Licensing and Accreditation

[tscheuren]

I'm new to lowvoltage applications, so I hope someone can help me with these questions:
1) Are there any licensing or accrediting bodies for the low voltage trade.

2) If so who are they and how can I find out what the qualifying steps are.

Many thanks.

Tom S

[tscheuren]

PS. I am interested in the rules/laws that might affect NY and CT.
I understand that CA has just passed new requirements for low voltage professionals in their state.

Thanks.

[sitelights]

You raise an interesting question particularly since one of the goals of lowvolt.org is to facilitate the development of standards for both interior and exterior low voltage lighting by the people that actually provide design, installation and service of low voltage lighting systems. The best source for the development of standards for training and accreditation will come from people in the field and not from manufacturers or government regulatory bodies.

There are currently three organizations that I am aware of. Two are funded by manufacturers and one is affiliated with a university. LVLIA (Low Voltage Lighting Institute of the Americas) <http://www.lvlia.com> states "We are a Non Profit Institute comprised of Lighting Professionals and have no affiliation to any one manufacturer". NILLA (National Institute of Landscape Lighting Associates) currently does not have a functioning web site but can be contacted through their sponsor <http://www.uniquelighting.com> and offers seminars nationwide for a $295.00 fee plus the purchase of course materials costing about $500.00 Their telephone number is 760.489.8285 Neither of these "Institutes" inspires any confidence in their ability to train or speak for people active in the field of low voltage lighting. The Landscape Lighting Institute is affiliated with Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute <http://www.lrc.rpi.edu/Landscape/register.html> and offers courses in landscape lighting design, installation and maintenance at their Troy, NY facility. The courses are taught by Janet Lennox Moyer a well known lighting designer and author of "The Landscape Lighting Book". I have not taken these courses nor have I ever spoken to anyone who has but I would welcome a response from anyone who has completed these courses.

Licensing is another matter and while I am not aware of any requirements for licensing nationwide there are probably some jurisdictions (municipal, county or state) that do require licensing. Certainly there are stringent requirements for line voltage work but since my company works in so many jurisdictions we do not do any 120v work that would require a licensed electrician. Instead we provide a list of licensed electricians in the client's locale to do any 120v preparations. Note that there is no 120v electrical work required in most low voltage installations since you are merely plugging into an existing outdoor receptacle provided that the equipment draws less than 12 amps on a 15 amp circuit dedicated to that single use.

[sitelights]

A comprehensive web search has not yielded any information on this topic. Please share any information you may have concerning these matters.

[tscheuren]

This is where I heard about the CA regulations. Hope this helps.
Link is:

http://www.ehexpo.com/Framesets/EHXShowHighlightsFS.html

G2 California Low Voltage Apprenticeship Update
Friday, October 26, 10:30am ? 11:00am

George Gunning, President, WBFAA

New laws passed by the State of California legislature and signed by the Governor will have a major impact on the way electronic systems integration and installation companies conduct their business and, in some cases, their ability to continue to stay in business. The law requires that all workers that make electrical connection of devices of 100 volt amperes must get certified by meeting a certain criteria first, take a test and pass, or join a state approved apprentice program to work in California. In this briefing you will learn status of the implementation of the law and how the Western Burglar & Fire Alarm Association is working to sponsor compliant training and certification programs appropriate for the electronic systems installing companies.

[landscape liter]

Site lites, Why do you say "Neither of these "institutes" inspire any confidence in their ability to train or speak for people active in the field of low voltage lighting"?

[landscape liter]

This link you are referring to doesn't seem to mention low voltage landscape lighting. Looks like the new regulations are for interior wiring such as category 5 cabling and burglar alarm system installation for the wiring within structures or buildings. Low voltage landscape lighting installers are working with 15V and lower not the 100VA as stated in your above message

[sitelights]

I am wary of self-proclaimed "institutes" for a number of reasons; in general, the term has connotations that neither the LVLIA or NILLA can justify while the organization allied with a well-known technical learning center can. A old advertising truism "you can either sell the sizzle or the steak"comes to mind. The use of the term "institute" as regards LVLIA and NILLA is a case in point.

