Solid State Lighting FAQs

Solid-State Lighting FAQs

The FAQs below represent answers to common questions about submitting a product to the DLC Solid-State Lighting QPL and how our requirements and policies are interpreted. They are explanatory only and should be viewed as such. In all cases, please refer to the Terms of Use for the operative rules regarding participating in the DLC QPL.

Application Requirements

No. DLC is interested in the performance of the product that will actually be sold to customers. As such, test data on prototypes will not be accepted for DLC submissions. Testing must be on production models that are identical in design and construction to those that are being or will be sold.

If a manufacturer wishes to update the listed performance of a qualified product, the manufacturer must provide new test data for the updated product and pay the associated application fee. This will require DLC review. If the manufacturer wishes to have the originally qualified and updated products both listed on the DLC QPL, a new part number for the updated product must be provided to avoid duplicate model numbers on the QPL. If model numbers are not changed, the listing will be for the upgraded product only. Multiple products with identical model numbers may not be listed under the same product category on the QPL.

The Outdoor Pole/Arm-Mounted Area and Roadway Luminaires and Outdoor Wall-Mounted Area Luminaires category are designed for luminaires intended to light up general areas. The Architectural Flood and Spot Luminaires category is designed for luminaires intended to light up specific items/objects/elements. The floodlight category cannot be used to qualify area lights that would not meet the zonal lumen requirements of the Outdoor Pole/Arm-Mounted Area Luminaires or Outdoor Wall-Mounted Luminaires category.

All occupancy sensors for the Stairwell/Passageway Lighting category are acceptable, as long as they meet the following requirements:

  1. Luminaires that include integral controls for occupancy sensing and bi-level dimming.
  2. Luminaires that operate off remote occupancy sensors, including wireless options, where a remote sensor(s) is sold packaged together with a luminaire(s) under a single model number or ordering code.
  3. Luminaires that operate off remote occupancy sensors, including wireless options, where the luminaire and sensor are sold separately, but the luminaire has features enabling communication with a remote sensor(s).

All Stairwell/Passageway Lighting must be capable of at least bi-level dimming. Graduate dimming is acceptable, as long as the controls dim the fixture to a lower-power state when the space is not occupied. Documentation of dimming and controls must be provided with the application.

A Low-Bay luminaire is classified by a lumen output between 5,000 and 10,000 lumens (with established tolerances). A High-Bay luminaire is classified by a lumen output greater than or equal to 10,000 lumens (with established tolerances). Please refer to the Eligibility Requirements and Technical Requirements for additional information.

No. Per the Linear Replacement Lamp Policy, lamps that require the use of specialized accessory components in order to meet the stated requirements are not eligible for qualification. The DLC reserves the right to ask for additional information regarding any components included in the testing with the product submitted, and deem a product not eligible for qualification.

Examples of specialized components that are not eligible include the use of socket extenders to shorten the distance between lamp holders and changing the lamp holders from G13-base to G5 base, or vice-versa. However, replacement of the existing fluorescent troffer sockets is allowed, and not considered a specialized component, in the following situation: the existing troffer contains shunted lamp holders, and the linear replacement lamp installation instructions specify that line and neutral power be connected to the same lamp holder, and therefore the existing socket needs to be replaced with an un-shunted lamp holder.

Because they have different light output and distribution requirements, center and end units for vertical refrigerated case lights may not be submitted in the same single product application. They should either be submitted as separate applications, or applied for under the family grouping policy. Family groups that include both center and end units must demonstrate compliance with the requirements on worst-case light output of both center and end units.

If you are private labeling a product, the intention is that you are using your own company’s name and model number to market an OEM product to your customers. If you are reselling a product as, for example, a distributor, you may not have a unique manufacturer name and model number to use when reselling the product. When private labeling, it is imperative to utilize the DLC’s Private Labeling/Multiple Listing policy to ensure the products, as your company markets them, are searchable on the QPL. If you are reselling DLC qualified products without changing the OEM information, you do not need to use the private label process if, and only if, you include the OEM’s pertinent QPL information (manufacturer name, manufacturer brand, model number) when marketing the product.

The DLC understands that manufacturer names may go through changes after establishing an account with the DLC. To ensure that reviewers have the necessary documentation to accurately evaluate applications and that information listed on the QPL is consistent, the DLC will require the following for any manufacturer who wishes to change its manufacturer name after establishing a DLC account:

  • Government issued documentation demonstrating the change in company name. The documentation must be issued by the jurisdiction under which the company operates. Reviewers reserve the right to ask for additional documentation if the information provided does not appear to be official government issued documentation.
  • Manufacturers will be restricted to changing company names only one time per year. The DLC will allow exceptions to this rule for companies that are bought/sold multiple times within the same year. In the event that a company is bought/sold multiple times within the same year and requires more than one name change within the same year, the DLC will ask for sufficient documentation to demonstrate the need for multiple name changes.
  • Application documentation must represent the new company name within 3 months of the company name change documentation being approved by the DLC. After this 3 month grace period, any documentation submitted representing the previous company name will be asked to be revised in order to move forward with the application. 

Yes. If a private labeler wishes to extend the private label to a third organization, there are two options. One, the private label request letter can be signed by the original manufacturer and the final private labeler. For example, if company B private labels a product from company A, and then company C wishes to private label that product from company B, the private label request letter would be signed by company A and company C.

Alternatively, the original manufacturer can provide a blanket letter that grants the first private labeler permission to private label any product they manufacture to a third organization. Requests for private labeling from the initial private labeler and the third organization would then need a letter signed only by those two parties, along with the letter from the original manufacturer. In the scenario above, this would mean company A provides a blanket letter for company B to private label their products; then applications for products from company C would need to include both that letter and the signed letter between company B and company C.

