not familiar with
detailed financial analyses.
26
Developing a Request for Proposals
LED retrofit streetlights can be a major investment in time and resources with long term
impacts. The choice of luminaires affects initial costs and ongoing maintenance costs and affects
the appearance and safety of your community. Using a bidding process helps you ensure that
your community gets the best products at the best prices, especially in a market where the
products are changing rapidly.
The RFP process has been made easier since the publication in October 2011 of the DOE MSSLC
Model Specification for LED Roadway Luminaires (13). The model specification has two
alternative appendices: luminaires can be specified on the basis of roadway characteristics (the
“system” appendix, including information about pole height, pole spacing and road use) or they
can be specified just on required luminaire performance (the “material” appendix) without
considering roadway features.
For an individual community with a good inventory of the existing roadway lighting system, the
MSSLC system specification alternative will be most appropriate. If you don’t have good
information about your existing system, or if several communities are pursuing a joint purchase,
the MSSLC material specification may be more appropriate.
IAMU used the material specification in early 2012 when it was developing a joint purchase
program for retrofit LEDs for 15 of its municipal utility members6. It customized the specification
to add pricing for an optional warranty beyond the minimum five years, added a line in Appendix
E asking for luminaire efficacy (lm/W), and required additional submittals on Buy American
provisions (created an Appendix F). In addition, IAMU added a requirement that applicants
provide references to projects where their products had been installed, and provide information
on the volume of roadway lighting sales as a percentage of the applicant’s total business.
IAMU requested applicants to provide pricing per luminaire for all components needed for
installation, including the following:




Luminaire
Any wiring harnesses specific to the luminaire
Hardware specific to the luminaire
Replacement ballast
The pricing was to exclude installation labor, the pole, the pole arm, or bucket truck costs.
Separate pricing was required for the photocontrols and shipping costs. We also requested the
For participants in the joint purchase, the existing lighting was a diverse mix of residential streets, collector
streets, downtown areas and state highways within the city’s corporate limits.
6
27
period of time for which the prices would be effective (for example, bidder could specify that
pricing is good for 180 days from selection of bidder).
Finally, we encourage communities to publicize the RFP widely via one or more Plan Rooms
websites, such as that of New Streetlights (27) or McGraw Hill Construction (28), or local
organization websites.
Guide to the DOE MSSLC Specification
The specification’s main section has two sections, on general requirements, and on products.
The general requirements section has the following subsections:
1. Applicable standards and references to publications: American National Standards
Institute (ANSI), American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM), Council of the European
Union, Federal Trade Commission, Illuminating Engineering Society of North America
(IESNA) (including IES Lighting Handbook and RP-8), Institute of Electronic Engineers
(IEEE), National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA), National Fire Protection
Association (NFPA) and Underwriters Laboratory (UL).
2. Related documents
3. Definitions
4. Quality Assurance: As part of quality assurance, the specification states that the Owner
may request luminaire samples and may request LM-79 testing of these samples to verify
performance. We encourage communities considering LED streetlights to request
samples of luminaires. As DOE MSSLC states in their User’s Guide accompanying the
specification, acquiring samples allows a community to evaluate the lead time for
production and shipment, the quality of the product, ease of installation, the quantity
and quality of illumination, and reaction by residents to the installed samples.
5. Lighting system performance criteria
6. Required submittals for each luminaire type defined in Appendix A. This section is
extensive and includes the requirement for submittal of LM-79 reports, requirements of
calculations for lumen maintenance, and Buy American documentation.
Warranty (5 years standard). In the IAMU joint purchase specification we requested a cost
option for a 10-year warranty.
The product section includes requirements on the following:
1. Luminaire requirements
28
2. Product manufacturers
3. Manufacturer services.
Appendix A: either material or system. If the material specification is chosen, the city provides
data on each luminaire type and application it is seeking to replace. For example, it would
complete an Appendix A for a 250 W HPS luminaire with a Type III distribution (see Case Studies
section for examples). If the system specification is chosen, the city provides data on site
geometry, photometric performance of the existing lighting system, and any other requirements
for each luminaire type desired.
Appendix B: Lumen maintenance: requires the applicant to submit calculations estimating lumen
maintenance for each product.
Appendix C: Product family testing. Not all luminaire configurations have LM-79 test reports.
This appendix explains how to represent data for a luminaire that has not been specifically
tested.
Appendix D: Electrical Immunity: this Appendix describes the test procedure required for each
luminaire submitted.
Appendix E: Product Submittal Form: lists the criteria for which data is required for evaluation.
This section can be modified to include, for example, luminaire efficacy.
The model specification is included at the end of this handbook with the caution that the
specification is a living document and we recommend using the documents from the DOE MSSLC
website, http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ssl/specification.html, to ensure having the
latest version.
29
Case studies
For this Handbook, nine municipal utility communities were selected to profile LED retrofit
projects implemented over the last two years. The towns selected are shown in Figure 10.
Figure 10. Case study communities.
Each of the nine case studies features a snap shot of key project metrics, a narrative of the
project based on interviews with municipal employees leading the projects, and specification
information about the LED luminaires used in each community’s retrofit project. The case
studies include photos of the installations, and in some cases, field measurement (using the RP8 illuminance methodology) of lighting characteristics for a 2 cycle (3 pole) run of lights. We
hope that the experiences of these municipal communities with their project successes and
challenges will inform your decision making process as you consider future projects.
An important note on the calculated simple payback periods displayed for each project is that
they reflect the total project cost divided by projected annual energy cost savings. Each of
these projects was a recipient of a grant funds that provided a 50% match. The simple payback
(in years) to the communities based on dollars spent would be about half the values shown in
30
the summary tables. These numbers were provided to give a sense of the payback period
without grant funding. Any consulting costs were included in the total project costs.
The following table(s) presents the estimated annual kWh savings for each of these 9
municipally initiated LED Street Lighting retrofit projects featured in this handbook:
Table 4. Summary of energy savings from LED street light retrofit projects featured in case studies.
Case Study Total Number of
Community
Retrofits
Algona
447
Auburn
24
Independence
204
Montezuma
41
Mount Pleasant
130
Muscatine
301
Pocahontas
255
Spencer
153
Waverly
1010
Totals
2565
Estimated Annual Energy
Savings from LED Retrofits
(kWh)
234,254
37,864
99,154
21,460
70,378
155,534
105,639
57,632
403,805
1,185,720
31
Energy Savings as Percentage of
Original Energy Usage PreRetrofit
46%
78%
45%
41%
57%
51%
43%
29%
63%
50%
Case Study 1: Algona, Iowa
Algona is located in north-central Iowa. Algona Municipal Utilities (AMU) provides service to
the community and to customers on 50 miles of rural line.
AMU had three main goals for its retrofit street light project: 1) reduce energy consumption, 2)
reduce maintenance costs and 3) improve light quality. While the utility had long promoted
HPS street lights for their energy efficiency, it was aware that the quality of lighting could be
improved. Both the AMU utility board as well as the City of Algona collaborated on the project,
with the city purchasing the lights using financing from the utility and an ARRA Energy Efficiency
and Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) that the city had received in 2010 for several energy
efficiency projects. The city will repay the portion of the lighting costs not covered by the grant
over 10 years.
Algona focused its LED retrofit placement in areas of highest impact: all major traffic corridors,
highways into, out of, and within the boundaries of Algona, as well as major collector streets.
The project completed in 2012 replaces about half of Algona’s street lights, with about 450
lights yet to be replaced. The city is working with the utility to create a long-term street light
32
plan to replace all streetlights with LED, upgrade to better poles and optimize pole spacing and
location.
AMU developed its project with the assistance of a lighting consultant and with IAMU. The
utility involved several staff members in the project, including the general manager, assistant
GM, the distribution superintendent, AMU line workers as well as accounting staff. The lighting
consultant assisted by verifying the location of the street lights, the existing setback from the
streets and, the width of the right-of-ways to make sure that the utility purchased the right
type and output of light.
For AMU the critical factors in selecting luminaires were energy efficiency, ease of installation,
warranty, vendor and luminaire history from other projects, and proof that the luminaires met
the “Buy American” provisions necessary for ARRA grant compliance. AMU also relied on the
lighting consultants to develop appropriate specifications and proceed with a competitive bid
process. The utility contacted and visited other communities that had implemented LED retrofit
projects to understand better how the retrofits had changed the street light quality.
AMU was a major part of a joint purchase of LED luminaires coordinated through IAMU.
Participating in this competitive bidding process with other communities with similar projects
played a key role in allowing Algona to achieve a low price while maintaining quality assurance.
The utility publicized the project through local media, through board of trustees’ meetings, and
through city council meetings. Sample luminaires were installed first, to check ease of
installation, light quality and gauge public reaction. Positive comments from the installers and
from the community gave the utility the green light to install 422 LED luminaires by the end of
June 2012. An additional 25 will be installed in September 2012. AMU two-person crews were
available and retrofitting HPS luminaires most days until all LED luminaires were installed. The
utility had budgeted for crews to devote a half an hour to each installation or 1 man-hour for 2
employees billing for the half hour per installation.
One of AMU’s challenges is that the downtown has decorative lighting and, currently LED
replacement costs are relatively high, making the project not cost effective today. The utility
anticipates community pressure to replace the downtown lighting, because there is an abrupt
visual transition between the surrounding LED lights and the decorative HPS.
A final piece of the retrofit puzzle is disposal of the HPS luminaires. AMU hired a contractor to
dispose of the luminaires and found this solution to be simple and cost effective. The contractor
provided a dumpster ahead of AMU’s installation; AMU did not have to separate the HPS bulb
from the luminaire, as the luminaires had salvage value.
Table 5 provides an illuminance estimate for the LED luminaire retrofits on one of Algona’s
widest streets, Call Street, between Hall Street and Jones Street. The retrofit calculations
feature a 104W LED luminaire with a Type III distribution. Call Street has a width of 62’ feet.
The poles are arranged along one side. The street has an R3 pavement. The poles on this
33
street are approximately 25’ feet in height and are spaced 85’ feet apart from center to center.
With respect to the illuminance method of roadway lighting design, the luminaire in use on this
street delivers an average of 0.74 foot-candles (Fc) and a 2.47/1 average to minimum
uniformity ratio. For the calculation a 0.75 light loss factor was used.
The IES RP-8 illuminance recommendations for an R3 Collector Road with a Low Vehicle to
Pedestrian Conflict Category is 0.6 foot-candles with a 4:1 average to minimum foot-candle
uniformity ratio.
Table 5. Algona Call Street Illuminance Calculations
CalcType
Units
Illuminance Fc
Algona - Call Street Retrofit
Avg
Max
Min
Avg/Min Max/Min
0.74
1.2
0.3
2.5
4
Figure 11. Cobra Head luminaire used for retrofit in Algona.