To be more specific in regard to my opinion of these two efforts:

LVLIA charges for membership but is very sketchy about details. I have been visiting their web site on a regular basis for about a year and their informational content has been static. The only things that have been spelled out in detail are their membership fees* which assess manufacturers $7,500.00 for the first year and $3,500.00 for subsequent years and lower fees for distributors, contractors and students. The membership form requires that you agree to their by-laws but does not state what they are. In an exchange of emails I requested a copy of the by-laws (How can you agree to something that you don't know?) and got a polite reply stating that the matter would be addressed. No response after six months. There are a number of dead links on the site referring to topics of interest that remain unactivated. One link to technical topics has had no new entries for 6 or 8 months. It is clear to me from the membership rate structure that LVLIA is to be sponsored by the manufacturers of low voltage lighting equipment and they state "We are a Non-Profit Institute comprised of Lighting Professionals and have no affiliation to any one manufacturer." It is my opinion that the wording of this statement is clear and I think that this organization is a front for one of the leading manufacturers. I would like to see their membership list but since I must join and pay for the privilege, I've declined. [*Fees have been reduced since the original post.]

NILLA is more transparent in their endeavor since this organization is a captive of Unique Lighting Systems makers of the 12v-22v multi-tap transformers. Their accreditation program consists of training in the proper techniques for using their equipment. Those taking the one day program are charged $295.00 and are required to bring, among other equipment, a 500w Unique multi-tap transformer which makes the investment in this seminar (exclusive of travel and lunch) a $500.00 day. This training will result in certification as a NILLA contractor.

[sitelights]

A recent article on the potential licensing of low voltage landscape lighting contractors can be found at:

landscapeonline.com/research/article.php?id=3319

[Eden Lights]

In Nashville, TN. Landscape lighting falls into the Low voltage license regulations. Yes, most of the regulations are about phone, video, audio, low voltage contols, plc's, & etc. You would have to study it all to be licensed to install Low voltage landscape lighting in my home city. I found it easier to get my Electricians license at the state level, since I was told I didn't even qualify at the county level to take the tests. (3 years experience with a Licensed Low Voltage or Master Electrician licence holder, or a BS degree in a related field.) Thats just for the low voltage license. With that being said very, very few installers of Landscape Lighting have any license at all. Most work is done on residental homes after closing inspections.

All I want is for it to be illegal to put a single 20 or 35W Par36 in a piece of plastic under a tree with a 15'+ canopy and call it Landscape lighting design. If you buy a tree you dont just buy a trunk do you? It should be called the Anti-Field of Tree Trunks Law. Thanks for the place to Vent! All the regulations in the world wont help poor designs. I would love to be a IALD member, that says something about your design ability. The problem is you can't sell equipment to be a IALD member and I dont think I could pay the bills if I went design only.

I am a LRC Landscape Lighting Institute graduate, May 2003. I will post my experience in the proper forum soon.

[Eden Lights]

I just read my post and I wanted to add that I don't know it all, just always trying to take Landscape lighting to a professional level.

[hollarda]

I have been speaking with some of the reps at Unique and you can actually have the NILLA exam e-mailed to you for $295. It's a 20 page open book exam. All you need to do is buy Nate Mullen's book, (Secrets of Landscape Lighting), and just take the test at your on pace. I was going to do it, but after doing some research, all of Uniques products are ETL tested and not UL tested. They meet UL standards, but if you look on the transformers there is no UL number on them. All it says is ETL Listed. I talked to my brother-in-law who is an electrician in the state of CT and he said that he never even heard of ETL and that all the products they use are UL listed. So, I'm a little skeptical at this point. I wonder what insurance companies recognize ETL listed products?

[sitelights]

One must tread lightly in this area; there has been at least one lawsuit connected to the correct interpretation of the ETL/UL question in a print advertisement. I suggest that you contact Unique (800.955.4831) or seach their web site by using the link on the manufacturer's page in the upper right corner of your screen. Ask for a copy of their "The Legal Requirements of Low Voltage Lighting Transformers & Unique Lighting Systems ETL Listings" dated May 1, 2002; this information may also be available as a PDF download from Unique's site.