DLC Members have expressed a need to be able to identify products that are able to dim with certain characteristics. The DLC now collects and reports specific dimming information to accommodate this need. For more information on how to report dimming information, please refer to the guidance document (pdf)

No. In the event that a test report that meets the Technical Requirements is submitted, but contains incorrect information, the DLC will not accept the same test report with the incorrect information revised. The DLC will require that the product is retested, and a new set of test data is submitted in a new report. The DLC will then only reevaluate the new, retested data. In the event that the test report contains failing test data that is not representative of the products performance, please see the FAQ, “I believe that the test report I submitted with my application does not represent my product's performance. Will DLC accept a new report with different performance on the same product design?”

No. In the event that the test report submitted does not meet the Technical Requirements, the DLC will not accept a revised test report unless a design change has been made to the product. Please note that the Self Certification Statement provided with each application includes language that the applicant certifies all model numbers submitted meet minimum requirements. In the event where a manufacturer chooses to make a design change to the product, and resubmit test data that represents that design change, the DLC will need detailed explanations of the changes made as well as assurance that the changes will be reflected in all products sold. If a test report submitted does meet the Technical Requirements, but includes incorrect information, please see FAQ, “I submitted a test report that meets the Technical Requirements, but noticed that there is incorrect information reported. Will DLC accept a revised test report?”

Yes. To ensure all products listed on the QPL are associated with at least one line item that includes tested data, Private Label applications must include at least one of the Parent models of the OEM listing. If the private labeler does not wish to include at least one of the Parent models of the original OEM listing, the private labeler must provide test data for the worst case model of the OEM products they do wish to private label, which will be assessed at the full application fee required for the evaluation of independent reports (ITRs). This product will then be listed as the parent product for the private label listing. 

No. While the DLC does not require testing in all approved and pre-approved housings available for each retrofit kit or replacement lamp Primary Use, the approved and pre-approved housings selected for testing are intended to provide similar, common environments for which the retrofit kit may be installed in the field. As such, it is the DLC's expectation that the submitted retrofit kit should meet the requirements regardless of the housing chosen for testing. If testing is provided showing that the product does not meet the requirements in a specific housing, the products will not be able to be qualified and listed on the QPL. For additional information regarding the resubmission of test data on the same product design, please refer to the following FAQ

Yes. Premium classification applications require review of an additional independent test report for the driver ISTMT. Private label application fees are assessed based on the application fee of the originally qualified product(s). As such, the private label application fee will also include the additional independent test report fee, at the reduced fee structure of $50 for each original $500 application fee. Additional fees for family member products and dimming variations still apply. Please see the Application Fees page for more information. 

The current safety certification requirements for listing on the SSL QPL are that manufacturers must provide documentation of safety certification from an applicable safety organization in the US or Canada (see this FAQ for more details).

The documentation must clearly represent the product(s) seeking qualification. This means that the model numbers submitted in the application must match the model numbers listed in the safety certification. If there is not a direct match in model nomenclature between the safety certification and application form, or explanatory language in the safety certification that demonstrates the models in the application form are covered (i.e. placeholders and/or description of variations included), the DLC will request confirmation from the safety organization that the model numbers submitted in the application are covered by the safety certification documentation provided. This must come from the applicable safety organization.

At this time, DLC relies on the safety organization issuing the safety certification to determine the appropriate standard for which to evaluate the product. Policies related to safety certification are on the wish list for consideration in future policy development cycles.

If the model number(s) in the safety documentation provided do not directly match the model numbers included in the DLC application, additional action will be required.  Below are some examples on how to resolve safety documentation issues:

  • The Manufacturer may contact the safety organization to update the safety documentation to include the exact model numbers included in the DLC application
  • The Manufacturer may contact the safety organization to update the safety documentation to include explanatory language to cover the model variations submitted to DLC. Explanatory language may include placeholders and explanations of what those placeholders can represent.
  • The Manufacturer may provide additional pages (in addition to the Certificate of Compliance, Authorization to Mark, etc.) of your safety documentation which include descriptions of the variations covered and/or an ordering code break down that details the variations covered.

Yes. DLC expects that manufacturers provide the most up-to-date LM-80 report available for the LED package/module/array used within the product. It is the submitting manufacturer’s responsibility to ensure they have received the most up-to-date LM-80 report from the LED manufacturer for each application. Additional data that improves the projection accuracy cannot be ignored simply because it shows worse performance. 

The intent of the Private Label application policy is to allow products that are exactly the same as ones already listed on the QPL to be listed. Because of this relatability, products do not need to go through redundant testing, and application fees are reduced due to a simplified application review process. However, because this process is enabled for products that are identical, the DLC lists private labeled versions of products with exactly the same performance information as their OEM versions. The reasoning behind this is that identical products should have identical performance ratings, even if brand, manufacturer, model number, date qualified, and similar descriptive fields are necessarily different.

As additional clarification, during transitions to new versions of Technical Requirements, if a previously-qualified OEM product is listed at a certain classification (i.e. as a Premium product) due to the requirements in place at the time of its qualification, and a private label is sought during a time when products are only being evaluated against a new set of requirements, the private label will only be listed with respect to how that product performs relative to the requirements in place at the time of its qualification.

For example, if an OEM product was qualified under the V3.1 requirements as meeting the Premium classification, but does not meet the V4.0 Premium requirements, then applications seeking to Private Label that product received after the 8/31 cutoff will be listed as meeting the V4.0 Standard requirements, not as V3.1 Premium (see details of the V4.0 transition and the 8/31 cutoff in the Cover Letter and Guidance that was distributed with the announcement, as well as in the explanatory webinar and Transition Guidance session from the DLC Stakeholder Meeting).

Understanding the available options for a product is necessary to ensure worst case performance has been identified and tested. As such, an explanation of the ordering code/model number breakdown must be included in the relevant section of the Application Form and must match the spec sheets and other marketing materials submitted with the application. DLC reviewers reserve the right to request additional information or clarification of ordering codes or model number breakdowns. Please note that omitting or submitting an insufficient ordering code/model number breakdown explanation is one of the most common reasons application reviews are delayed.