34
LED Retrofit Project Summary for:
Algona, IA
Total Costs (Luminaire cost, warranty, consulting fee,
photo-controls, estimated installation labor)
Total Luminaires Ordered Thru Purchase
150W HPS - 104W LED Replacements
$288,815
447
55
250W HPS - 104W LED Replacements
28
250W HPS - 176W LED Replacements
364
19,521
$1,562
234,254
$18,740
Monthly kWh Savings
Monthly Energy Cost Savings*
Annual kWh Savings
Annual Energy Cost Savings*
Estimated kWh Savings at 70,000 hr
Estimated Energy Cost Savings at 70,000 hr
3,743,782
$502,157
Estimated Payback Period (Energy Savings Only)
Estimated Payback Period (Includes maintenance savings)
*Estimate based on the following rate ($/kWh):
15.4
9.2
$0.080
Algona Annual LED kWh Usage vs HPS
600,000
kWh (Annual)
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
HPS kWh Annual Usage
551,792
LED kWh Annual Usage
317,539
100,000
0
All Luminaires
35
Algona Annual LED Energy Cost vs HPS
$50,000.00
$ (Annual)
$40,000.00
$30,000.00
$20,000.00
$10,000.00
$0.00
HPS Annual Energy Cost ($)
$44,143
LED Annual Energy Cost ($)
$25,403
All Luminaires
36
Case Study 2: Auburn, Iowa
Auburn is a small community in central Iowa, with municipal electric, water, sewer, and garbage
utilities. Most of the street light cost is paid by the electric utility.
Auburn’s decision to initiate the project grew from its Whole Town Audit project in 2010 that
enabled the community to analyze its municipal energy use and consider the savings potential
from a street light retrofit. The City Council and a community energy efficiency committee
worked with the City Clerk through the process to analyze energy use and choose energy
efficiency projects. Auburn based its decision to join Algona and other communities in a joint
purchase of LED retrofit street lights based on the competitive prices that had been achieved
from the RFP.
In 2009 and 2010 Auburn did an award-winning7 street-scape project with new Metal Halide
street lights. The city chose not to replace those lights, but did replace all other street lights.
Auburn hired its electric distribution contractor to install the new street lights. Twenty-four
LED street light retrofits were installed by a two-person crew in 5 hours. The city has had
positive comments from community members who feel that the new luminaires give out more
light. This is in spite of the fact that Auburn replaced 400W HPS with 104 Watt LED luminaires.
Auburn will continue to evaluate replacing security lights with LED luminaires.
7
Iowa League of Cities 2011 All Star Community Award
37
LED Retrofit Project Summary for:
Auburn, IA
Total Costs (Luminaire cost, warranty, consulting fee,
photo-controls, estimated installation labor)
Total Luminaires in project
400W HPS - 104W LED Replacements
$12,422
24
24
3,155
$372
37,864
$4,468
Monthly kWh Savings
Monthly Energy Cost Savings*
Annual kWh Savings
Annual Energy Cost Savings*
Estimated kWh Savings at 70,000 hr
Estimated Energy Cost Savings at 70,000 hr
605,136
$82,287
Estimated Payback Period (Energy Savings Only)
2.8
Estimated Payback Period (Includes maintenance savings)
2.4
*Estimate based on the following rate ($/kWh):
$0.118
Auburn Annual LED kWh Usage vs HPS
60,000
kWh (Annual)
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
HPS kWh Annual Usage
48,776
LED kWh Annual Usage
10,000
10,911
0
All Luminaires
38
Auburn Annual LED Energy Cost vs HPS
$7,000.00
$6,000.00
$ (Annual)
$5,000.00
$4,000.00
$3,000.00
HPS Annual Energy Cost ($)
$5,756
LED Annual Energy Cost ($)
$2,000.00
$1,000.00
$0.00
$1,288
All Luminaires
39
Case Study 3: Independence, Iowa
The City of Independence is located in eastern Iowa. Its municipal utility, Independence Light
and Power (ILP) provides electric and telecom services. The City owns the street lights, and
they are operated and maintained by ILP. ILP bills the city for street light energy use.
Like Algona, Independence obtained ARRA funding for energy efficiency projects and was
interested in upgrading its street lighting for better energy efficiency and lighting quality. ILP
worked with the City Engineer and a consultant to categorize roadway use in order to specify
proper lighting. Through this process, ILP was able to identify areas that were under-lit or that
had dark regions between the HPS luminaires. The city increased its overall luminaire count,
replacing 204 HPS lights with LED and adding 25 more LED luminaires. The city replaced both
cobra head HPS luminaires and barn light HPS luminaires with LED cobra heads. The project
took about 2 and a half years to complete, including analyzing roadway lighting requirements,
seeking grant funding, and comparing about 30 types of LED luminaires.
During Independence’s project, the State of Iowa was debating new standards for street light
efficacy. This was an extra challenge for the project and the selection of luminaires, but
ultimately the new standards helped provide clarity for the project.
In selecting among products and vendors, ILP stressed the importance of having a good
warranty, especially because the LED project was a new venture for them.
40
Installation took 137 man-hours to install 229 luminaires. For the retrofit luminaires, the utility
was able to use existing poles, pole arms and existing circuits with very simple installation
procedures.
The utility has been pleased with the installation and has found that the actual energy savings
have matched what was predicted. In addition, the lights were very well received by the public.
The community did have concerns about LED luminaires not providing sufficient light in fog, and
concerns about the quality of lighting in snow. ILP has found that the luminaires provide very
bright reflected light from snow.
The community plans to install more LEDs in the future. Like Algona, they are interested in a
decorative lighting LED project, but the costs of these replacements are currently too high and
the cost difference between the decorative HPS luminaires and the available decorative LED
luminaires is not great enough to garner significant energy savings.
LED Retrofit Project Summary for:
Independence, IA
Total Costs (Luminaire cost, warranty, consulting fees, photocontrols, estimated installation labor)
Total Street Lights in Project
100W HPS - 141W LED Replacements
250W HPS - 141W LED Replacements
LED Luminaire (New Installation)
Monthly kWh Savings - Retrofit & New Install
Monthly kWh Savings - 250W HPS Retrofit Only
Monthly Energy Cost Savings* - Project
Monthly Energy Cost Savings* - 250W HPS Retrofit Only
Annual kWh Savings - Retrofit & New Install
Annual kWh Savings - 250W HPS Retrofit Only
Annual Energy Cost Savings* - Retrofit & New Install
Annual Energy Cost Savings* - 250W HPS Retrofit Only
Estimated kWh Savings at 70,000 hr - Retrofit & New Install
Estimated Energy Cost Savings at 70,000 hr - Retrofit & New
Install
Estimated Payback Period (Energy Savings Only) - Retrofit &
New Install
Estimated Payback Period (Energy Savings Only) - 250W HPS
Retrofit Only
Estimated Payback Period (Includes maintenance savings) 250W HPS Retrofit Only
*Estimate based on the following rate ($/kWh):
41
$139,690
229
57
147
25
6,747
8,263
$722
$884
80,969
99,154
$8,664
$10,610
1,294,020
$242,281
16.1
9.9
7.1
$0.107
Independence Annual LED Retrofit kWh Usage vs
HPS
kWh (Annual)
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
141,426
50,000
0
HPS kWh Annual Usage
222,395
LED kWh Annual Usage
All Fixtures
Independence Annual LED Retrofit Energy Cost vs
HPS
$25,000.00
$ (Annual)
$20,000.00
$15,000.00
$10,000.00
$5,000.00
$0.00
HPS Annual Energy Cost ($)
$23,796
$15,133
All Fixtures
42
LED Annual Energy Cost ($)
Case Study 4: Montezuma, Iowa
Montezuma is located in south-central Iowa, with municipal utilities that supply electricity, gas
and water to the community. The city pays a flat fee each month to the utility for its street light
energy costs, and the utility contributes any additional cost for, electricity, labor, and
maintenance expenses.
In 2010 the city and utility were able to secure ARRA EECBG funding to carry out a variety of
energy efficiency projects. The LED retrofit project came about as the utility sought to save
energy and correct an issue of differing color temperatures between its existing 250 W HPS and
new Metal Halide lighting installed as part of a streetscape project. Grant funding paid for 50%
of qualifying projects, with the utility providing matching funds. The utility participated in the
previously described joint purchase with Algona, Auburn and other communities. In addition,
the utility decided to engage a neutral, third party, lighting consultant to ensure that the
luminaires specified as part of the joint purchase would be suitable for Montezuma’s conditions
and to assist the utility in selecting 20 new steel poles of the proper height to replace wood
poles.
43
The project was managed by the utility superintendent, and the LED luminaires were installed
by the utility’s line crews. The installation took about 30 minutes per luminaire.
Utility staff had considered other LED projects and had tested samples in the past, but had not
committed to a retrofit because they were not confident that the retrofit luminaires would
provide sufficient lighting and the price of LED luminaires had been deemed too high. For
Montezuma, the RFP selection process and assistance from the consultant helped provide
confidence that the retrofit luminaires would provide lighting at an affordable price and of the
quality that was desired.
Montezuma will continue to retrofit their street lighting system as time and money allow.
The table below shows the estimated illuminance levels for the Main Street replacement in
Montezuma, Iowa with LED roadway lighting intended to replace 250W HPS luminaires.
This calculation is based on a 43' wide Collector Roadway with an R3 surface and a Medium
Pedestrian / Vehicle conflict category. For this roadway class, the IES RP-8 illuminance
recommendation is 0.8 footcandles average with an average to minimum uniformity ratio of
4:1. The 165' spacing of a 30' tall pole with 6' long arm set back from the curb 2.5' yields an
average maintained illuminance value of 0 .89 footcandles with a 2.23 uniformity ratio. The
performance of this arrangement will likely be a significant improvement over the old HPS
lighting.
Table 6. Montezuma Main Street Illuminance Calculations
Montezuma - Main Street Retrofit
CalcType
Units
Avg
Max
Min
Avg/Min Max/Min
Illuminance Fc
0.89
2.2
0.4
2.2
5.5
44
LED Retrofit Project Summary for:
Montezuma, IA
Total Costs (Luminaire cost, warranty, consulting fee,
photo-controls, estimated installation labor) + New poles
Total cost excluding new poles
$53,930
$28,930
Total Luminaires Ordered Through Purchase
250W HPS - LED Replacements
Monthly kWh Savings
Monthly Energy Cost Savings*
Annual kWh Savings
Annual Energy Cost Savings*
41
41
1,788
$191
21,460
$2,296
Estimated kWh Savings at 70,000 hr
Estimated Energy Cost Savings at 70,000 hr
342,965
$60,793
Estimated Payback Period (Energy Savings Only)
23.5
Estimated Payback Period (Includes maintenance savings)
14.2
Estimated Payback Period (Energy Savings Only) Excluding New Pole Cost
12.6
Estimated Payback Period (Includes maintenance savings)
- Excluding New Pole Cost
7.6
*Estimate based on the following rate ($/kWh):
$0.107
Montezuma Annual LED kWh Usage vs HPS
60,000
kWh (Annual)
50,000
40,000
30,000
HPS kWh Annual Usage
52,976
LED kWh Annual Usage
20,000
31,516
10,000
0
All Luminaires
45
Montezuma Annual LED Energy Cost vs HPS
$6,000.00
$ (Annual)
$5,000.00
$4,000.00
$3,000.00
$2,000.00
HPS Annual Energy Cost ($)
$5,668
LED Annual Energy Cost ($)
$3,372
$1,000.00
$0.00
All Luminaires
46
Case Study 5: Mount Pleasant, Iowa
Mount Pleasant is located in southeast Iowa. Mount Pleasant Municipal Utilities (MPMU) pays
for the cost of street lighting energy consumption. The city and utility wanted to pursue a
decorative LED project for aesthetic improvements, especially for improved lighting along the
main thoroughfare which has a lot of exposure to commercial and residential traffic, as well for
the energy savings through retrofit of existing luminaires. In 2010 Mount Pleasant was
successful in obtaining an EECBG grant to fund 50% of a decorative LED lighting project for new
luminaires and for retrofit luminaires. The project was overseen by the Mount Pleasant
municipal utility’s general manager and was a collaborative effort between several entities,
including the municipal utility, the city council, the city engineer, and the Southeast Iowa
Regional Planning Committee. The city used a competitive bid process to select the retrofit
luminaires.