My criticism of Unique's system is detailed in a book review on this site; other reviews on Nate's books can be found at amazon.com. NILLA in my opinion is worthless and, while I'm trashing NILLA, I must say the same for LVLIA <http://www.lvlia.com>. Both of these fronts pretend to offer training and credentials related to the field of low voltage outdoor lighting and LVLIA purports to be the voice of the industry. All of these claims are bullshit. I use the term "fronts" to characterize NILLA's promotion of a single source of equipment to sell their products and LVLIA's sponsorship by a number of low voltage lighting equipment manufacturers. Both of these alleged "institutes" real goals appear to be the extraction of money from the wallets of professionals in this field.

If you read the "about" page on this site you will understand that one of lowvolt.org's goals is to counter the efforts of these profiteering outfits by presenting information untainted by the motives of the manufacturers. If technical/installation standards and accreditation courses are developed it makes much more sense to have these developments rise from a broad-based nationwide constituency of professionals in the field rather than from the efforts of a handful of profit-oriented and spurious "institutes".

At this time there are only two unbiased organizations devoted to the furtherance of low voltage lighting and the other one is the Landscape Lighting Institute <http://www.lrc.rpi.edu/Landscape/register.html>

This topic is addressed in other posts on this forum.

[hollarda]

I agree completely on what you have just said. I think it's definitely a money making proposition on their part. Along with Eden Lights, I took the course at the Landscape Lighting Institute and now adorn my office with their certificate. GREAT, GREAT class. Jan Moyer is a wonderful instructor and I got a lot out of the class. I think the class is only held every two to three years.
At this point I'm not going to bother going with the Nilla or LVLIA route. Maybe LowVolt.org can start a certification program?

Thanks
David

[Eden Lights]

I think enough has been said about Nilla and LVLIA, but I do agree that they are not in this for you and me and I have one comment to add. Since I became involved with Landscape lighting it has consumed my mind and my heart along with a couple of more important things I should add. Along with that comes the desire to share outdoor lighting with others anytime I can. My wife has to remind from time to time that the sharing doesn't pay as good as the installing. With that being said how many Nilla or LVLIA board or staff contribute to this site, you know they have seen the site and if they have not, I wonder about their commitment to their profession.

The Landscape Lighting Institute is a excellent program and I recommend it for anyone who wants to really be inspired in lighting design and concepts. I will also say that if you don't have a whole week or that much money to spend The Source (Cooper) has the same class, same instructor, just condensed and much cheaper. I have to also say that the southern hospitality far exceeds what I got in Troy, NY. HA HA. On the technical side I like Lew Waltz with Hadco's one afternoon class and reading right here on lowvolt.org. I think quality proven unbiased technical information is hard to find.


I wished whe could afford to travel together to five different professionals hometowns and review their favorite installs from the technical to the design. That would be a cool week!! One of my favorite sayings is "You learn nothing from a man that agrees with you"

[INTEGRA Works]

Here are my thoughts on the need for us as an industry to standardize and develop a proper code.

Industry Standards - Developing a "Code"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am strongly in favour of this industry organizing and developing a stand alone section of code to be adopted by the NEC and the CEC that would cover all technical aspects of LV Outdoor Lighting Systems.

I think that if our industry is going to survive and thrive through this period of increased scrutiny we have to get our collective knowledge and effort together and develop such a code.

It will not be a task for the faint of heart or the technically challenged. There will be a lot of debate and it will take some time. The end result would see our industry receiving the recognition, respect and understanding that it deserves by the rest of the electrical, lighting, and safety communities.

Who knows, we might just end up with a national/international certification program for licensed installers if we do this properly.
Also:

Standardization and the subsequent accredited certification that should/would/must follow is essential for this industry if it is to survive in the long run.

With no offense to those who have worked on the CVLT... but really what is the point of offering an un-accredited and un-recognized technical certification when our industry is running into all sorts of code and regulatory hurdles. This is putting the cart before the horse.

Many can and will argue about UL1838. A new or updated 'standard' is important but not what I am proposing. I am proposing an addendum to the NEC and CEC. If we are going to be 'playing in the field' so to speak then we had better get some rules in the rule book and make sure we all have the right equipment on.

Will this be contentious? Sure it will. Will most of the landscape lighting industry shy away from it? Sure they will. Will it result in fewer people and businesses installing LV outdoor lighting systems? Maybe not. If a proper LV Code is developed and adopted, then subsequently we can seek out a specialized license to install it. (much like pump installers, furnace installers, fire alarm installers, etc)

This is the most important issue facing our industry today. Understanding the photometrics of a BAB MR16 lamp is great, but it can be learned in any number of industry training seminars offered by manufacturers as well as a good tech manual and the university of life. We need to focus on establishing our niche, standardizing our practices, developing a code and getting that specification accepted, adopted and recognized.

