20221004_GNRE2202_cb.pdf

DECISION MEMORANDUM 1

DECISION MEMORANDUM

TO: COMMISSIONER ANDERSON
COMMISSIONER CHATBURN
COMMISSIONER HAMMOND
COMMISSION SECRETARY
COMMISSION STAFF
LEGAL

FROM: MICHAEL DUVAL
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL

DATE: OCTOBER 4, 2022

SUBJECT: IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR REGULATION OF LIGHT
EMITTING DIODE STREETLIGHTS; CASE NO. GNR-E-22-02.

On July 7, 2022, The Soft Lights Foundation (“SLF”) petitioned the Idaho Public Utilities
Commission (“Commission”) to enjoin Idaho electric utilities from installing or selling light
emitting diode (“LED”) streetlights until the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”)
approves related LED regulation. Alternatively, SLF requests that the Commission mandate that
Idaho utility companies post warnings their websites stating: (1) LED lights are not approved or
regulated by the FDA, (2) LED light is low quality light that is not energy efficient, and (3) that
“LED light has been shown to cause significant negative health effects.” Application at 5-6.
Avista Utilities (“Avista”), Idaho Power Company (“IPC”), and Rocky Mountain Power
(“RMP”) have, in turn, taken issue with these claims and generally argued that the Commission is
not the proper venue to address them. Additionally, the utilities disagree, from both a factual and
policy standpoint, with the merits of SLF’s assertions.
On September 1, 2022, SLF replied to Idaho Power’s comments.
THE PETITION
SLF alleges that FDA regulation for LED lights lacks clarity and has not specifically
approved of the use of LED streetlights. SLF further alleges that LED lights is surface source light
as opposed to point source light. SFL states that surface light that is lower quality and non-uniform.
SLF argues this makes it less desirable for living entities which have evolved to live in point source
light. SLF believes LED light causes or aggravates numerous neurological, vision, and other health
conditions. SLF points to certain individuals who allege that LED light caused significant
detriments in their health and/or lifestyle.
DECISION MEMORANDUM 2

SLF also takes issue with claims that LED light is more efficient. SLF argus that for light
to be more efficient it must produce the same quality of light for less energy. SLF argues utility
companies have made a false equivalence in comparing luminosity1 with energy efficiency.
SLF also offers several potential rebuttals to counter arguments made by proponents of
LED lights. These rebuttals include: (1) arguments that the Illuminating Engineering Society is
not studying LED light, and that the American Medical Association (“AMA”) published a 2016
report on the harms of blue wavelength light; (2) utility companies cannot simply claim to be
following industry standards when they independently choose what they contribute to their
industry—thereby creating those standards; and (3) a utility companies’ potential claim that LED
lights provide superior color rendering distracts from the actual issues. SLF further argues that “at
night it is psychologically disturbing to see green grass when the surrounding environment is not
illuminated by sunlight.” Id. at 18. SLF concludes by citing Idaho Code §§ 61-302 and 61-334B;
SLF argues that these statutes provide the Commission with the authority to grant the relief
requested. See supra Section I.
UTILITY RESPONSES
1. AVISTA
On August 8, 2022, Avista responded to SLF’s Petition. Avista disagreed that the FDA’s
lack of regulation in this area means that the Commission or Avista is operating without FDA
approval. Avista argued that the Commission does not have the expertise in this area, and that the
proper venue for these concerns was the FDA. Avista acknowledged a lack of expertise as to some
of the factual concerns addressed by SLF. However, Avista quoted 5 Common Myths about LED
Street Lighting published by The Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (“EERE”)
under U.S. Department of Energy.2 This article argues against the following five alleged myths:
[1] LED streetlights are more harmful to humans and animals than other kinds of
streetlights… [2] All short-wavelength light is harmful to humans and animals…
[3] LED lighting emits more short-wavelength light than do other lighting

1 Relatedly, SLF states that luminosity is a metric for measuring point source light whereas LED light is surface source
light. Relatedly, SLF argues that referring to LED light’s luminosity is uninformed or misleading. See Soft Lights
Foundation, http://www.softlights.org/why-dont-leds-save-energy/ (last visited Sept. 28, 2022).
2 Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy, https://www.energy.gov/eere/articles/5-common-myths-about-
led-street-lighting (last visited Sept. 28, 2022).
DECISION MEMORANDUM 3

technologies… [4] Street lighting should never emit any short-wavelength light…
[5] Communities are better off with conventional street lighting.3

One item that this article emphasizes repeatedly (which was also quoted by Avista) is the
capability of LED lights to be dimmed according to the needs of the area at various times of the
day—thus reducing excess glare and cutting back on skyglow.4 Also while quoting the article,
Avista noted the ability of LED lights to be more narrowly focused on the area that needs
illumination.
In response to SLF’s argument that LEDs are not more efficient, Avista points to a separate
EERE source that defined efficiency as “the use of less energy to perform the same task or produce
the same result.”5 Avista argues in closing that, in this factual setting, the statutes that SLF points
to do not actually enable the Commission to grant the relief that SLF is requesting.
2. ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER
August 16, 2022, RMP responded to SLF’s petition. In their response, RMP summarizes
SLF’s petition and argues that SLF acknowledges that LED light does not fall into certain
categories that the FDA regulates. RMP argues that, if LED light was harmful, the federal
government would regulate it universally—instead of leaving regulation up to the states. RMP also
directly disagrees with several of SLF’s factual assertions. Specifically, RMP argues that LED
light is not low quality and that advancements in LED technology have “addressed the issues with
the color spectrum.” RMP response at 3. RMP also argues that SLF’s claims that LED lights are
less efficient is inaccurate. RMP states that LEDs consume up to 50% less power than high-
pressure sodium (“HPS”) lights. RMP also notes that LEDs are easier and less costly to maintain.
RMP states that LEDs do not need internal reflectors or glass covers. RMP further states LED’s
also have a lifespan of 15-20 years (50,000 hours) which is 2-4 times the lifespan of HPS lighting—
thus reducing the frequency at which the bulbs need to be replaced and discarded. RMP notes that
LEDs can be dimmed and reduce illumination during peak power usage. Transversely, LEDs can
also be instantly brought to full illumination—whereas HPS lighting requires a warm-up period.
RMP argues that LEDs provide more consistent light output across differing temperatures.