In all, the city installed 210 decorative LED street lights, including 130 retrofits on existing poles
and 80 new installations. Installation took place from November 2011 through May 2012.
Two major factors make Mt Pleasant’s case study unique among the case studies featured in
this handbook. Mt. Pleasant installed decorative lighting, which is typically much more
47
expensive than a cobra head retrofit. In addition, the project involved a significant amount of
construction for placement of poles, wiring, machining of parts, below grade conduit
placement, and other roadwork that are not present in the other cases.
Another irregularity encountered in this project is that Mt. Pleasant’s existing luminaires had a
0.5 or 50% power factor. Low power factor draws more current than a high power factor. The
higher currents have an adverse impact on the distribution system by increasing energy losses,
and the added expense of larger wires and other equipment necessary to correct the
imbalance. The utility felt that there was a significant benefit on the supply side in being able
to install luminaires with a higher power factor (>0.9) to replace the lower power-factor
luminaires. We note this because the lower power factor is not reflected in the kWh savings
that are typically reported in these projects. The kWh savings are based on estimated real
power flowing to the load over the course of an hour and do not incorporate the savings this
project enables by reducing energy loss in the distribution system.
The community response to the retrofit has been very positive, and Mount Pleasant plans to
continue to retrofit HPS lighting in their community on a five-year plan. Utility staff feels that
the project was successful in part because it was an example where several partners worked
together to get a positive outcome, and made the LED retrofit part of a larger project with
multiple community benefits.
48
Decorative Retrofit Table - Excludes New Installations
150W HPS Retrofit Only
Monthly kWh Savings - 150W HPS - 92.4W LED Retrofit
Only
Monthly Energy Cost Savings* - 150W HPS - 92.4W LED
Retrofit Only
Annual kWh Savings - 150W HPS Retrofit Only
Annual Energy Cost Savings* - 150W HPS Retrofit Only
Estimated kWh Savings at 70,000 hr - 150W HPS Retrofit
Only
Estimated Energy Cost Savings at 70,000 hr - 150W HPS
Retrofit Only
Estimated Payback Period (Energy Savings Only) - 150W
HPS Retrofit Only
Estimated Payback Period (Includes maintenance savings)
- 150W HPS Retrofit Only
*Estimate based on the following rate ($/kWh):
Mount Pleasant, IA
130
5,865
$697
70,378
$8,363
1,124,760
$192,593
43.9
30.5
$0.119
Mount Pleasant Annual LED Retrofit kWh Usage
vs HPS
kWh (Annual)
150,000
100,000
50,000
0
HPS kWh Annual Usage
122,990
84,990
Retrofit Luminaires
49
LED kWh Annual Usage
Mount Pleasant Annual LED Retrofit Energy Cost
vs HPS
$ (Annual)
$20,000.00
$15,000.00
$10,000.00
HPS Annual Energy Cost ($)
$14,615
$5,000.00
$0.00
$10,099
Retrofit Luminaires
50
LED Annual Energy Cost ($)
Case Study 6: Muscatine, Iowa
Figure 12. Before and after photos of Muscatine’s LED Retrofit Project.
Muscatine is a large community on the eastern border of Iowa along the Mississippi River. The
municipal utility Muscatine Power and Water (MPW) provides all street lighting in Muscatine at
no charge to the City.
The utility has a history of promoting community energy efficiency and had wanted to try an
LED street light for some time, but had found the initial costs to be too high ($600$800/luminaire). With the Utility Board’s and City’s support MPW was successful in obtaining
51
EECBG funding for half the cost of its project to install LEDs streetlights in areas where traffic
was highest. Like Independence, MPW was selecting luminaires during the time when Iowa
was evaluating a new lighting efficacy standard and delayed ordering luminaires until the new
standard was in place in 2011.
MPW project utilized the Department of Energy’s Municipal Solid-State Street Lighting
Consortium (MSSLC) Model Specification to prepare its RFP. The MPW project utilized the
System Specification. MPW provided the vendors with the specification incorporating specific
characteristics (i.e. street dimensions, pole heights, arm lengths, pole setbacks, spacings, &
desired photometric characteristics).
The advent of the DOE Municipal Solid State Lighting Consortium, the development of the
MSSLC specification, and the trainings offered by DOE were critical in assisting MPW to develop
its project. MPW was one of the first municipal members of the MSSLC, and actively
participated in national meetings and trainings, seeing the benefit in having a specification that
any project could use as a template.
After specifying desired characteristics in their bid documents, MPW selected their low bid and
had samples provided so that they could evaluate performance in the field and gauge public
acceptance. The utility found that even during the trial of these samples, community members
were interested and very supportive of the project.
The utility retrofitted 301 luminaires with two-person crews spending an average of 36 minutes
total per installation. MPW found that installations went faster than anticipated. During
installation the utility crews had a tremendous positive community response, with residents
thanking the crews for installing the retrofit luminaires on their streets. Utility staff noticed that
the LED luminaires they had chosen provided a better lighting distribution and eliminated the
hot spots and shadows that had been cast by the previous HPS luminaires.
Muscatine found a significant price drop in luminaires from the time they began planning their
project to the time the project went out for bid, so that their actual cost was $46,000 lower
than their budgeted amount for luminaires. They were able to use these savings as well as
savings in labor costs to buy additional luminaires.
MPW plans to use the same process as they retrofit more streets to LED street lights. They will
adapt the MSSLC specification and obtain competitive bids to ensure they get appropriate
luminaires for local conditions, at competitive prices.
52
LED Retrofit Project Summary for:
Muscatine, IA
Total Costs (Luminaire cost, warranty, consulting fee,
photo-controls, estimated installation labor)
Total Street Lights in Project
100W HPS - 93W LED Replacements
100W HPS - 116W LED Replacements
150W HPS - 93W LED Replacements
150W HPS - 116W LED Replacements
150W HPS - 139W LED Replacements
150W HPS - 162W LED Replacements
250W HPS - 93W LED Replacements
250W HPS - 116W LED Replacements
250W HPS - 139W LED Replacements
250W HPS - 162W LED Replacements
Monthly kWh Savings
Monthly Energy Cost Savings*
Annual kWh Savings
Annual Energy Cost Savings*
$127,948
301
24
13
53
57
11
2
64
24
19
34
12,961
$907
155,534
$10,887
Estimated kWh Savings at 70,000 hr
Estimated Energy Cost Savings at 70,000 hr
2,485,700
$303,158
Estimated Payback Period (Energy Savings Only)
11.8
Estimated Payback Period (Includes maintenance savings)
6.7
*Estimate based on the following rate ($/kWh):
$0.070
Muscatine Annual LED kWh Usage vs HPS
350,000
kWh (Annual)
300,000
250,000
200,000
150,000
HPS kWh Annual Usage
304,537
LED kWh Annual Usage
100,000
149,003
50,000
0
All Luminaires
53
Muscatine Annual LED Energy Cost vs HPS
$25,000.00
$ (Annual)
$20,000.00
$15,000.00
$10,000.00
$5,000.00
$0.00
HPS Annual Energy Cost ($)
$21,318
LED Annual Energy Cost ($)
$10,430
All Luminaires
54
Case Study 7: Pocahontas, Iowa
Pocahontas is a small community in northern Iowa. The community is served by a municipal
utility managed by the City Administrator. The street lights in Pocahontas are paid from the city
road use fund which reimburses the electric utility for usage of the lights. The utility estimates
the annual usage of the street lights and uses this number for budgeting purposes.
The idea for an LED retrofit street light project came from utility and city staff and, at the time
they were contemplating this project there were few other installations in Iowa. Once staff
began pursuing the project in earnest, they worked extensively with the (then) Iowa Office of
Energy Independence and with a lighting designer, who assisted staff in navigating the available
options. The city prepared a specification with the lighting designer’s assistance and sought
bids for the project. Pocahontas, like Independence and Muscatine, was pursuing LED street
lights at the time that Iowa was developing new minimum efficacy standards in Iowa for the use
of LED/solid-state roadway lighting. Pocahontas waited to purchase luminaires until the new
ruling, IAC Rule 199—35.15 (476), was established in late 2011. The city chose luminaires based
on the low bid, a 10 year warranty, meeting the ‘Buy American’ grant requirement, and a
recent large number of installations elsewhere.
Pocahontas installed 255 lights in their retrofit project. The installation of the lights was
completed within a two week period in late 2011, with installation taking about 15-20 minutes
per luminaire. The city and utility staff have been pleased with the improved quality of light and
with community response to the project.
55
LED Retrofit Project Summary for:
Pocahontas, IA
Total Costs (Luminaire cost, warranty, consulting fee,
photo-controls, estimated installation labor)
Total Street Lights in Project
150W HPS - LED Replacements
250W HPS - LED Replacements
Monthly kWh Savings
Monthly Energy Cost Savings*
Annual kWh Savings
Annual Energy Cost Savings*
$163,652
255
180
75
8,803
$766
105,639
$9,191
Estimated kWh Savings at 70,000 hr
Estimated Energy Cost Savings at 70,000 hr
1,688,295
$262,490
Estimated Payback Period (Energy Savings Only)
17.8
Estimated Payback Period (Includes maintenance savings)
10.0
*Estimate based on the following rate ($/kWh):
$0.087
Pocahontas Annual LED kWh Usage vs HPS
300,000
kWh (Annual)
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
0
HPS kWh Annual Usage
245,127
LED kWh Annual Usage
139,488
All Luminaires
56
Pocahontas Annual LED Energy Cost vs HPS
$25,000.00
$ (Annual)
$20,000.00
$15,000.00
$10,000.00
$5,000.00
$0.00
HPS Annual Energy Cost ($)
$21,326
LED Annual Energy Cost ($)
$12,135
All Luminaires
57
Case Study 8: Spencer, Iowa
The community of Spencer is located in northwestern Iowa. The city is served by a municipal
utility (Spencer Municipal Utilities, SMU) that provides electric, water and telecom services.