Surely I am not alone in my thinking here.
What say you?

[sitelights]

I agree 100%.

Some members disdain my emphasis on UL1838 but it is a firm foundation on which to build. In fact UL1838 is the only document that specifically addresses low voltage outdoor lighting standards for safety. Although Underwriter's Laboratory is a profit-oriented organization my experience over the past six years has confirmed my belief in UL's neutral position and its quest for consensus on these matters whether it be commercial, institutional or governmental.

[At 7 PM today (01.17.08) I received an email from UL: "UL is pleased to announce the adoption of ANSI/UL1838 as the American Standard for Low Voltage Lighting systems". The ANSI designation has been a topic of the Standards Technical Panel for UL1838 and the announcement has been expected for some time.]

My problem with manufacturer-based certification is the old "fox in the henhouse" argument. All of the current "certification" programs are funded by the manufacturers; this is well-known and, I think, well-meant to the extent that it enhances their bottom line. A profit motive is not a negative factor particularly when the backers of these of these seminars, training programs, etc. are candid about their direct or indirect participation. However this...let's call it "funding"...has not always been apparent although it has been an open secret to knowledgeable professionals.

The original intent of this website (apart from freeing me from multiple requests for information on the same topics) was to create a forum that might gather together a group that would speak as one voice to the extent that it is possible on these matters. The lack of unity foments chaos; single voices are not heard. I offer myself as an example

After almost seven years of nurturing (yes, funding) this site I see that no group has spontaneously formed into a cohesive band of like-minded professionals. It was never my intention to take an active role; enabling has been the goal since I am an observer: not a leader or a follower.

What has been becoming more and more clear is that the profession has essentially split into two camps that I think of as high volt and low volt i.e. 12-22 or 12-15. Although the dividing of the profession in this manner was simply a way for manufacturers to differentiate and gain market share it has had some, perhaps, unintended consequences. This circumstance has retarded the growth in the independent development of standards by the hands-on, minds-on professionals in the low voltage landscape lighting community. While I am not suggesting a "divide and conquer" scenario the effect has been just that since a contentious aura has come into being.

I am simply expressing an opinion based on over 20 years closely focused on this business. My bias permeates my 600 and more posts on this site so it is clear that I am in the low volt camp; it may just be me alone around this particular campfire.

The seven plus year graph of participation in this endeavor has taken on the familiar bell-shaped-curve. This dwindling of participation I ascribe to a user-unfriendly emphasis on substance rather than chat. My firm belief in the intent and format of the site has not diminished; right or wrong I still think that lowvolt.org fills a significant gap as a specialized single-topic forum unlike any other on the web. My intention is to continue.

[Mike M]

More than about fire prevention and electrical hazards:

Although I loath neoconservative big government ideas and regulations (having worked in the whale's belly as public education teacher for 12 years), I do understand the need for auto manufacturers to properly fit emission control devices to help reduce chemical pollution, and in this anology, I think illumination manu's (120 and LV) and installers should be regulated and educated in glare reduction and lumens efficiency to help reduce light polution. Homeowners should also be held accountible for lights pointing into the streets, just as automobile owners are accountable for faulty or missing mufflers.

From there, the natural selection process of capitalism will deal with aesthetics and system performance, etc.

[INTEGRA Works]

More than about fire prevention and electrical hazards:

Although I loath neoconservative big government ideas and regulations (having worked in the whale's belly as public education teacher for 12 years), I do understand the need for auto manufacturers to properly fit emission control devices to help reduce chemical pollution, and in this anology, I think illumination manu's (120 and LV) and installers should be regulated and educated in glare reduction and lumens efficiency to help reduce light polution. Homeowners should also be held accountible for lights pointing into the streets, just as automobile owners are accountable for faulty or missing mufflers.

From there, the natural selection process of capitalism will deal with aesthetics and system performance, etc.

I am not so concerned with training and certification over design issues at this time. I think we need to get an international Code or technical standard developed and approved. Instead of flirting with and around the NEC/CEC, we should be part of it.

Regards.

