Don’t Miss Your Chance to Enter the 2019 CE Pro BEST Product Awards
Control & Automation

IES vs. UL: Battle Over Circadian Lighting ‘Standards’

Who should set standards for human-centered (circadian) lighting? Illuminating Engineering Society blasts UL for publishing Recommended Practice "without the full rigor of an ANSI approved Standard."

·

Read full article.

6 Comments
Posted by oneaudiofreak on May 29, 2019

Hey Julie, excellent article.  Thanks for bringing this to our attention.  Doing standards via the ANSI process brings credibility and fairness to a work effort.  I should point out that if they are talking about recommended practices (third paragraph in this article), those can’t be ANSI accredited (by anyone) as they don’t contain normative information, aren’t subject to public review or ANSI approval. For ANSI recognition, the work effort would need to be a standard or a Technical Report. Both Underwriters Labatories Inc. and Illuminating Society of North America are members of ANSI by the way.

Posted by Julie Jacobson on May 29, 2019

Thanks for chiming in, Mr. freak. My understanding is that there can still be an “ANSI process” for developing recommended practices, and that’s where IES says its own process is superior. I’ll follow up with an interesting piece from an engineer who says all of these RPs are hooey.

Posted by Walt_Zerbe on May 31, 2019

Hi Julie, Mr. Freak here (was signed in as another user before!).  It’s interesting that the IES says their process is superior to ANSI’s.  While that may or may not be true, ANSI’s process is recognized and respected worldwide.  I’m looking forward to hearing your piece from the engineer as well.

Posted by Julie Jacobson on May 31, 2019

Oops, Waltz, I was not clear. IES is going by ANSI. There process is “superior” to UL because UL is going non-consensus route.

Posted by Julie Jacobson on May 31, 2019

*Their*

Posted by Walt_Zerbe on May 31, 2019

OH!  Interesting as UL is ANSI accredited.  I TOTALLY agree with IES then, they are correct!

6 Comments
Posted by Walt_Zerbe on May 31, 2019

OH!  Interesting as UL is ANSI accredited.  I TOTALLY agree with IES then, they are correct!

Posted by Julie Jacobson on May 31, 2019

*Their*

Posted by Julie Jacobson on May 31, 2019

Oops, Waltz, I was not clear. IES is going by ANSI. There process is “superior” to UL because UL is going non-consensus route.

Posted by Walt_Zerbe on May 31, 2019

Hi Julie, Mr. Freak here (was signed in as another user before!).  It’s interesting that the IES says their process is superior to ANSI’s.  While that may or may not be true, ANSI’s process is recognized and respected worldwide.  I’m looking forward to hearing your piece from the engineer as well.

Posted by Julie Jacobson on May 29, 2019

Thanks for chiming in, Mr. freak. My understanding is that there can still be an “ANSI process” for developing recommended practices, and that’s where IES says its own process is superior. I’ll follow up with an interesting piece from an engineer who says all of these RPs are hooey.

Posted by oneaudiofreak on May 29, 2019

Hey Julie, excellent article.  Thanks for bringing this to our attention.  Doing standards via the ANSI process brings credibility and fairness to a work effort.  I should point out that if they are talking about recommended practices (third paragraph in this article), those can’t be ANSI accredited (by anyone) as they don’t contain normative information, aren’t subject to public review or ANSI approval. For ANSI recognition, the work effort would need to be a standard or a Technical Report. Both Underwriters Labatories Inc. and Illuminating Society of North America are members of ANSI by the way.