The City of Spencer pays the utility for the energy used by the city’s street lights. SMU bills the
city annually based on an estimated cost.
Spencer, like Pocahontas, was an early adopter of LED street light technology. In 2010 the city,
utility and the Northwest Iowa Planning and Development Commission began to plan a retrofit
project for improved lighting quality, reduced energy consumption and maintenance savings.
The group was successful in obtaining EECBG funding to provide 50% of the project cost, with
the city and SMU sharing the remaining cost.
Utility staff managed the project, and the group also engaged a lighting designer to help them
select appropriate products. The lighting designer assisted SMU in selecting five different
vendors. SMU then ordered and tested products and ultimately selected a luminaire based on
price, warranty and EECBG requirements.
The installation of the LED luminaires was completed in October 2011, and took approximately
25 minutes per street light retrofit. The community response has been positive, and the group
has been pleased with their decision to work with a lighting designer to ensure that the upfront
costs were balanced by the energy savings, maintenance savings and enhancement to lighting
quality.
58
LED Retrofit Project Summary for:
Spencer, IA
Total Costs (Luminaire cost, warranty, consulting fee,
photo-controls, estimated installation labor)
Total Street Lights in Project
250W HPS - 206W LED Replacements
Monthly kWh Savings
Monthly Energy Cost Savings*
Annual kWh Savings
Annual Energy Cost Savings*
$125,217
153
153
4,803
$264.15
57,632
$3,170
Estimated kWh Savings at 70,000 hr
Estimated Energy Cost Savings at 70,000 hr
921,060
$99,942
Estimated Payback Period (Energy Savings Only)
39.5
Estimated Payback Period (Includes maintenance savings)
20.0
*Estimate based on the following rate ($/kWh):
$0.055
Spencer Annual LED kWh Usage vs HPS
250,000
kWh (Annual)
200,000
150,000
HPS kWh Annual Usage
100,000
50,000
0
197,691
140,059
All Luminaires
59
LED kWh Annual Usage
Spencer Annual LED Energy Cost vs HPS
$12,000.00
$ (Annual)
$10,000.00
$8,000.00
$6,000.00
$4,000.00
HPS Annual Energy Cost ($)
$10,873
$7,703
$2,000.00
$0.00
All Luminaires
60
LED Annual Energy Cost ($)
Case Study 9: Waverly, Iowa
The community of Waverly is located in northeastern Iowa and is served by its municipal utility,
Waverly Light and Power (WLP). WLP provides street lighting services to the community at no
charge.
For 2 to 3 years the utility had been considering a retrofit street light project and would
evaluate products periodically and test them around the city. They were also measuring the
illuminance of their existing HPS luminaires on residential streets and major highways to
determine where upgrades were most critical and had found several areas where the HPS
lighting had poor distribution patterns and did not provide uniform lighting. As the utility
replaces lights, they are bringing their streets into conformance with IES RP-8 criteria.
WLP evaluated many alternatives and chose to pursue LED because the prices had declined
significantly, from $1000 or $1500 for a 100 watt equivalent luminaire to under $400 by the
time WLP started its project.
WLP applied for and received EECBG funds for a 50% match program administered by the State
of Iowa. The utility staff wanted to ensure that they selected luminaires with the most
appropriate light distribution patterns and illuminances for their streetlight application, and
hired a lighting consultant to assist them in drafting their RFP and selecting luminaires.
61
The utility purchased 1,010 LED luminaires, the majority of which were installed on residential
streets to replace 100 W HPS luminaires. A few luminaires were installed on a collector road to
replace 400 W HPS luminaires. Utility crews installed the luminaires, which took about 40
minutes per installation. The utility has been monitoring the energy consumption of the new
luminaires and is finding that the energy savings match their projections. They have had
positive comments from the community and plans to continue to replace HPS with LED as the
costs for LED luminaires decline.
LED Retrofit Project Summary for:
Waverly, IA
Total Costs (Luminaire cost, warranty, consulting fee,
photo-controls, estimated installation labor)
Total Street Lights in Project
100W HPS - 45W LED Replacements
100W HPS - 47W LED Replacements
100W HPS - 92W LED Replacements
250W HPS - 210W LED Replacements
400W HPS - 149W LED Replacements
Monthly kWh Savings
Monthly Energy Cost Savings*
Annual kWh Savings
Annual Energy Cost Savings*
Estimated kWh Savings at 70,000 hr
Estimated Energy Cost Savings 70,000 hr
$558,503
1,010
448
506
5
18
33
33,650
$3,298
403,805
$39,573
6,453,510
$1,090,344
Estimated Payback Period (Energy Savings Only)
Estimated Payback Period (Includes maintenance savings)
*Estimate based on the following rate ($/kWh):
62
14.1
8.2
$0.098
Waverly Annual LED kWh Usage vs HPS
700,000
kWh (Annual)
600,000
500,000
400,000
300,000
HPS kWh Annual Usage
636,379
LED kWh Annual Usage
200,000
232,574
100,000
0
All Luminaires
Waverly Annual LED Energy Cost vs HPS
$70,000.00
$ (Annual)
$60,000.00
$50,000.00
$40,000.00
$30,000.00
HPS Annual Energy Cost ($)
$62,365
LED Annual Energy Cost ($)
$20,000.00
$10,000.00
$0.00
$22,792
All Luminaires
63
References
1. American National Standard Practice for Roadway Lighting,” Illuminating Engineering
Society of North America, ANSI/IESNA RP-8-00 (R2005).
http://webstore.ansi.org/RecordDetail.aspx?sku=ANSI/IESNA+RP-8-00
2. DOE SSL Technology Fact Sheet, “LED Color Characteristics,” 2012.
www.ssl.energy.gov/factsheets.html. 2012
3. Adapted from the DOE SSL Technology Fact Sheet, “Outdoor Area Lighting” 2008.
Available online at www.ssl.energy.gov/factsheets.html.
4. IES TM-12-12 “Spectral Effects of Lighting on Visual Performance at Mesopic Lighting
Levels, Illuminating Engineering Society of North America. 2012.
http://www.ies.org/store/product/spectral-effects-of-lighting-on-visualperformance-at-mesopic-lighting-levels-1266.cfm
5. Advanced Street Lighting Technologies Assessment Project, City of San Jose, 2010.
http://www.sanjoseca.gov/transportation/SupportFiles/greenvision/LEDStreetLightR
eportSummary.pdf
6. Efficiency Vermont. Improving Efficiency in Municipal Street and Public Space
Lighting. 2010.
http://www.efficiencyvermont.com/docs/for_my_business/lighting_programs/EVT_
MunicipalStreetLightingGuide_Rev040111.pdf
7. “Light at Night: The Latest Science”. DOE EERE. 2010.
http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/publications/pdfs/ssl/ssl_whitepaper_nov20
10.pdf
8. “Will switching to LED outdoor lighting increase sky glow?” A. Bierman. Lighting
Research Center, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, New York. 2012.
http://lrt.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/02/14/1477153512437147.abstract
9. “What is sky glow?” NLPIP Lighting Answers, Lighting Research Center, Rensselaer
Polytechnic Institute, Troy, New York. 2003 revised 2007.
http://www.lrc.rpi.edu/programs/nlpip/lightinganswers/lightpollution/skyGlow.asp
10. Model Lighting Ordinance, International Dark Sky Association. 2011.
http://www.darksky.org/mlo
64
11. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Roadway
Lighting Design Guide. 2005.
https://bookstore.transportation.org/collection_detail.aspx?ID=42
12. "Assessment of LED Technology in Ornamental Post-Top Luminaires." 22 Jul. 2012.
http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/publications/pdfs/ssl/2011_gatewaymsslc_sacramento.pdf
13. DOE MSSLC Model Specification for LED Roadway Luminaires. 2011.
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ssl/specification.html
14. Kansas City Missouri US DOE SSL Gateway Demonstration project. 2011.
http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/publications/pdfs/ssl/msslcnc2011_kcmo.pdf
15. US DOE SSL Gateway Demonstrations. Demonstration Assessment of LED Roadway
Lighting Cully Boulevard. 2012.
http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/publications/pdfs/ssl/2012_gateway_cully.p
df
16. Remaking Cities Institute. LED Street Light Research Project, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
2011. http://www.cmu.edu/rci/images/projects/led-updated-web-report.pdf
17. Iowa Administrative Code Chapter 199 IAC 35.15(3) e. (476) and 199 IAC 36.8(3) 3.
(476), as explained in Iowa Administrative Bulletin Volume XXXIII, Number 7, October
6, 2010, pages 553-555.
18. 2011 Minnesota Statutes 216C.19 Energy Conservation. Subdivision 1. Roadway
lighting rules. https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/statutes/?id=216C.19.
19. Design Manual Chapter 11- Street Lighting, 11-A General Information,” Iowa
Statewide Urban Design and Specifications (SUDAS) R2013; “Design Manual Chapter
11- Street Lighting, 11-B1 Luminaires,” Iowa Statewide Urban Design and
Specifications (SUDAS) R2013; “Design Manual Chapter 11- Street Lighting, 11-B2 LED
lighting,” Iowa Statewide Urban Design and Specifications (SUDAS) R2013;“Design
Manual Chapter 11- Street Lighting, 11C Facility Design,” Iowa Statewide Urban
Design and Specifications (SUDAS) R2013
http://www.iowasudas.org/supplemental_design/Street_Lighting.pdf
20. Nomenclature and Definitions for Illuminating Engineering. The Illuminating
Engineering Society. 2010. ANSI/IES RP-16-10
(http://www.ies.org/store/product/nomenclature-and-definitions-for-illuminatingengineeringbr-rp1605-1013.cfm).
65
21. The Lighting Handbook, 10th Edition. Illuminating Engineering Society. 2011
http://www.ies.org/handbook/
22. Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminosity_function.
23. Recommended System for Mesopic Photometry Based on Visual Performance.
International Council on Illumination (CIE) 191:2010
http://www.cie.co.at/index.php?i_ca_id=788
24. City of San Jose Public Streetlight Design Guide, February, 2011.
http://www.sanjoseca.gov/transportation/SupportFiles/greenvision/Public_Streetlig
ht_Design_Guide.pdf
25. Lighting Analysts, Inc. (2012). AGi32 (Version 2.3) [Computer software]. Littleton,
Colorado.
26. MSSLC Retrofit Financial Analysis Tool “Solid-State Lighting: MSSLC Retrofit Financial
Analysis Tool." 2012. 22 Jul. 2012
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ssl/financial-tool.html
27. http://www.newstreetlights.com/
28. http://construction.com/dodge/
66
MSSLC Model Specification for LED Roadway Luminaires
67
Model Specification for
LED Roadway Luminaires
Version 1.0
October 2011
1
Instructions for the Editor (Owner, Utility, or ESCO)
This document, as downloaded in its original unedited form from the Consortium website, is
intended to be used as a model or template specification. It should be customized as needed to
meet the particular needs of each Owner, Utility, or ESCO. For example, a higher degree of
corrosion resistance and/or electrical immunity may be required in some regions. The unedited
template is not intended to serve as a standard specification, and therefore cannot result in a
single list of qualified products; since criteria will vary from municipality to municipality, a
product may qualify for one while not qualifying for another.
