The primary goal of the judges' evaluation was to identify products that deliver both energy efficiency and lighting quality. The products featured in this catalogue are the best of the products submitted. The judges scored each entry on color, appropriate illuminance, light distribution, glare control, appearance, serviceability, value, and energy efficiency as well as power quality and lumen maintenance. Flexibility, innovation, and controllability were also taken into consideration as appropriate.
- Color quality – Evaluation of color quality was based on the judging panel's visual evaluation of the color appearance, consistency, and rendering of the lighting delivered by the installed luminaire. CCT data was provided through LM-79-08 testing reports, but spot CCT measurements were also taken with a handheld spectrophotometer. Judges also reviewed the manufacturer's stated color consistency specification.
- Appropriate illuminance – Evaluation of illuminance (both horizontal and vertical) was based on the judging panel's evaluation of the light levels provided by the luminaire, both as-installed and through computer-generated analyses of representative configurations, or templates. The same configuration "template" was used for all luminaires of a given type. For street and roadway lighting, luminance, small target visibility, and veiling luminance calculations were also evaluated through the computer-generated analysis.
- Light distribution – Light distribution was based on the judging panel's visual evaluation of the uniformity and contrast provided by the luminaire, the analysis of uniformity ratios as provided by the computer-aided analysis, and selected light level measurements using a standard illuminance meter.
- Glare control – Judges evaluated luminaire brightness in conditions as similar as possible to the intended application to assess discomfort glare, disability glare, and contrast. Both visual evaluation and luminance readings using a standard luminance meter were employed in conducting these evaluations. Where applicable, Backlight, Uplight and Glare (BUG) ratings (TM-15-2011) were required based on the photometric data provided through LM-79-08 testing reports, and entries were visually evaluated to not only assess glare, but also light pollution and light trespass.
- Aesthetic appearance and style – Evaluation of this criterion was based on the judging panel's subjective evaluation of the aesthetic appearance and style of the installed luminaire.
- Serviceability and replacement – Entries were evaluated with respect to specifier and user concerns about follow-on service and replacement in the event of component failure, and replacement of LED modules at end of life.
- Value – The judging panel considered the purchase price of the entry compared to other traditional sources for the intended application. Distributor pricing for one luminaire (based on a 100 luminaire order) was provided to the judges.
- Energy efficiency – The efficacy (lumens/watt) of the entry was evaluated for its ability to deliver appropriate light levels to the task with lower wattage than comparable traditional luminaires for that application. Evaluation of this criterion was based on efficacy data provided through LM-79-08 testing reports.
Judges also looked at other factors, such as total harmonic distortion and power factor to determine power quality, as provided through LM-79-08 testing reports; lumen maintenance via LED Lighting Facts® registration; and dimming, which was evaluated for entries claimed to be dimmable. Other control capabilities outlined in product literature was also reviewed by the judging panel but was not physically evaluated.
Other optional criteria that were considered at the judges' discretion included adjustability of optical distributions, spectral distribution, glare and backlight control, intelligent dimming controls, temperature adjustment and breadth of the family of luminaires, as well as demonstrated innovation in taking advantage of the unique characteristics of LEDs.