No. It is expected that the drive current information within the Application Form accurately represents that product's performance. Unless a design change has been made to the product, the DLC will not accept additional or revised drive current information within the Application Form, even if the manufacturer claims that the first round of information provided is not an accurate representation of the product. Please note that the Self Certification Statement provided which each application includes language that the applicant certifies all model numbers submitted meet minimum requirements. In the event where a manufacturer chooses to make a design change to the product, and resubmit test data that represents that design change, the DLC will need detailed explanations of the changes made as well as assurance that the changes will be reflected in all products sold.

Acceptable forms of signatures include either a wet signature or verified digital signature. The signature must be affixed to the document, unable to be moved. Wet signatures must be written on a print-out of the document with a pen, then scanned and submitted. Verified digital signatures must authenticate the electronic user and capture the user’s intent to sign the document. Software may not auto-sign on a signee’s behalf.

Providing safety certification documentation is dependent on the type of Update Application. Please see below to find the update scenario that best fits your situation.

Nomenclature Updates: If the Update Application is only to the nomenclature of the product, and no design changes have been made, the Update Application does not need to contain proof of safety certification. Please see Updating Products – Updating Nomenclature for additional details on what must be included in nomenclature Update Applications.

Performance and Nomenclature Updates: If the Update Application includes both a nomenclature change and a design change, the Update Application must contain proof of safety certification. Please see FAQ, How does DLC evaluate safety certification for additional details on what the safety certification documentation must represent.

Performance Updates: If the Update Application only includes a design change, but no change to the nomenclature of the product, safety certification documentation is not required to be submitted again, under the following conditions:

  • The originally qualified product included proof of safety certification
  • The applicant can provide the original Application Code for the originally qualified product

If either condition above is not met, the DLC reviewer will ask for proof of safety certification to be submitted with the Update Application.

No. To avoid confusion in the market, the same private label model number cannot be used to represent different OEM products. For example, if a private labeler is using Model-ABC to represent OEM product Model-DEF, the private labeler cannot then also use model-ABC to represent OEM product Model-XYZ.

In the event that a private labeler submits the same model number for multiple OEM products, the DLC reviewer will inform the private labeler that a unique model number must be supplied in order for the review to continue.

The DLC calculates the zonal efficacy based on the lumen output in the 0-90° zone divided by the total wattage of the product. The lumen output in the 0-90° zone is calculated by taking the total lumen output of the product (based on the LM-79*), and calculating the lumen output in the 0-90° zone based on the percentage of lumens calculated in that zone from the accompanying IES file. Note that IES files are evaluated using Photometric Toolbox – Professional Edition from Lighting Analysts, Inc. The lumen output calculated in the 0-90° zone is then divided by the total wattage to arrive at the zonal efficacy. This calculation is standardized across all application reviews. As such, the DLC cannot accept alternate values for zonal efficacy using a different calculation method.

*Per the FAQ, “I submitted both integrating sphere and goniophotometer measurements for lumen output and efficacy. Which measurements will the DLC evaluate?”, reviewers will evaluate the lower lumen value if both sphere and gonio values are included in the LM-79. If the sphere lumen value is lower, reviewers will use the sphere lumen value and the percentage of lumens in the 0-90° zone from the IES (gonio) data to determine the lumen output in the 0-90° zone.

DLC Background

Each DLC Member has access to the QPL and makes its decision about what products to incentivize based on its own program parameters, including cost-effectiveness tests. Manufacturers should work with utilities/energy efficiency program sponsors on a project-by-project basis to have their products be eligible for rebates. Please note that listing on the QPL is not a guarantee that the products will be eligible for incentives from DLC Members. Any incentives or other rebates are entirely at the discretion of the particular energy efficiency program sponsor.

If your product is published on the QPL, you may market the product as DesignLights Consortium® qualified. Please refer to the DLC’s Logo Guidelines for instructions on proper marketing of a DLC qualified product.

The DLC does not endorse any laboratory meeting the DLC Testing Laboratory Requirements. Laboratories representing the ability to qualify products and laboratory test reports indicating product performance meets DLC Technical Requirements do not represent official DLC product qualification. All decisions regarding product qualification are made by the DLC. DLC reviewers reserve the right to request documentation to clarify testing conditions or to confirm testing has been conducted by a laboratory that meets these requirements at the time of testing.

The fee for a Private Label Application is based on the application fee for the originally-qualified product. The fee for private labeling for Single Product Applications is $50; this fee includes the family members listed in the Single Product Application. The fee for Family Grouping Applications is $50 for each independent test report reviewed and $25 for each additional family member of the group. For more about private labeling, please refer to the Private Label Application page.

The "Technical Requirements Version Number" field indicates the version of the Technical Requirements Table to which a listed product was evaluated when qualified. The Technical Requirements Version Number does not indicate whether or not a product meets a the most recent set of requirements, nor does it indicate if a product will be delisted during a specification transition process. Whether or not a product is delisted during the specification transition process is dependent on the performance data associated with the listing, as it compares to the current Technical Requirements, not the Technical Requirements Version Number. For example, if a product is initially listed with a previous Version Number of the Technical Requirements Table on the QPL, but meets all the Technical Requirements of next Version Number, the product will not be delisted at the end of the grace period established during the announcement of the new version of Technical Requirements. Similarly, if a product was initially listed with a previous Version Number and remains listed when a new Version Number is released, that indicates that the product is considered listed under the new version.

The fee is $500 per Single Product Application to cover the technical review and administrative costs. The Single Product Application fee covers additional family members if the variations of those family members are limited to higher CCT, dimming variations, or variations that do not affect the performance of the product (mounting, housing color, etc). Family Grouping Application fees are dependent on the group of products submitted for qualification. Please see the Application Fees page for more details. A DLC reviewer will review the product family, determine the application fee, and confirm payment details with the manufacturer.