The template is composed of two separate documents:
1. The body of the specification and appendices (beginning with Appendix B) included at
the end.
2. Appendix A, to be inserted by the Editor (after printing) before Appendix B. The Editor
may choose ONE of two versions of Appendix A, depending on available information.
a. System Specification (application efficacy), which characterizes luminaire
performance based on site characteristics such as mounting height, pole spacing,
number of drive lanes, input power, and required light levels and uniformity.
b. Material Specification (luminaire efficacy), which characterizes luminaire
performance without consideration of site characteristics.
These three files are kept separate to allow for independent maintenance, while preventing
redundancies and contradictions between documents. Again, note that only ONE of the two
versions of Appendix A should be used for any given luminaire type. If both versions were used
for the same luminaire type, luminaire efficacy could (inappropriately) negate application
efficacy, thereby potentially excluding superior luminaires from consideration.
The submittal form in Appendix E is for use by manufacturers and should not be completed by
the user.
If the material in this document is unfamiliar, please consider hiring a qualified lighting
consultant.
NOTE: Hidden text in red italicized font provides guidance for the editor throughout these
documents. The intent is for this guidance to be visible on-screen but invisible when printed as
a final edited/customized specification.
While viewing the document on your monitor, you should see red italicized text between the
brackets here: []
 If you don’t see the text, adjust your Options in Microsoft Word as follows:
2
o Under “Display” in Word 2007 or 2010, check the Hidden Text box (under Always
Show These Formatting Marks On The Screen), and click OK.
o For earlier versions of Word, adjust setting(s) in a similar manner.
And in Print Preview, you should NOT see such text between the brackets here: []
 If you DO see the text, uncheck the Print Hidden Text box in Word.
The cover page and this page may be edited or removed as desired.
3
(insert owner/utility/esco name here)
Specification for LED Roadway Luminaires
PART 1 – GENERAL
1.1.
REFERENCES
Q1.
Q2. The publications listed below form a part of this specification to the extent referenced.
Publications are referenced within the text by their basic designation only. Versions
listed shall be superseded by updated versions as they become available.
Q3.
A. American National Standards Institute (ANSI)
1. C136.2-2004 (or latest), American National Standard for Roadway and Area
Lighting Equipment—Luminaire Voltage Classification
2. C136.10-2010 (or latest), American National Standard for Roadway and Area
Lighting Equipment - Locking-Type Photocontrol Devices and Mating Receptacle
Physical and Electrical Interchangeability and Testing
3. C136.15-2011 (or latest), American National Standard for Roadway and Area
Lighting Equipment – Luminaire Field Identification
4. C136.22-2004 (R2009 or latest), American National Standard for Roadway and
Area Lighting Equipment – Internal Labeling of Luminaires
5. C136.25-2009 (or latest), American National Standard for Roadway and Area
Lighting Equipment – Ingress Protection (Resistance to Dust, Solid Objects and
Moisture) for Luminaire Enclosures
6. C136.31-2010 (or latest), American National Standard for Roadway Lighting
Equipment – Luminaire Vibration
7. C136.37-2011 (or latest), American National Standard for Roadway and Area
Lighting Equipment - Solid State Light Sources Used in Roadway and Area
Lighting
B. American Society for Testing and Materials International (ASTM)
1. B117-09 (or latest), Standard Practice for Operating Salt Spray (Fog) Apparatus
2. D1654-08 (or latest), Standard Test Method for Evaluation of Painted or Coated
Specimens Subjected to Corrosive Environments
3. D523-08 (or latest), Standard Test Method for Specular Gloss
4. G154-06 (or latest), Standard Practice for Operating Fluorescent Light Apparatus
for UV Exposure of Nonmetallic Materials
C. Council of the European Union (EC)
1. RoHS Directive 2002/95/EC, on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous
substances in electrical and electronic equipment
D. Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
1. Green Guides, 16 CFR Part 260, Guides for the Use of Environmental Marketing
Claims
E. Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA or IES)
1. DG-4-03 (or latest), Design Guide for Roadway Lighting Maintenance
Adapted from the DOE MSSLC Model Specification for LED Roadway Luminaires, Version 1.0P a g e | 1
(insert owner/utility/esco name here)
Specification for LED Roadway Luminaires
F.
G.
H.
I.
1.2.
2. HB-10-11 (or latest), IES Lighting Handbook, 10th Edition
3. LM-50-99 (or latest), IESNA Guide for Photometric Measurement of Roadway
Lighting Installations
4. LM-61-06 (or latest), IESNA Approved Guide for Identifying Operating Factors
Influencing Measured Vs. Predicted Performance for Installed Outdoor High
Intensity Discharge (HID) Luminaires
5. LM-79-08 (or latest), IESNA Approved Method for the Electrical and Photometric
Measurements of Solid-Sate Lighting Products
6. LM-80-08 (or latest), IESNA Approved Method for Measuring Lumen
Maintenance of LED Light Sources
7. RP-8-00 (or latest), ANSI / IESNA American National Standard Practice for
Roadway Lighting
8. RP-16-10 (or latest), ANSI/IES Nomenclature and Definitions for Illuminating
Engineering
9. TM-3-95 (or latest), A Discussion of Appendix E - "Classification of Luminaire
Lighting Distribution," from ANSI/IESNA RP-8-83
10. TM-15-11 (or latest), Luminaire Classification System for Outdoor Luminaires
11. TM-21-11 (or latest), Projecting Long Term Lumen Maintenance of LED Light
Sources
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)
1. IEEE C62.41.2-2002 (or latest), IEEE Recommended Practice on Characterization
of Surges in Low-Voltage (1000 V and less) AC Power Circuits
2. ANSI/IEEE C62.45-2002 (or latest), IEEE Recommended Practice on Surge Testing
for Equipment Connected to Low-Voltage (1000 V and Less) AC Power Circuits
National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA)
1. ANSI/NEMA/ANSLG C78.377-2008 (or latest), American National Standard for
the Chromaticity of Solid State Lighting Products
National Fire Protection Association (NFPA)
1. 70 – National Electrical Code (NEC)
Underwriters Laboratories (UL)
1. 1449, Surge Protective Devices
2. 1598, Luminaires
3. 8750, Light Emitting Diode (LED) Equipment for Use in Lighting Products
RELATED DOCUMENTS
A. Contract Drawings and conditions of Contract (including General Conditions, Addendum
to the General Conditions, Special Conditions, Division 01 Specifications Sections and all
other Contract Documents) apply to the work of this section.
Adapted from the DOE MSSLC Model Specification for LED Roadway Luminaires, Version 1.0P a g e | 2
(insert owner/utility/esco name here)
Specification for LED Roadway Luminaires
a. See the separate Specification for Adaptive Control and Remote Monitoring of
LED Roadway Luminaires for additional driver performance and interface
requirements.
1.3.
DEFINITIONS
A. Lighting terminology used herein is defined in IES RP-16. See referenced documents for
additional definitions.
1.
Exception: The term “driver” is used herein to broadly cover both drivers
and power supplies, where applicable.
2.
Clarification: The term “LED light source(s)” is used herein per IES LM-80
to broadly cover LED package(s), module(s), and array(s).
1.4.
QUALITY ASSURANCE
A. Before approval and purchase, Owner may request luminaire sample(s) identical to
product configuration(s) submitted for inspection. Owner may request IES LM-79
testing of luminaire sample(s) to verify performance is within manufacturer-reported
tolerances.
B. After installation, Owner may perform IES LM-50 field measurements to verify
performance requirements outlined in Appendix A, giving consideration to
measurement uncertainties outlined in IES LM-61.
1.5.
LIGHTING SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
A. Energy Conservation
1. Connected Load
a. Luminaires shall have maximum nominal luminaire input wattage as
specified for each luminaire type in Appendix A.
2. Lighting Controls
a. See separate controls specification identified in section 1.2 above, if
applicable.
b. See section 2.1-B below for driver control interface and performance
requirements.
c. See section 2.1-K below for photocontrol receptacle requirements.
B. Photometric Requirements
1. Luminaires shall meet the general criteria provided in the body of this
specification and the particular criteria for each luminaire type defined in
Appendix A.
1.6.
REQUIRED SUBMITTALS FOR EACH LUMINAIRE TYPE DEFINED IN APPENDIX A
Adapted from the DOE MSSLC Model Specification for LED Roadway Luminaires, Version 1.0P a g e | 3
(insert owner/utility/esco name here)
Specification for LED Roadway Luminaires
A. General submittal content shall include
1. Completed Appendix E submittal form
2. Luminaire cutsheets
3. Cutsheets for LED light sources
4. Cutsheets for LED driver(s)
a. If dimmable LED driver is specified, provide diagrams illustrating light
output and input power as a function of control signal.
5. Cutsheets for surge protection device, if applicable
6. Instructions for installation and maintenance
7. Summary of luminaire recycled content and recyclability per the FTC Green
Guides, expressed by percentage of luminaire weight
B. LM-79 luminaire photometric report(s) shall be produced by the test laboratory and
include
1. Name of test laboratory
a. The test laboratory must hold National Voluntary Laboratory
Accreditation Program (NVLAP) accreditation for the IES LM-79 test
procedure or must be qualified, verified, and recognized through the U.S.
Department of Energy’s CALiPER program. For more information, see
http://ts.nist.gov/standards/scopes/eelit.htm or
www.ssl.energy.gov/test_labs.html.
2. Report number
3. Date
4. Complete luminaire catalog number
a. Provide explanation if catalog number in test report(s) does not match
catalog number of luminaire submitted
i.
Clarify whether discrepancy does not affect performance, e.g., in
the case of differing luminaire housing color.
ii.
If nominal performance of submitted and tested products differ,
submit additional LM-79 report(s) and derivation as indicated in
Appendix C.
5. Description of luminaire, LED light source(s), and LED driver(s)
6. Goniophotometry
7. Colorimetry
a. If a scotopic/photopic (S/P) ratio is not reported, a spectral power
distribution table adequate for accurate calculation of the ratio shall be
included.
C. Calculations and supporting test data per Appendix B indicating a lumen maintenance
life of not less than 36,000 operating hours
D. Computer-generated point-by-point photometric analysis of maintained photopic light
levels as per Appendix A
Adapted from the DOE MSSLC Model Specification for LED Roadway Luminaires, Version 1.0P a g e | 4
(insert owner/utility/esco name here)
Specification for LED Roadway Luminaires
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
1.7.
1. Calculations shall be for maintained values, i.e. Light Loss Factor (LLF) < 1.0,
where LLF = LLD x LDD x LATF, and
a. Lamp Lumen Depreciation (LLD)
i.
Shall be 0.70 (L70) for all luminaires as per IES HB-10.
ii.