3 Id.
4 Id.
5 Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy, https://www.energy.gov/eere/energy-
efficiency#:~:text=Energy%20efficiency%20is%20the%20use,less%20energy%20to%20produce%20goods. (last
visited Sept. 28, 2022).
DECISION MEMORANDUM 4

RMP alleges that, while the AMA has guidelines on community implementation, the AMA
supports community-based LED lighting.6 RMP states that its lighting standards conform with the
standards of more than one engineering society, including the National Electrical Manufacture’s
Association, as well as the International Dark-Sky Association. Because of LED’s alleged benefits,
RMP states that nearly all new lighting technology is LED and complete HPS fixtures are no longer
available for purchase. For these reasons, RMP disagrees with SLF. On policy and related
technological grounds, RMP is opposed to SLF’s first request (halting or reversing LED streetlight
implementation). Given that RMP disagrees with SLF’s factual assertions, RMP is also opposed
to SLF’s second request—as this would require RMP to post information on their website that
RMP believes is false or inaccurate.
3. IDAHO POWER
On August 31, 2022, IPC responded to SLF’s Petition. IPC discusses its tariff Schedules—
specifically Schedule 15 and Schedule 41 which collectively incorporate about 54,000 streetlights.
IPC states that the Commission previously approved an LED project that is 68% complete. See
Order No. 34452. IPC also argues that the technological advantages of LED light has led to greater
consumer satisfaction. IPC estimates that, once the LED lights replace their High Intensity
Discharge (“HID”) streetlights, the estimated annual reduction in energy consumption will be
about 748,581 megawatt hours—which will flow back to its customers through the annual Power
Cost Adjustment.
IPC estimates that HPS vapor bulbs have an approximate lifespan that is only 20% of
analogous LEDs. IPC states that quality of LED light is better because it is whiter (as opposed to
more yellow) has less glare, reduces dark spots, and improves visibility. IPC argues that LEDs do
not have mercury or lead and are thus more environmentally friendly. IPC argues that that it is
unreasonable to have the Commission rule based upon actions that the FDA has not taken—and
may never take. IPC alleges that posting SLF’s concerns onto IPC’s website would only cause
confusion, and that streetlights provide a small slice of the average person’s daily LED exposure.
IPC’s position is that, rather than being a lower quality of light, LEDs are a higher quality of light.
IPC does not support posting information to its website that “it believes to be false.” IPC Response
at 7. IPC believes that concerns over health should be directed to the FDA rather than the

6 Council on Scientific and Public Health Report 2 Recommendations Adopted, page 6 recommendation number 1
line 39.
DECISION MEMORANDUM 5

Commission as the FDA deals more directly with health concerns than the Commission does. IPC
believes that posting conclusions as to health, such as those SLF requests, “is premature and
possibly misleading.” Id.
SOFT LIGHTS REBUTTAL OF IDAHO POWER’S RESPONSE
On September 1, 2022, SLF responded to IPC’s filing. SLF notes FDA procedure and states
that IPC “skipped over the entire federal regulatory process” by installing LED streetlights. SLF
Rebuttal of IPC at 2. SLF states that IPC has admitted to limited expertise in this field yet installs
LED streetlights without FDA approval. SLF disagrees with IPC’s conclusions as to light quality
then reiterates its arguments that, under scientific definitions, LED light is of lower quality. SLF
argues that LED light is not white light—but rather blue light—which SLF states has been shown
to be a toxin according to hundreds of studies. SLF links its claim to the “resources” tab on its
website. SLF states that IPC’s claim that LED light is better quality (because it can more precisely
be directed) is “provably false”. Id. at 5. SLF states that LED light is not spatially uniform and can
trigger “epileptic seizures, migraines, panic attacks, nausea, and eye injury.” Id. SLF states that
IPC’s claims about being in line with industry standards are irrelevant because public health
agencies, rather than industry, are responsible for comfort, health, and safety standards.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Commission deny SLF’s Petition to require Idaho electric
utilities to wait for FDA approval and regulation of LED products prior to the sale or installation
of any LED streetlight. Staff also recommends that the Commission deny SLF’s request to have
Idaho utilities post certain information about LED light on their websites.
COMMISSION DECISION
Does the Commission wish to deny SLF’s Petition to require Idaho electric utilities to wait
for FDA approval and regulation before installing LED streetlighting technology? Additionally,
does the Commission wish to deny SLF’s Petition to require Idaho electric utilities to post certain
health and safety information about LEDs on their websites?

_____________________________
Michael Duval
Deputy Attorney General

I:\Legal\ELECTRIC\GNR-E-22-02\GNRE2202_memo_cb.docx