Credit card payments are preferred, though if that is not possible, you may pay by check. Follow the instructions on the Invoices page once logged into your manufacturer account if submitting a check. Please note that if you pay by check the DLC reviewer cannot process the application until your application is complete and payment is received.

The DLC team will first notify you that the application has been received via email. A DLC reviewer will review your application(s). It takes about two weeks to complete the review of your application from the time payment of the application fee is confirmed.

Upon completion of the initial review, a DLC reviewer will contact you to let you know if your product passes, fails, or requires additional clarification or application materials to determine qualification.

  • If additional application materials are required, you must provide the DLC reviewer with an estimate of when the additional information will be available and abide by the timeline established. Review of the application will commence when the additional materials are received and the application is considered complete.
  • If all documentation is provided and the product meets the Technical Requirements, the DLC reviewer will let you know that the product qualifies and the product will be listed on the QPL. If all documentation provided demonstrates the product does not meet the Technical Requirements, the product fails. The DLC reviewer will provide detailed information regarding which metrics did not meet the Technical Requirements. Any design changes made to the product after the initial review will require a new application and application fee.

The searchable Qualified Products List database is available at The QPL is intended for the use of the DLC Members in operation of their commercial lighting programs. The QPL is updated regularly as products are qualified.

DLC publishes manufacturer and model identifying information, as well as verified tested performance or rated performance information for each product. These fields include:

  • Manufacturer
  • Brand
  • Model Number
  • Luminaire Efficacy
  • Light Output
  • Power Factor
  • Correlated Color Temperature
  • CRI
  • Wattage
  • Dimming Information
  • Light Distributions (i.e., zonal lumen density, NEMA classification, and/or spacing criteria)

The DLC qualifies commercial LED luminaires, retrofit kits, and linear replacement lamps for inclusion in DLC members' energy efficiency rebate and incentive programs. Available product categories are prioritized and developed by DLC energy efficiency program members. The list of available categories can be found by viewing the Technical Requirements Table. Products that do not meet the intent of these categories will not be evaluated. Note that products submitted for qualification must be marketed as and intended for one of the available product categories to be eligible.


Yes. Both G24q-1, G24q-2, and G24q-3 and GX24q-1, GX24q-2, and GX24q-3 base types are eligible under either the Vertically- or Horizontally Mounted Four Pin-Base Replacement Lamps for CFLs General Applications.

The DLC evaluates rated lifetime claims based on the lifetime information manufacturers choose to report in their product specification sheets and/or other marketing materials. Please note that reporting lifetime in product specifications sheets is not required. However, if rated lifetime claims are reported in the specification sheet, the DLC will evaluate the reported claim to ensure that it is at or above the Technical Requirements. If lifetime claims reported in specification sheets are below the Technical Requirements, the DLC will reject the application as specification sheets cannot indicate that the product’s marketed performance is below the DLC Technical Requirements.

To avoid delays in review, please review all marketing materials prior to submitting an application to ensure they accurately reflect the product submitted, and do not contain outdated or incorrect information, or typographical errors. Please note that in addition to evaluating reported lifetime claims in specification sheets, the DLC will also conduct a technical review of a product’s lumen maintenance during the Comprehensive Review. To review how the DLC evaluates lumen maintenance, please see FAQ, “How is compliance with the lumen maintenance requirements evaluated when submitting under Option 1?”

Yes, luminaires intended to provide lighting for outdoor sports fields are eligible as Architectural Flood and Spot luminaires. Products intended for illuminating sports fields may also apply under the Specialty provisions if they desire. Please review both the Architectural Flood and Spot luminaires Technical Requirements as well as the provisions for applying under Specialty designations before applying.   

The General Application, or light output bin (low-, mid-, high-, or very high-output), is determined based on the total lumen output of the luminaire. Although DLC evaluates lumen output and efficacy based on the lumen output in the 0-90° zone, total lumen output and total efficacy is listed on the QPL. Therefore, the General Application is determined based on the total lumen output to be consistent with the information published on the QPL. See requirements for Non-Cutoff and Semi-Cutoff Wall-Mounted Area Luminaires under the Technical Requirements for more details on evaluation the performance of these products.

These type of products are no longer eligible under the Specialty provisions with this generic end-use descriptor. For niche end-use applications of wall-mounted exterior lighting that specifically require significant amounts of light in the uplight or glare zone, DLC will consider requests for qualification of these products under the Specialty provisions on a case-by-case basis. In these cases, a specific end-use (and associated descriptor) must be identified that is distinct from the definition and intention of the non-Specialty PUD. Documentation will be required to demonstrate the marketing and use of products in these niche applications. Products currently listed as Specialty: Non-Cutoff Wall-Pack will be reviewed for compliance with the Non-Cutoff and Semi-Cutoff Outdoor Wall-mounted Area Luminaires PUD, and products that meet the requirements, will be transitioned. Products that do not meet the requirements will need to demonstrate a specific end-use and associated descriptor that is different from the definition of Non-Cutoff and Semi-Cutoff Outdoor Wall-mounted Area Luminaires PUD. If the request is denied, the products will be de-listed from the QPL.

No, Four Pin-Base Replacement Lamps for CFLs that are capable of operating off both the existing ballast (UL Type A) and line voltage (UL Type B) are not eligible. Per the Four Pin-Base Replacement Lamps for CFLs policy, only "Plug and Play" (UL Type A) replacement lamps are eligible for qualification at this time.

No. Products that operate off DC voltage are not eligible at this time. Products submitted to the DLC must be able to connect directly to line voltage. The one exception to this policy is for Two-Foot and Four-Foot Linear Replacement Lamps that are designed to operate off the existing fluorescent ballast. In all other scenarios, including lamps specifically designed for DC voltage troffers, only products that are able to connect to line voltage are eligible. 

No. The linear replacement lamp categories are intended for LED replacements to standard two-foot or four-foot linear replacement lamps. Products that are intended to function as two lamps combined together are not eligible for qualification at this time. This includes products with 4 pins at each end, as well as products which appear to be two lamps welded together. Below are some examples of products that are not currently eligible under the linear replacement lamp categories.