Shall be the percentage of initial output calculated in section 1.6C.
b. Luminaire Dirt Depreciation (LDD) = 0.90, as per IES DG-4 for an enclosed
and gasketed roadway luminaire installed in an environment with less
than 150 g/m3 airborne particulate matter and cleaned every four years.
c. Luminaire Ambient Temperature Factor (LATF) = 1.00 Error! Hyperlink
reference not valid.
2. Use of IES HB-10 mesopic multipliers
a. Shall be disallowed herein, by assuming an S/P ratio of 1.00 for all
luminaires.
b. Shall only be permitted for luminaire types indicated in Appendix A for
use in 25 mph speed zones, using nominal S/P ratio and bilinear
interpolation. Mesopic multiplier(s) used shall be clearly indicated in the
calculations.
3. Calculation/measurement points shall be per IES RP-8.
Summary of Joint Electron Devices Engineering Council (JEDEC) or Japan Electronics and
Information Technology Industries (JEITA) reliability testing performed for LED packages
Summary of reliability testing performed for LED driver(s)
Written product warranty as per section 1.7 below
Safety certification and file number
1. Applicable testing bodies are determined by the US Occupational Safety Health
Administration (OSHA) as Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratories (NRTL) and
include: CSA (Canadian Standards Association), ETL (Edison Testing Laboratory),
and UL (Underwriters Laboratory).
Buy American documentation
1. Manufacturers listed on the current NEMA Listing of Companies Offering
Outdoor Luminaires Manufactured in U.S.A. for Recovery Act Projects need only
provide a copy of the document (http://www.nema.org/gov/economicstimulus).
2. Other manufacturers shall submit documentation as per the DOE Guidance on
Documenting Compliance with the Recovery Act Buy American Provisions
(http://www1.eere.energy.gov/recovery/buy_american_provision.html).
WARRANTY
A. Provide a minimum five-year warranty covering maintained integrity and functionality of
1. Luminaire housing, wiring, and connections
Adapted from the DOE MSSLC Model Specification for LED Roadway Luminaires, Version 1.0P a g e | 5
(insert owner/utility/esco name here)
Specification for LED Roadway Luminaires
2. LED light source(s)
a. Negligible light output from more than 10 percent of the LED packages
constitutes luminaire failure.
3. LED driver(s)
B. Warranty period shall begin 90 days after date of invoice, or as negotiated by owner
such as in the case of an auditable asset management system.
PART 2 – PRODUCTS
2.1.
LUMINAIRE REQUIREMENTS
A. General Requirements
1. Luminaires shall be as specified for each type in Appendix A.
2. Luminaire shall have an external label per ANSI C136.15
3. Luminaire shall have an internal label per ANSI C136.22.
4. Nominal luminaire input wattage shall account for nominal applied voltage and
any reduction in driver efficiency due to sub-optimal driver loading.
5. Luminaires shall start and operate in -20°C to +40°C ambient.
6. Electrically test fully assembled luminaires before shipment from factory.
7. Effective Projected Area (EPA) and weight of the luminaire shall not exceed the
values indicated in Appendix A.
8. Luminaires shall be designed for ease of component replacement and end-of-life
disassembly.
9. Luminaires shall be rated for the ANSI C136.31 Vibration Level indicated in
Appendix A.
10. LED light source(s) and driver(s) shall be RoHS compliant.
11. Transmissive optical components shall be applied in accordance with OEM
design guidelines to ensure suitability for the thermal/mechanical/chemical
environment.
B. Driver
1. Rated case temperature shall be suitable for operation in the luminaire
operating in the ambient temperatures indicated in section 2.1-A above.
2. Shall accept the voltage or voltage range indicated in Appendix A at 50/60 Hz,
and shall operate normally for input voltage fluctuations of plus or minus 10
percent.
3. Shall have a minimum Power Factor (PF) of 0.90 at full input power and across
specified voltage range.
4. Control signal interface
a. Luminaire types indicated “Required” in Appendix A shall accept a control
signal as specified via separate controls specification referenced in
section 1.2 above, e.g., for dimming.
Adapted from the DOE MSSLC Model Specification for LED Roadway Luminaires, Version 1.0P a g e | 6
(insert owner/utility/esco name here)
Specification for LED Roadway Luminaires
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
b. Luminaire types indicated “Not Required” in Appendix A need not accept
a control signal.
Electrical immunity
1. Luminaire shall meet the “Basic” requirements in Appendix D. Manufacturer
shall indicate on submittal form (Appendix E) whether failure of the electrical
immunity system can possibly result in disconnect of power to luminaire.
2. Luminaire shall meet the “Elevated” requirements in Appendix D. Manufacturer
shall indicate on submittal form (Appendix E) whether failure of the electrical
immunity system can possibly result in disconnect of power to luminaire.
Electromagnetic interference
1. Shall have a maximum Total Harmonic Distortion (THD) of 20% at full input
power and across specified voltage range.
2. Shall comply with FCC 47 CFR part 15 non-consumer RFI/EMI standards.
Electrical safety testing
1. Luminaire shall be listed for wet locations by an OSHA NRTL.
2. Luminaires shall have locality-appropriate governing mark and certification.
Painted or finished luminaire components exposed to the environment
1. Shall exceed a rating of six per ASTM D1654 after 1000hrs of testing per ASTM
B117.
2. The coating shall exhibit no greater than 30% reduction of gloss per ASTM D523,
after 500 hours of QUV testing at ASTM G154 Cycle 6.
Thermal management
1. Mechanical design of protruding external surfaces (heat sink fins) for shall
facilitate hose-down cleaning and discourage debris accumulation.
2. Liquids or other moving parts shall be clearly indicated in submittals, shall be
consistent with product testing, and shall be subject to review by Owner.
IES TM-15 limits for Backlight, Uplight, and Glare (BUG Ratings) shall be as specified for
each luminaire type in Appendix A.
1. Calculation of BUG Ratings shall be for initial (worst-case) values, i.e., Light Loss
Factor (LLF) = 1.0.
2. If luminaires are tilted upward for calculations in section 1.6-D, BUG Ratings shall
be calculated for the same angle(s) of tilt.
Minimum Color Rendering Index (CRI): 60.
Correlated Color Temperature (CCT)
1. If nominal CCT specified in Appendix A is listed in Table 1 below, measured CCT
and Duv shall be as listed in Table 1.
Table 1. Allowable CCT and Duv (adapted from NEMA C78.377)
Manufacturer-Rated Allowable LM-79 Chromaticity Values
Nominal CCT (K)
Measured CCT (K)
Measured Duv
Q4. 2700
2580 to 2870
-0.006 to 0.006
Adapted from the DOE MSSLC Model Specification for LED Roadway Luminaires, Version 1.0P a g e | 7
(insert owner/utility/esco name here)
Specification for LED Roadway Luminaires
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
5700
6500
2870 to 3220
3220 to 3710
3710 to 4260
4260 to 4746
4745 to 5311
5310 to 6020
6020 to 7040
-0.006 to 0.006
-0.006 to 0.006
-0.005 to 0.007
-0.005 to 0.007
-0.004 to 0.008
-0.004 to 0.008
-0.003 to 0.009
2. If nominal CCT specified in Appendix A is not listed in Table 1, measured CCT and
Duv shall be as per the criteria for Flexible CCT defined in NEMA C78.377.
K. The following shall be in accordance with corresponding sections of ANSI C136.37
1. Wiring and grounding
a. All internal components shall be assembled and pre-wired using modular
electrical connections.
2. Mounting provisions
a. Specific configurations are indicated in Appendix A
3. Terminal blocks for incoming AC lines
4. Photocontrol receptacle
5. Latching and hinging
6. Ingress protection
2.2. PRODUCT MANUFACTURERS
A. Any manufacturer offering products that comply with the required product performance
and operation criteria may be considered.
2.3.
MANUFACTURER SERVICES
A. Manufacturer or local sales representative shall provide installation and troubleshooting
support via telephone and/or email.
END OF SECTION
Adapted from the DOE MSSLC Model Specification for LED Roadway Luminaires, Version 1.0P a g e | 8
(insert owner/utility/esco name here)
Specification for LED Roadway Luminaires
Adapted from the DOE MSSLC Model Specification for LED Roadway Luminaires, Version 1.0P a g e | 9
Appendix B
Estimating LED Lumen Maintenance
IES TM-21 allows for extrapolation of expected lumen maintenance from available test data.
The extent of such extrapolation is limited by the duration of testing completed and the
number of samples used in the testing. The TM-21 methodology shall be used by the
manufacturer to determine lamp lumen depreciation (LLD) at end of lumen maintenance life
per section 1.6-C.
The applicant may estimate lumen maintenance in one of two ways:
Option 1: Component Performance
Under this compliance path, the applicant must submit calculations per TM-21
predicting lumen maintenance at the luminaire level using In Situ Temperature
Measurement Testing (ISTMT) and LM-80 data. To be eligible for the Component
Performance option, ALL of the conditions below must be met. If ANY of the conditions
is not met, the component performance option may not be used and the applicant must
use Option 2 for compliance.
1. The LED light source(s) have been tested according to LM-80.
2. The LED drive current specified by the luminaire manufacturer is less than or equal
to the drive current specified in the LM-80 test report.
3. The LED light source(s) manufacturer prescribes/indicates a temperature
measurement point (TS) on the light source(s).
4. The TS is accessible to allow temporary attachment of a thermocouple for
measurement of in situ temperature. Access via a temporary hole in the housing,
tightly resealed during testing with putty or other flexible sealant is allowable.
5. For the hottest LED light source in the luminaire, the temperature measured at the
TS during ISTMT is less than or equal to the temperature specified in the LM-80
test report for the corresponding drive current or higher, within the
manufacturer’s specified operating current range.
a. The ISTMT laboratory must be approved by OSHA as a Nationally
Recognized Testing Lab (NRTL), must be qualified, verified, and recognized
through DOE’s CALiPER program, or must be recognized through UL’s Data
Acceptance Program.
b. The ISTMT must be conducted with the luminaire installed in the
appropriate application as defined by ANSI/UL 1598 (hardwired
luminaires), with bird-fouling appropriately simulated (and documented by
photograph) as determined by the manufacturer.
Adapted from the DOE MSSLC Model Specification for LED Roadway Luminaires
P a g e | B-1
Option 2: Luminaire Performance
Under this compliance path, the applicant must submit TM-21 calculations based on LM79 photometric test data for no less than three samples of the entire luminaire.
Duration of operation and interval between photometric tests shall conform to the TM21 criteria for LED light sources. For example, testing solely at 0 and 6000 hours of
operation would not be adequate for the purposes of extrapolation.
Between LM-79 tests, the luminaire test samples must be operated long-term in the
appropriate application as defined by ANSI/UL 1598 (hardwired luminaires). The test
laboratory must hold NVLAP accreditation for the LM-79 test procedure or must be
qualified, verified, and recognized through the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)’s
CALiPER program. The extent of allowable extrapolation (either 5.5 or 6 times the test
duration) depends on the total number of LED light sources (no less than 10 and
preferably more than 19) installed in the luminaire samples, as per TM-21.