[Mike M]

Yes. Standardization is a nice step in the direction of "order" for the industry.

I just think the open-glare streetlight across from my home needs a cover/shield, just like cars are required to have effective emission controls and mufflers.

In PA, I lived in a nice little town with a field behind my home. A nursing facility was built in view from my backyard, not in the field but across from it. They had the unshielded open style lamps installed, and it was like having a midnight sun. Irresponsible and unnecessary light polution is a horrible thing and should end and I just think this is another area which can be considered under licensed installations.

[SteveP]

[At 7 PM today (01.17.08) I received an email from UL: "UL is pleased to announce the adoption of ANSI/UL1838 as the American Standard for Low Voltage Lighting systems". The ANSI designation has been a topic of the Standards Technical Panel for UL1838 and the announcement has been expected for some time.]


Joe, could you speak more about what this new ANSI designation means? Since NEC code is greatly influenced by ANSI standards, will we see UL1838 adopted into the NEC code?

I'm surprised that ANSI would adopt 1838 because ANSI also accredits the IEC; a recent IEC study sets the maximum safe exposure level at 30 milliamps - a current corresponding to a worst-case scenario of, at least, a 30 volt charge.

UL itself has been trying to change 1838 to increase the voltage limit for at least ten years. They've been blocked by a single manufacturer.

[SteveP]

What has been becoming more and more clear is that the profession has essentially split into two camps that I think of as high volt and low volt i.e. 12-22 or 12-15. Although the dividing of the profession in this manner was simply a way for manufacturers to differentiate and gain market share it has had some, perhaps, unintended consequences.

Just to clarify this issue from a manufacturers perspective. The only reason manufacturers offer transformers higher than 15 volts is because contractors demand it. There is no cost advantage for us to make, distribute and sell higher voltage transformers. Manufacturers make more money producing fewer models and selling more of them than producing many models and selling fewer of each - that's simple economics.

We, as responsible manufacturers and good stewards of the environment, always teach installation methods that conserve as much energy as possible. We always teach going to higher gauge wire and positioning transformers closer to fixtures whenever possible. We'd be happy as pie if every installation could be done with 15 volts or less.

The only reason the higher voltage transformers exist is to accommodate those projects where it is nearly impossible or cost-prohibitive to position transformers closer to fixtures. Hundreds of such projects are installed every year. The need for higher voltage transformers is real. That's why 1838 is an unrealistic and overly restrictive standard.

Wouldn't you agree that it's far more dangerous to run line voltage throughout a property (think of all those underground conduits that might get cut or damaged) to power 1838 transformers than it is use 18 (or even) 22 volts from a transformer positioned adjacent to a structure.

[sitelights]

By popular demand I have placed a self-imposed moratorium on the topic of transformer outputs. My comment on market share acknowledges the reality of consumer-driven pressure; to me it is a chicken/egg question.

The ANSI/UL1838 question is, on the surface, a circumstance where a standard is validated by a second agency. It should be made clear that UL and ANSI have no official, governmental standing; they are both private not-for-profit entities of long standing even if American National Standards Institute is simply the latest designation for a company that has been in business as long as Underwriter's Laboratories. This paragraph is for the benefit readers unfamilar with the initials.

One might state that UL's Standard for Safety is now bolstered by combining it with a Standard for Uniformity. UL encourages questions from members of their STPs: Standards Technical Panel and so I will ask them. Stay tuned.

[sitelights]

[quote] "UL has concluded the balloting and related comment resolution phase for ANSI approval of the UL 1838 proposals. UL has been authorized by ANSI as an Audit Designator. As such, UL has permission to designate UL Standards for Safety as American National Standards without Board of Standards Review. UL is now in the final stages of adoption of the material that was balloted and notification to ANSI has been submitted." [end quote]

This quote is a paragraph from the e-mail announcement referred to in my previous post. UL-generated text is copyright by UL to protect their publication rights.

In the interests of full disclosure I will quote my request for permission to reference the text of UL's e-mail announcing the ANSI/UL 1838 approval:

My e-mail dated 01.30.08 [quote] Dear... [Project Manager for STP UL 1838] ...Please accept my thanks for your prompt and thorough response to my 01.10.08 query concerning the definitions of the new interest categories in the updated UL 1838 roster. I am emboldened to pose another question, this one related to the UL 1838 announcement dated 01.17.08 Some members of of the Low Voltage Lighting Forum have asked me for comments concerning the ANSI/UL 1838 approval. The members questions deal esssentially with the impact of the notice of approval.