Yes. Luminaires intended to provide illumination to the facade of billboards are eligible as Architectural Flood and Spot or Landscape/Accent Flood and Spot Luminaires. These products are NOT eligible for the Outdoor Pole/Arm-Mounted Area and Roadway Luminaires category. Remember to review the Technical Requirements Table for each category to determine if your product would meet the listed requirements before applying.

At this time, there are no defined policies for evaluating the performance of color-tunable luminaires, and as such these products are not yet eligible. Development of policies to cover these types of products is under consideration.

Yes, these products are eligible, so long as those LEDs are not dynamically controlled for purposes of color-tuning. As with the general multiple-LED-types policy, LM-80 and ISTMT testing must be provided that covers both LEDs. If the LEDs are covered by the same LM-80, only the hottest LED overall will need to be tested. Please note, that DLC normally expects that, if other parameters are equal, lower CCT will be hotter than higher CCTs. 

Yes, though there are currently limitations on products where performance is unpredictable. There are no restrictions against having multiple LED types in a product, so long as 1) the LED types and construction, including count of each type of LED, is known, and 2) the LEDs in use are not dynamically controlled for purposes of color-tuning. To qualify, the product must demonstrate compliance with the lumen maintenance requirements for each LED present. This means the ISTMT should measure the applicable TMP of the hottest LED for each type present, and LM-80 reports and associated TM-21 projections should be included for each type of LED. Each LED must demonstrate the necessary L70 of the category the product is seeking qualification under, per the DLC lumen maintenance rules. 

No. At this time, products that incorporate removable or replaceable lamps are not eligible for qualification.

The warranty must cover the complete luminaire, or retrofit kit/replacement lamp when applicable, for a period of at least five years. Warranties that only cover certain components of the luminaire or retrofit kit/replacement lamp are not sufficient to meet the requirement. Warranty statements are reviewed on a case-by-case basis and the DLC reserves to right to seek additional clarification if necessary.

Due to different lead times between the DLC and the LED Lighting Facts program, the DLC requires that products must be submitted to LED Lighting Facts at the time the DLC review is complete. Proof that a product has been submitted to LED Lighting Facts will be requested by the DLC reviewer if necessary.

If a manufacturer wishes to update a qualifying product at a new voltage operating range (for example, to 120-277V, on a universal driver), the manufacturer will need to provide the additional data to demonstrate that the worst-case conditions in regard to efficacy and power quality pass the requirements (i.e., submitting another LM-79 at 120V if it was previously submitted with only an LM-79 at 277V). Because of the review needed to evaluate the additional test reports, the manufacturer must submit an additional application fee. The manufacturer should contact its DLC reviewer before submitting the payment to avoid creating an entirely new application.

The warranty must cover all components of the luminaire for a period of at least five years. Warranty documentation must clearly explain the terms and conditions associated with the warranty. Note that the “luminaire” includes light source, housing, heat sink, power supplies and other electrical components, optics, and any other components of the luminaire.

When the DLC announces the Technical Requirements revision schedule, private labelers are held to the same deadline for submitting private label requests under the old Technical Requirements. Private label requests will only be processed for products qualified under the old Technical Requirements if it is clear that the OEM’s product will remain qualified under the new Technical Requirements. For example, an OEM product qualified under V3.1 that will not meet V4.0 cannot be private labeled after August 31, 2016.

The LED Package Part number describes the LED, color (e.g., white), CCT (e.g., warm white), and other characteristics of the LED. Every LED must be specified with a complete LED Package Part number (e.g., XPEWHT-L1-XXX-XX-X-XX). This specific part number must be consistent throughout the application and supporting documentation, such as the LM-80 report.

You may include additional family members in the Single Product Application, but certain conditions apply. DLC can accept ONLY the following types of variations for inclusion in the Single Product Application: 1) variations in housing that DO NOT affect photometric performance, 2) variations in CCT, and 3) dimming variations. If applying for multiple CCT variations, note that the testing must be conducted on the worst case variation (likely the lowest CCT); colorimetry data for the highest CCT variation (LM-79 section 12 measurements) from an accredited lab must also be included.

Colorimetry data is required to verify that all additional CCT variations included in a Single Product Application meet the CCT requirement. If the manufacturer cannot provide the reviewer this information, the reviewer can qualify only the model number for which test data has been provided until test data is available for the additional CCT variations.

If your product family includes variations in performance other than CCT (including wattage, light output, light distribution, etc.), you must submit in accordance with the family grouping policy.

No. The manufacturer name listed on the QPL must match the manufacturer name used in marketing materials. If a manufacturer wishes to change their manufacturer name listed on the QPL, they will be responsible for demonstrating the new manufacturer name is used throughout marketing materials, website literature, etc.

No two model numbers can be listed under the same product category on the QPL for one given manufacturer. If a manufacturer submits the same model number for multiple products, the DLC reviewer will insist the manufacturer make some distinction in the model numbers that represent the variations of the product. The utility and consumer must be able to identify the differences between products from the model number listed on the QPL.

The application is evaluated against the requirements version in effect at the time the application is submitted. Resubmissions of an application are evaluated against either the original version technical requirements or the version in effect when the resubmission is received, at the discretion of the DLC reviewer.

Please note that the DLC reserves the right to alter or amend program policies, including technical requirements, and that such changes may result in products being removed from the QPL at the discretion of the DLC.

No. The Horizontal and Vertical Refrigerated Case Luminaire categories are intended for complete luminaires, which by definition, cannot use the existing mounting mechanism of the incumbent technology. To ensure only complete luminaires are submitted under this category, with all applicable drivers/power supplies and mounting mechanisms required of a luminaire, products that incorporate pin-bases are not eligible under these categories at this time. DLC staff reserve the right to ask for additional information about the product to verify that the product is sold as a complete luminaire.