This compliance path poses a greater testing burden to luminaire manufacturers but
incorporates long-term testing of other components in the system, such as drivers.
Under either compliance path, values used for extrapolation shall be summarized per TM-21
Tables 1 and 2. Submitted values for lumen maintenance lifetime and the associated
percentage lumen maintenance shall be “reported” rather than “projected” as defined by TM21. Supporting diagrams are requested to facilitate interpretation by Owner.
Adapted from the DOE MSSLC Model Specification for LED Roadway Luminaires
P a g e | B-2
APPENDIX C
PRODUCT FAMILY TESTING
LM-79 AND ISTMT
It is recognized that due to the time and cost required for product testing, it would not be realistic to
expect manufacturers offering a multitude of unique luminaire configurations to test every possible
configuration. Therefore, the “product families” method may be utilized for LM-79 and ISTMT, whereby
manufacturers identify a set of representative products for which test data can be used to demonstrate
the accuracy of interpolated or extrapolated performance of product configurations lacking test data.
Precedent for this approach can be found in LM-80.
If the particular luminaire configuration submitted has not been tested, the performance may be
conservatively represented by test data for another luminaire configuration having:
 The same intensity distribution (typically only applies to LM-79)
 The same or lower nominal CCT
 The same or higher nominal drive current
 The same or greater number of LED light source(s)
 The same or lower percentage driver loading and efficiency
 The same or smaller size luminaire housing.
A more accurate estimate of performance can be obtained by linear interpolation between two or more
tests differing in terms of the six parameters listed above. For example, consider a hypothetical
luminaire offered in a single size housing, and having the following parameters:
 Three intensity distributions: IES Type II, III, or IV
 Three CCTs: 4000, 5000, and 6000K
 Three drive currents: 350, 525, and 700 mA
 Four LED quantities: 20, 40, 60, or 80 LEDs.
Table C.1 illustrates a set of tests which could allow for accurate interpolation between tested
configurations, given a single luminaire housing size and essentially constant driver efficiency; these 10
tests may provide representative data for the 108 possible product configurations. Note that
normalized intensity distribution must not be affected by the other three parameters.
Table C.1. Representative testing of a single luminaire housing size
Tests
Intensity distribution
CCT
Drive current
# of LEDs
(IES Type)
(K)
(mA)
1, 2, 3
II, III, IV
4000
700
80
4, 5
IV
5000, 6000
700
80
6, 7
IV
4000
325, 525
80
8, 9, 10
IV
4000
700
20, 40, 60
For example, the manufacturer could detail interpolation as shown in Table C.2, applying the following
multipliers to the base test #2 to model a configuration with Type III intensity distribution, 5000K CCT,
525 mA drive current, and 40 LEDs:
 Ratio of test #4 lumens to test #3 lumens
 Ratio of test #7 lumens to test #3 lumens
 Ratio of test #9 lumens to test #3 lumens.
Adapted from the DOE MSSLC Model Specification for LED Roadway Luminaires
P a g e | C-1
Table C.2. Multipliers for Test #2 to yield: Type III , 5000K, 525mA, 40 LEDs
Test #
Intensity distribution
CCT
Drive current # of LEDs
Multiplier
(IES Type)
(K)
(mA)
(lumens ratio)
2
III
4000
700
80
n/a
3
IV
4000
700
80
n/a
4
IV
5000
700
80
#4 / #3
7
IV
4000
525
80
#7 / #3
9
IV
4000
700
40
#9 / #3
Interpolation between minimal LM-79 and ISTMT data is more difficult if housing size increases with
increasing wattage; it may not be clear whether the lowest-wattage configuration would be expected to
“run cooler” than the highest-wattage configuration. In these circumstances, the adequacy of
submitted data is subject to Owner approval.
At this time, the “successor” method cannot be used; luminaires tested must utilize the LED light
source(s) characterized by the submitted LM-80 report.
Adapted from the DOE MSSLC Model Specification for LED Roadway Luminaires
P a g e | C-2
APPENDIX D
ELECTRICAL IMMUNITY
Test Procedure

Electrical Immunity Tests 1, 2 and 3, as defined by their Test Specifications, shall be
performed on an entire powered and connected luminaire, including any control modules
housed within the luminaire, but excluding any control modules mounted externally, such
as a NEMA socket connected photo-control. A shorting cap should be placed across any
such exterior connector.

The luminaire shall be connected to an AC power source with a configuration appropriate
for nominal operation. The AC power source shall have a minimum available short-circuit
current of 200A. The luminaire shall be tested at the nominal input voltage specified in
Appendix A, or at the highest input voltage in the input voltage range specified in Appendix
A.

Electrical Immunity test waveforms shall be superimposed on the input AC power line at a
point within 6 inches (15cm) of entry into the luminaire using appropriate high-voltage
probes and a series coupler/decoupler network (CDN) appropriate for each coupling mode,
as defined by ANSI/IEEE C62.45-2002. The test area for all tests shall be set up according to
ANSI/IEEE C62.45-2002, as appropriate.

Prior to electrical immunity testing a set of diagnostic measurements shall be performed,
and the results recorded to note the pre-test function of the luminaire after it has reached
thermal equilibrium. These measurements should include at a minimum:
a) For all luminaires, Real Power, Input RMS Current, Power Factor and THD at full
power/light output
b) For luminaires specified as dimmable, Real Power, Input RMS Current, Power Factor
and THD at a minimum of 4 additional dimmed levels, including the rated minimum
dimmed level

Tests shall be applied in sequential order (Test 1, followed by Test 2, followed by Test 3). If a
failure occurs during Test 3, then Test 3 shall be re-applied to a secondary luminaire of
identical construction.

Following the completion of Tests 1, 2, and 3, the same set of diagnostic measurements
performed pre-test should be repeated for all tested luminaires, and the results recorded to
note the post-test function of the luminaire(s).

A luminaire must function normally and show no evidence of failure following the
completion of Test 1 + Test 2 + Test 3 (for a single tested luminaire), or the completion of
Test 1 + Test 2 on a primary luminaire and Test 3 on a secondary luminaire. Abnormal
behavior during testing is acceptable.

A luminaire failure will be deemed to have occurred if any of the following conditions exists
following the completion of testing:
a) A hard power reset is required to return to normal operation
Adapted from the DOE MSSLC Model Specification for LED Roadway Luminaires
P a g e | D-1
b) A noticeable reduction in full light output (e.g. one or more LEDs fail to produce light, or
become unstable) is observed
c) Any of the post-test diagnostic measurements exceeds by ±5% the corresponding pretest diagnostic measurement.
d) The luminaire, or any component in the luminaire (including but not limited to an
electrical connector, a driver, a protection component or module) has ignited or shows
evidence of melting or other heat-induced damage. Evidence of cracking, splitting,
rupturing, or smoke damage on any component is acceptable.
Test Specifications
NOTE: L1 is typically “HOT”, L2 is typically “NEUTRAL” and PE = Protective Earth.
Test 1) Ring Wave: The luminaire shall be subjected to repetitive strikes of a “C Low Ring Wave”
as defined in IEEE C62.41.2-2002, Scenario 1, Location Category C. The test strikes shall be
applied as specified by Table D.1. Prior to testing, the ring wave generator shall be calibrated to
simultaneously meet BOTH the specified short circuit current peak and open circuit voltage
peak MINIMUM requirements. Note that this may require that the generator charging voltage
be raised above the specified level to obtain the specified current peak. Calibrated current
probes/transformers designed for measuring high-frequency currents shall be used to measure
test waveform currents.
Test waveform current shapes and peaks for all strikes shall be compared to ensure uniformity
throughout each set (coupling mode + polarity/phase angle) of test strikes, and the average
peak current shall be calculated and recorded. If any individual peak current in a set exceeds by
±10% the average, the test setup shall be checked, and the test strikes repeated.
Table D.1: 0.5 µS – 100Hz Ring Wave Specification
Parameter
Test Level/Configuration
Short Circuit Current Peak
0.5 kA
Open Circuit Voltage Peak
6 kV
Source Impedance
12 
Coupling Modes
L1 to PE, L2 to PE, L1 to L2
Polarity and Phase Angle
Positive at 90° and Negative at 270°
Test Strikes
5 for each Coupling Mode and Polarity/Phase Angle
combination
Time between Strikes
1 minute
Total Number of Strikes
= 5 strikes x 4 coupling modes x 2 polarity/phase
angles
Adapted from the DOE MSSLC Model Specification for LED Roadway Luminaires
P a g e | D-2
= 40 total strikes
Test 2) Combination Wave: The luminaire shall be subjected to repetitive strikes of a “C High
Combination Wave” or “C Low Combination Wave”, as defined in IEEE C62.41.2-2002, Scenario
1, Location Category C. The test strikes shall be applied as specified by Table D.2. The “Low” test
level shall be used for luminaires with Basic Electrical Immunity requirements, while the “High”
test level shall be used for luminaires with Elevated Electrical Immunity requirements. Prior to
testing, the combination wave generator shall be calibrated to simultaneously meet BOTH the
specified short circuit current peak and open circuit voltage peak MINIMUM requirements.
Note that this may require that the generator charging voltage be raised above the specified
level to obtain the specified current peak. Calibrated current probes/transformers designed for
measuring high-frequency currents shall be used to measure test waveform currents.
Test waveform current shapes and peaks for all strikes shall be compared to ensure uniformity
throughout each set (coupling mode + polarity/phase angle) of test strikes, and the average
peak current shall be calculated and recorded. If any individual peak current in a set exceeds by
±10% the average, the test setup shall be checked, and the test strikes repeated.
Table D.2: 1.2/50µS – 8/20 µS Combination Wave Specification
Parameter
Test Level/ Configuration
1.2/50 µS Open Circuit Voltage
Peak
Low: 6 kV
High: 10kV
8/20 µS Short Circuit Current
Peak
Low: 3 kA
High: 10kA
Source Impedance
2
Coupling Modes
L1 to PE, L2 to PE, L1 to L2
Polarity and Phase Angle
Positive at 90° and Negative at 270°
Test Strikes
5 for each Coupling Mode and Polarity/Phase Angle
combination
Time Between Strikes
1 minute
Total Number of Strikes
= 5 strikes x 4 coupling modes x 2 polarity/phase
angles
= 40 total strikes
Test 3) Electrical Fast Transient (EFT): The luminaire shall be subjected to “Electrical Fast
Transient Bursts”, as defined in IEEE C62.41.2 -2002. The test area shall be set up according to
IEEE C62.45-2002. The bursts shall be applied as specified by Table D.3. Direct coupling is
required; the use of a coupling clamp is not allowed.