No. Only UL Type B products, which require removal of the existing ballast from the circuit and the lamp holder to be wired with line voltage, and UL Type C products, which require the existing HID ballast to be replaced with an external LED driver, are eligible. Products that can operate using the existing HID ballast in any capacity are not eligible at this time. 

No. Only products which are specifically manufactured with an E39 base are eligible. Products with other base types that are sold with an E39 adapter are not eligible. Additionally, products with E39 bases sold with an adapter to other base types are not eligible.

Yes. Products that incorporate EX39 bases are eligible under the mogul screw-base replacements for HID lamps Primary Uses.

In most circumstances, aimable mounting options are eligible for qualification provided that the products meet the zonal lumen requirements, and the aimability is reasonable to understand by customers installing the product and users of the DLC QPL list. However, aimable products, if qualified, will be listed with a note that indicates the qualified mounting orientation. This is applicable to all product primary uses where the zonal lumen requirements are not respective to the luminaire itself. For example, for a primary use with a full cut-off zonal lumen requirement, the product, if qualified, would be listed with a note indicating the orientation in which the product is qualified (i.e. mounted straight down). Additionally, it must be clear in any marketing of the product that claims DLC qualification that only certain mounting orientations are DLC qualified. Currently, the only time aimable products do not need clarification is if they are listed in flood/spot or track/monopoint primary uses, as these primary uses are intended for aimable products.

No, products that are designed and marketed to be field adjustable are not currently eligible for qualification by the DLC. In this context, “field adjustable” refers to products where the performance of the product (i.e. wattage, optical design, drive current) is marketed as being adjustable or settable during or after installation, other than products that are dimmable with traditional dimmer controls. This includes, for example, products where the marketing highlights that the wattage is “set” via a dipswitch on the driver, or that the product comes with optics that can be rearranged to create a different pattern, at the point of installation. Whether or not a product is considered field adjustable will be reviewed on a case by case basis by DLC program management. Please note that policies surrounding field adjustable products are on the Policy Development wish list for consideration. If you have a suggestion for how to address field adjustable products, please send it to


Manufacturers should always be considering worst-case across all product variations, including input voltage, before submitting test data to the DLC. However, in the event that the electrical testing demonstrates a higher wattage at a different voltage than the photometric testing was conducted, the DLC will allow worst-case efficacy to be calculated from taking the lumen output from the photometric testing and dividing by the higher wattage from the electrical testing. This calculation approach is permitted to reduce testing burden rather than requiring the manufacturer to retest light output at the worst-case operating voltage. This approach is only allowed when the only variable between the LM-79 lumen output test and the electrical test is input voltage, and is based on the premise that the driver output (and therefore lumen output) will not significantly change with input voltage. If using the calculation approach, the DLC reserves the right to ask additional questions to confirm the input voltage is not impacting the drive current to the LEDs before moving forward with the review. The calculated efficacy will be listed as the Measured Efficacy on the QPL. If the manufacturer chooses to retest at the worst-case operating voltage instead of conducting the calculation, the retested values will supersede any calculations. 

The DLC lists these products, when qualified, by unit with unit-level performance data for light output characteristics. The DLC understands that most refrigerator case lighting products are sold as systems with multiple units attached to a power supply. Individual units connected alone on the same power supply used in the system will not perform the same as they would when the total system is connected to the power supply because of efficiency variance based on the load on the power supply.

To obtain unit-level data that is accurate for an individual unit when installed in the system, the DLC would like testing conducted as follows:

  • Each individual unit should be tested alone using the goniophotometer method according to LM-79 for light output and light distribution measurements. From this testing, the DLC will obtain the light output and light distribution (zonal lumen density) information.
  • The worst-case system configuration should be tested (using either the integrating sphere method or goniophotometer utilizing a spectroradiometer method according to LM-79) for the other necessary metrics: efficacy, color, etc. The worst-case system will be the variation in your product line that would result in the lowest efficacy – typically at the worst (smallest) loading conditions for a given power supply – that you would sell as a new system commercially. The DLC will use this efficacy measurement to determine compliance with the DLC requirements.

The DLC will evaluate the individual unit efficacy as if it is equal to the system efficacy when the unit is installed in that system. In this way, the DLC will still be identifying unit-level data in the worst case scenario of a refrigerator case lighting system to evaluate against the unit-specific performance specifications. If the manufacturer chooses to provide another system configuration, a technical rationale of why the system exhibits the worst case efficacy must be provided. The technical rationale should be based on in-house data or other analysis.

Because refrigerator case lighting systems utilize external power supplies, manufacturers often use various power supplies or combinations of power supplies to attain the appropriate loads. Refrigerated case luminaire applications are held to the same driver variation policies detailed in the Family Grouping policy.

In all cases, testing must be provided at the worst-case performance among a product’s different operating modes, as the Technical Requirements for each category are minimum performance requirements. Due to design complexities of SSL luminaires and the many variables that could affect each performance metric with a minimum requirement, it is difficult to prescribe what worst case will be for all situations. It is the manufacturer’s responsibility to identify the worst-case operating mode of the product for each performance metric requirement and provide the appropriate test data. The DLC always reserves the right to ask for details of how worst-case was determined, including supporting engineering analysis and test data supporting the selection, as deemed necessary.

Our understanding of the technology has led us to expect certain operating modes and design choices to be the worst cases. Power factor and THD are commonly seen to be worst case at 277V, while photometrics (specifically efficacy) are commonly worst case at 120V. This is not necessarily true for all luminaire designs, so a manufacturer may submit independent test data for a different operating mode if it is accompanied by a technical rationale and supporting data (independent or in-house) demonstrating that what was tested is in fact the worst case. If testing is not conducted according to the expectations described above, DLC reviewers will ask for the testing at the expected worst case operating modes, or a technical rationale with supporting data for an alternate worst case operating mode for both electricals (power factor and THD) and photometrics.

Alternately, if the voltage inputs for a product include 347V and/or 480V options, manufacturers will be expected to provide a rationale for how worst-case was determined, or test data at all voltages if a rationale cannot be provided for a particular operating mode.

When submitting applications for products using universal drivers, be sure to test at the appropriate operating mode for both photometric and electrical measurements. Please note that the DLC requires the current THD (“THDi” or “ATHD”) performance, not voltage THD.

Power factor and THD requirements:

Metric Requirement Tolerance Actual Requirement
Power Factor ≥ 0.9 (≥ 90%) - 0.3 (- 3%) ≥ 0.87 (≥ 87%)
THD ≤ 20% + 5% ≤ 25%

If both integrating sphere and goniophotometer measurements are submitted, the DLC will evaluate the lower performing values between the two measurement methods. Both measurement methods are acceptable methods for measuring the photometric performance of a product as defined by IES LM-79-08 Approved Method: Electrical and Photometric Measurements of Solid-State Lighting Products. Additionally, the DLC requires that products meet the Technical Requirements regardless of the approved method used to measure performance. In the event that the measurements conducted by one method do not meet the requirements, the DLC will not ignore those measurements and evaluate the better performing measurements conducted by the other method. Please see FAQ “I submitted a test report that contains failing data, but believe this data does not represent my product's performance. Will DLC accept a new report with different performance on the same product design?” for more information on the DLC’s policies on submitting test reports that contain failing data.

Please refer to the guidance and links on the Testing Lab Requirements page on the DLC website.

No. To remain fair and consistent across manufacturers submitting applications to the DLC, the DLC must strictly enforce its policies and cannot make ad hoc exceptions, even if there is a sound technical justification for the alternate approach to testing. In situations where the testing does not follow DLC policy, the DLC will require the product be retested according to policy, or may decide that the product is ineligible if retesting according to policy is not a viable option.

Policy revisions occur periodically. For more information on past and present policy development efforts, please see Policy Development. The DLC is very open to suggestions for policy revisions; if you have a suggested revision to a policy, please submit the request to for consideration during policy development cycles.

Please note that clarifications to existing policies can be found via this FAQ page.

Products must be certified to the applicable safety standard by a safety certification organization relevant in the United States or Canada. In the United States, this means a safety certification body recognized by OSHA (see In Canada, this means a certification body recognized by the Standards Council of Canada (see The scope of accreditation must include certifying lighting products. If you have information regarding safety organizations that may be recognized in the United States or Canada in addition to those above, please contact us at

In reviewing Pre-approved Equivalent requests, the DLC is verifying that the requested incumbent fixture is/has:

  • Commonly used in the application category for which the retrofit kit is applying
  • Specifications that align with the application category for which the retrofit kit is applying
  • Similar thermal environment (i.e. internal volume and construction materials) to those listed under the Approved section of each Primary Use

If the above information is not clear in the spec sheet provided for the requested fixture, the DLC will require additional information to ensure the requested fixture aligns with the Approved fixtures of that given Primary Use. Pre-approved Equivalent requests may be sent to

Yes. Due to the system-level testing configuration acceptability (see Testing Notes under Testing & Reporting Requirements for Linear Replacement Lamps) of Type C Linear Replacement Lamps, THD and Power Factor measurements will be accepted when measured inside the appropriate reference troffer if bare-lamp electrical testing is not available. Please note that this consideration only applies to Type C Linear Replacement Lamps, where more than one lamp is powered by a dedicated driver.

Testing must be conducted at each end of the acceptable voltage range of the ballast.

Any variation that would affect electrical compatibility with the existing CFL ballast must be tested for compatibility. This means that wattage variations and dimming variations need compatibility testing, while CCT or optic (beam angle) variations do not. Feedback on the application of family grouping rules is welcome; please contact

Luminaire efficacy should be reported as the total luminous flux from the fixture divided by the total input power. Luminous flux is based on the photopic luminous efficiency function (V lambda), not scotopic or mesopic efficiency.

Efficacy, power factor, and THD are calculated based upon the complete system required to install the product. The system may include an internal driver, an external driver, and/or an instant start ballast depending on the product submitted.

It is the manufacturer’s responsibility to determine the “worst case” product of the group/sub-group. The worst-performing product can be identified through engineering analysis and/or in-house testing of all family members. If engineering analysis is used to identify worst case, the tested value associated with the worst-case product may be higher than scaled values indicating the performance of other family members. If this is the case, the manufacturer must provide an explanation that addresses the variance between scaled values and tested values, and the reviewer must understand the manufacturer’s scaling method before the application process may continue.

For any performance metrics that are measured as a percentage, corresponding tolerances refer to percentage points. For example, a power factor requirement of ≥ 0.90 (i.e. ≥ 90%) with a -3% tolerance implies a functional requirement of ≥ 0.87 (i.e. ≥ 87%). For performance metrics that are not measured as a percentage, the tolerance is a percentage of the required value. For example, for a minimum efficacy requirement of 60 lm/W with a -3% tolerance, the functional requirement is 58.2 lm/W (i.e. 60 – 3% = 58.2).

According to ENERGY STAR Manufacturer’s Guide for Qualifying Solid State Lighting Luminaires – Version 2.1, the measured temperature from an ISTMT has a tolerance of ≤ 1.1°C or 0.4%, whichever is greater due to thermocouple tolerance. This may change the appropriate In-Situ case temperature (Tc,°C) to enter into the ENERGY STAR TM-21 calculator. For example, a measured In-Situ case temperature of 86.1°C may be entered as 85°C to comply with an 85°C case temperature data set from the LM-80 report.

The DLC will accept a 5% tolerance on the drive current used in the LM-80 report to verify lumen maintenance compliance through Option 1. The LED drive current of the submitted product may be 5% greater than the drive current used during LM-80 testing. For example, an LM-80 report at 700mA may be used to qualify a luminaire with an LED drive current ≤ 735mA.

The orientation used for testing should represent the orientation for which the product is intended. The test lab may redefine the orientation of the coordinate system if necessary.