Adapted from the DOE MSSLC Model Specification for LED Roadway Luminaires
P a g e | D-3
Table D.3: Electrical Fast Transient (EFT) Specification
Parameter
Test Level/ Configuration
Open Circuit Voltage Peak
3 kV
Burst Repetition Rate
2.5 kHz
Burst Duration
15 mS
Burst Period
300 mS
Coupling Modes
L1 to PE, L2 to PE, L1 to L2
Polarity
Positive and Negative
Test Duration
1 minute for each Coupling Mode and Polarity
combination
Total Test Duration
= 1 minute x 7 coupling modes x 2 polarities
= 14 minutes
Adapted from the DOE MSSLC Model Specification for LED Roadway Luminaires
P a g e | D-4
APPENDIX E
PRODUCT SUBMITTAL FORM
Luminaire Type8
Manufacturer
Model number
Housing finish color
Tenon nominal pipe size (inches)
Nominal luminaire weight (lb)
Nominal luminaire EPA (ft2)
Nominal input voltage (V)
ANSI vibration test level
Nominal BUG Ratings
Make/model of LED light source(s)
Make/model of LED driver(s)
Dimmability
Control signal interface
Upon electrical immunity system failure
Thermal management
Lumen maintenance testing duration (hr)
Reported lumen maintenance life (hr) 9
Warranty period (yr)
Parameter
Initial photopic output (lm)
Maintained photopic output (lm)
Lamp lumen depreciation
Initial input power (W)
Maintained input power (W)
Initial LED drive current (mA)
Maintained LED drive current (mA)
Drive current used
In-situ LED Tc (°C)
8
9
 Level 1 (Normal)
 Level 2
(bridge/overpass)
 Dimmable
 Not dimmable
 Possible disconnect
 Moving parts
 No possible disconnect
 No moving parts
Nominal value
Tolerance (%)
See Appendix A, and attach supporting documentation as required.
Value shall be no less than as specified in section 1.6-C, and shall not exceed six times the testing duration
indicated in the row above. Value shall be consistent with values submitted in the rows below for maintained light
output, maintained input power, and maintained drive current.
Model Specification for
LED Roadway Luminaires
Appendix A
Application-Based System Specification
Adapted from the DOE MSSLC Model Specification for LED Roadway Luminaires
P a g e | D-2
Instructions for the Editor (Owner, Utility, or ESCO)
This document provides System specifications, as opposed to Material specifications, to be
appended to the main body of the Consortium template. Refer to the instructions provided at
the beginning of the main document, which is downloaded from the Consortium website as a
separate file.
1. Edit values and layout on the following pages as desired. The values indicated are
SAMPLES ONLY and should be customized by the Editor. For example:
a. Maximum input wattage should be carefully selected to meet energy savings
criteria. An unrealistically low value could inadvertently eliminate viable options.
b. Maximum BUG ratings should be carefully selected to balance safety, security,
and obtrusive light criteria. Unrealistically low values could inadvertently
eliminate viable options.
c. Maximum effective projected area (EPA) should be based on the load capacity of
the mast arm and pole, i.e., not necessarily based on the EPA of existing
luminaires.
2. To add more luminaire types, copy-paste the contents of Page A-1 onto a new page,
created by inserting a page break.
3. Delete/modify this page and the previous page as appropriate before appending to the
main document ahead of Appendix B.
Adapted from the DOE MSSLC Model Specification for LED Roadway Luminaires
P a g e | D-3
APPENDIX A
APPLICATION-BASED SYSTEM SPECIFICATION
LUMINAIRE TYPE “A”
SITE PARAMETERS
ROADWAY DATA:
SIDEWALK DATA:
LIGHT POLE DATA:
PHOTOPIC
ILLUMINANCE:
PHOTOPIC
LUMINANCE:
VEILING LUMINANCE:
PHOTOPIC
ILLUMINANCE:
INPUT POWER:
NOMINAL CCT:
1
BUG RATING:
VOLTAGE:
FINISH:
WEIGHT:
EPA:
MOUNTING:
VIBRATION:
Lane width
13.5 ft
Number of lanes, total on both sides of median
2
Shoulder width, drivelane to edge of pavement
4 ft
Median width
0 ft
IES pavement class.
 R1  R2  R3  R4
Posted speed limit
 ≤ 25 mph  > 25 mph
Sidewalk width
5 ft
Edge of sidewalk to edge of roadway pavement
6 ft
Luminaire mounting height
27 ft
Arm length, horizontal
6 ft
Luminaires per pole
1
Pole set-back from edge of pavement
2 ft
In-line pole spacing (one pole cycle)
150 ft
Layout
 One side  Opposite  Staggered  Median
PERFORMANCE CRITERIA: APPLICATION
ROADWAY
Maintained average horizontal at pavement
4.0 lux (0.4 fc)
Avg:min uniformity ratio
6.0 : 1
Maintained average luminance
n/a
Avg:min uniformity ratio
n/a
Max:min uniformity ratio
n/a
Max. veiling luminance ratio
0.4
SIDEWALKS
Maintained average horizontal at pavement
2.0 lux (0.2 fc)
Avg:min uniformity ratio (horizontal)
4.0 : 1
Maintained min. vertical illum. at 4.9 ft, in directions of travel
1.0 lux (0.1 fc)
PERFORMANCE CRITERIA: LED LUMINAIRE
Max. nominal luminaire input power
103 W
Rated correlated color temperature
4000 K
Max. nominal backlight-uplight-glare ratings
B1-U2-G1
Nominal luminaire input voltage
120 V
Luminaire housing finish color
Gray
Maximum luminaire weight
30 lb
2
Maximum effective projected area
0.7 ft
Mtg. method
 Post-top  Side-arm  Trunnion/yoke  Swivel-tenon
Tenon nominal pipe size (NPS)
2 inches
ANSI test level
 Level 1 (normal)  Level 2 (bridge/overpass)
DRIVER:
Control signal interface
 Not required  Required
1
The deprecated “cutoff” classification system cannot be accurately applied to LED luminaires.
Adapted from the DOE MSSLC Model Specification for LED Roadway Luminaires
P a g e | D-2
Model Specification for
LED Roadway Luminaires
Appendix A
Material Specification
Adapted from the DOE MSSLC Model Specification for LED Roadway Luminaires
P a g e | D-3
Instructions for the Editor (Owner, Utility, or ESCO)
This document provides Material specifications, as opposed to System specifications, to be
appended to the main body of the Consortium template. Refer to the instructions provided at
the beginning of the main document, which is downloaded from the Consortium website as a
separate file.
NOTE: For any given luminaire type, the user should select either the System specification or
this Material specification, but not both. The System specification is preferred, where practical,
to provide greater assurance that quality and quantity of illumination will meet expectations.
1. Edit values and layout on the following pages as desired. The values indicated are
SAMPLES ONLY and should be customized by the Editor. For example:
a. Maximum input wattage should be carefully selected to meet energy savings
criteria. An unrealistically low value could inadvertently eliminate viable options.
b. Maximum BUG ratings should be carefully selected to balance safety, security,
and obtrusive light criteria. Unrealistically low values could inadvertently
eliminate viable options.
c. Maximum effective projected area (EPA) should be based on the load capacity of
the mast arm and pole, i.e., not necessarily based on the EPA of existing
luminaires.
2. To add more luminaire types, copy-paste the contents of Page A-1 onto a new page,
created by inserting a page break.
3. Delete/modify this page and the previous page as appropriate before appending to the
main document, ahead of Appendix B.
Adapted from the DOE MSSLC Model Specification for LED Roadway Luminaires
P a g e | D-4
APPENDIX A
MATERIAL SPECIFICATION
LUMINAIRE TYPE “A”
BENCHMARK
LUMINAIRE:
LENS:
1
IES FORWARD TYPE:
1
IES LATERAL TYPE:
INPUT POWER:
NOMINAL CCT:
2
PHOTOPIC DOWNWARD
LUMINAIRE OUTPUT:
3
BUG RATING:
VOLTAGE:
FINISH:
WEIGHT:
EPA:
MOUNTING:
EXISTING LUMINAIRE TO BE REPLACED
(FOR REFERENCE ONLY)
Lamp wattage and type
Initial downward luminaire output (lumens below horizontal)
Light loss factor
 Flat (“cutoff” style)  Sag/drop
 I  II  III  IV  V  VS
 Very short  Short  Medium  Long  Very long
PERFORMANCE CRITERIA: LED LUMINAIRE
Max. nominal luminaire input power
Rated correlated color temperature
Minimum maintained luminaire output below horizontal
70 W HPS
4284 lm
0.76
103 W
4000 K
3256 lm
Max. nominal backlight-uplight-glare ratings
B1-U2-G1
Nominal luminaire input voltage
120 V
Luminaire housing finish color
Gray
Maximum luminaire weight
30 lb
2
Maximum effective projected area
0.7 ft
Mtg. method
 Post-top  Side-arm  Trunnion/yoke  Swivel-tenon
Tenon nominal pipe size (NPS)
2 inches
VIBRATION:
ANSI test level
 Level 1 (normal)  Level 2 (bridge/overpass)
DRIVER:
Control signal interface
 Not required  Required
1
See IES TM-3 and TM-15 for an explanation of this classification system. “Very” indicates out of defined range.
2
Mesopic multipliers are not applicable if speed limit and/or adaptation luminance are unknown.
3
The deprecated “cutoff” classification system cannot be accurately applied to LED luminaires.
IAMU APPENDIX F
BUY AMERICAN STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE
Statement of Compliance with the Buy American Provision of
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA)
Manufacturers must show products purchased using funds provided by the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act meet Section 1605 (Buy American provisions) which provides provisions for purchase of
manufactured goods produced in the United States.
Date:
Manufacturer:
Manufacturing Location:
Product Description:
Manufacturer Catalog Number:
Substantial Transformation Analysis
Substantial transformation of components into manufactured goods must occur in the United States.
Guiding Criteria
YES NO
1.
Were all of the components of the manufactured good manufactured in the U.S., and were all
of the components assembled into the final production in the U.S.? (If the answer is yes, then it is
clearly manufactured in the U.S., and the inquiry is complete.)
2.
Was there a change in character for use of the good or the components in the U.S.? (These
questions are asked about the finished good as a whole, not about each individual component.)
Adapted from the DOE MSSLC Model Specification for LED Roadway Luminaires
P a g e | D-6
If the answer is yes to any of 2a, 2b, or 2c, then the answer to question 2 is YES.
a.
Was there a change in the physical and/or chemical properties or characteristics designed to
alter the functionality of the good?
b. Did the manufacturing or processing operation result in a change of a product(s) with one use
into a product with a different use?
c.
Did the manufacturing or processing operation result in the narrowing of the range of
possible uses of a multi-use product?
3.
Was/were the process(es) performed in the U.S. (including but not limited to assembly)
complex and meaningful?
(If the answer is yes to at least two of 3a, 3b, 3c, 3d, or 3e, then the answer to question 3 is yes.)
a.
Did the process(es) take a substantial amount of time?
b.
Was/were the process(es) costly?
c.
Did the process(es) require a number of different operations?
d.
Did the processes require particular high level skills?
e.
Was substantial value added in the process(es)?
Adapted from the DOE MSSLC Model Specification for LED Roadway Luminaires
P a g e | D-7