UL 1598 testing may be used for the ISTMT report if the lab that conducted the test meets the DLC’s laboratory requirements for ISTMT.

Option 1 lumen maintenance is determined by calculations provided in the ENERGY STAR TM-21 calculator. The TM-21 calculator calculates data from the LM-80 and ISTMT reports. The DLC will evaluate the lumen maintenance percentage calculated by the TM-21 calculator as follows:

Projection End Point Required Lumen Maintenance for 50,000 Hour Projects
33,000 ≥79.03%
36,000 ≥77.35%
38,500 ≥75.98%
42,000 ≥74.11%
44,000 ≥73.06%
48,000 ≥71.01%
49,500 ≥70.25%
50,000 ≥70.00%

For more information about lumen maintenance requirements, please see the Technical Requirements Table.

The schematic diagram is used to verify that the TMP measured in the ISTMT conforms to the LED manufacturer-specified TMP location. The ISTMT report must include a photograph of the tested TMP for the DLC reviewer to compare with the schematic diagram of the TMP specified by the LED manufacturer.

Yes, it is acceptable for manufacturers to install the thermocouples themselves as long as it does not alter the thermal characteristics of the luminaire housing.

In general, full LM-80 results are necessary for DLC qualification. However, manufacturers may submit products using an LED package/module/array where limited LM-80 data is available if the following conditions are met:

  1. The LED package/module/array is a successor package/module/array to a previous generation package/module/array according to ENERGY STAR® Program Guidance Regarding LED Package, LED Array and LED Module Lumen Maintenance Performance Data Supporting Qualification of Lighting Products.
  2. The manufacturer provides the complete (≥6,000 hours) LM-80 of the previous generation LED package/module/array.>
  3. The manufacturer provides at least 3,000 hours of LM-80 data of the successor LED package/module/array.
  4. The successor package/module/array data demonstrates better performance at 3,000 hours than the previous generation LED package/module/array data at 3,000 hours.
  5. The manufacturer provides the remaining 3,000 hour successor LED package/module/array data when available.

Consistent with guidance from ENERGY STAR, while there may be several acceptable locations to measure the temperature of the LED package/module/array (collectively referred to as the TMPLED), the TMP in the ISTMT must match the TMP used during the LM-80. If the ISTMT TMP does not match the LM-80 TMP in the original submission material, DLC staff will look for the applicant to provide one of the following options:

  1. Provide an LM-80 of the board or module, where the TMP is monitored/measured at the same TMP used in the ISTMT.
  2. Provide an ISTMT measuring the TMP of the hottest LED in the product at the same TMP used in the LM-80.

If neither of the above is possible, and the LED TMP is not accessible, DLC staff will work with the manufacturer to obtain information that explicitly describes the relationship between the board TMP and LED TMP. However, this information will be reviewed on a case by case basis, and may not be sufficient to appropriately verify compliance with the lumen maintenance requirements for all applications.

Currently, DLC only requires a sample size of one sample of a product to be tested for each required LM-79. Please note that testing conducted and submitted is assumed to be representative of the model number generally. If data shows that the product does not meet the Technical Requirements in effect at the time of submission, DLC will not qualify the product. Please see other FAQs in this section regarding guidance for worst-case testing in various circumstances, such as How do I test power factor and total harmonic distortion (THD) for a single product using a universal driver? and How do I test refrigerated case lighting or modular products with external power supplies?

Rotatable end cap linear replacement lamps should be tested in the orientation specified as the default in the manufacturer's installation instructions. If the installation instructions do not specify an orientation, the lamps should be oriented “straight down” (this is commonly the “zero degree” setting). DLC reviewers will review the installation instructions provided with the application to verify the appropriate testing orientation, and compare this against documentation in the LM-79 report and IES file. Rotatable end cap linear replacement lamp listings will include information on the testing orientation in the Notes field. For more information on the Linear Replacement Lamps Policy, please click here

DLC understands that in some scenarios, products that are required to be tested may not physically fit within the testing apparatus needed to conduct testing. This is often seen with 8-foot linear-type luminaires that do not fit in standard goniophotometers, though other restrictions may exist. In the event that a product is identified as requiring testing for a DLC application, but cannot be tested due to the constraints of the testing equipment, DLC will need to understand and collect the following information:

  • Specific reasons why the product in question cannot be tested.
  • A proposal from the manufacturer on how to evaluate the performance of the product. Proposals must be technically sound and demonstrate a thorough understanding of the product’s construction and performance affecting variables.
  • Rationale for why the proposal is representative of the product’s performance.

Proposals, once complete with the details mentioned above, will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis by DLC program management. Please provide this information ahead of submitting an application as proposals need to be approved prior to allowing the use of alternate data within an application. This will help ensure application reviews are completed as efficiently as possible. As always, DLC reserves the right to require additional information, and manufacturers should be prepared to provide documentation that addresses concerns that arise.

Development of standard procedures for evaluating performance of products that are too large for testing equipment is on the DLC policy development wishlist. DLC welcomes proposals for standardizing this process and should be sent to

For family groups, each of the required LM-79 reports for “worst case” performance must include the necessary information for DLC to verify that the parameter in question meets the DLC requirements. For example, the “lowest light output” LM-79 test report must include light output measurements. Additionally, DLC requires that applicable products that have complete LM-79 testing (on all applicable metrics in LM-79 section 9 and 12) be listed with LED Lighting Facts.

The manufacturer may test only the light engine-electrical component system when conducting power factor and THD tests (for products with light engines that are separable from the housing).

Yes. In order for DLC reviewers to verify that the retrofit kit or replacement lamp was tested in an Approved Housing, the housing used for testing must be clearly documented in the LM-79 and ISTMT reports submitted with the application. If the housing used for testing is not clearly documented in the test reports, and the test reports cannot be updated with this information, DLC will require confirmation of the housing used for testing from the laboratory(ies) that conducted the testing.