A brief background: lowvolt.org was put on line in July 2001; I think that my selection to serve on the STPs related to low voltage lighting stemmed from this website. I initiated and fund the lowvolt.org site to further the development of professionalism in the low voltage outdoor lighting industry. There are no dues or fees relating to membership in lowvolt.org nor is there any advertising. The site is a public open forum devoted to topics related to the design, specification, installation of low voltage landscape lighting.

UL 1838 has been a topic of discussion since the origination of the lowvolt.org site and there are an appreciable number of pro/con exchanges in the postings to the "UL/NEC..." forum. The ANSI/UL 1838 news is of concern to the professionals (and to some small extent the DIY segmant) whose livelihood depends on their expertise and willingness to adopt the standards. Clearly they are interested in the impact of this approval.

Since I do not quote or attempt to interpret UL standards I am requesting a brief, quotable statement about the ANSI/UL 1838 approval. If there are matters of policy not for publication on this topic I would then ask for permission to quote only the paragraph beginning with "UL has concluded..." in the e-mail dated 01.17.08 [end quote]

Any additional information on the ANSI/UL 1838 approval may be forthcoming if requests for interpretation are made by those manufacturers whose payments to UL for stickers containing the UL mark fund the organization's operations.

[INTEGRA Works]

So Joe, I think the question still stands....

If ANSI is going to adopt UL1838 as a standard for Low Voltage Landscape Lighting Systems, does this mean that UL1838 will make it into the NEC? The guessing on this is that since ANSI administers the NEC, it stands to reason that they might move to include this in any new / updated code.

I would appreciate your background and input on this.

Regards.

[sitelights]

In the penultimate paragraph of my 01.31.08 post I carefully requested "... a brief quotable statement..." or alternatively "...permission to quote only the paragraph...". Since UL did not provide me with a statement but granted me permission to quote only the paragraph pertaining the the announcement I take it that no "...'press release' type of public statement." is forthcoming; at least not to me.

Permission the quote the paragraph was given: "UL has concluded the balloting and the related comment resolution phase for the ANSI approval of the UL 1838 proposals. UL has been authorized by ANSI as an Audited Designator. As such, UL has permission to designate UL Standards for Safety as American National Standards without Board of Standards Review. UL is now in the final stages of adoption of the material that was balloted and notification to ANSI has been submitted."

I suggested in the final paragraph that a UL interpretation of ANSI/UL 1838 could be requested by manufacturers funding UL through their payments made to use the UL-listed sticker. My participation in the UL STPs relating to low voltage lighting is voluntary and as one end user in a panel of over 40 members (many of whom represent manufacturers) it would be more appropriate (and effective) if the companies that are customers of UL made the request for interpretation.

I do not know what impact ,if any, the ANSI/UL 1838 announcement will have although it is reasonable to suggest that the past may have some bearing on the future in this matter.

[Paul]

[QUOTE=sitelights;2388]I agree 100%.


My problem with manufacturer-based certification is the old "fox in the henhouse" argument. All of the current "certification" programs are funded by the manufacturers; this is well-known and, I think, well-meant to the extent that it enhances their bottom line. A profit motive is not a negative factor particularly when the backers of these of these seminars, training programs, etc. are candid about their direct or indirect participation. However this...let's call it "funding"...has not always been apparent although it has been an open secret to knowledgeable professionals.


I think it is appropriate for me to point out that there is not and never has been a single manufacture on the certification committee of the AOLP (formerly LVLIA).

It should also be known that the AOLP is a non profit association.

I think that the administrator of this site should make sure that his statements are correct before making such blanketing comments. Maybe this administrator should look at the association again, it's probably been quite some time since it has been fairly evaluated.

I have been a member of this site for about 4 years now and am currently the Vice President of the AOLP. I would be happy to answer any questions that arise on this site. I don't have all of the answers in my pocket but I am always willing to find them. I believe that the association is good for this industry and is working to make it more professional and respected.

[sitelights]

If the AOLP is now funded entirely by the membership I applaud the progress being made by the organization. If, however, the fee structure for distributors and manufacturers still provides the AOLP with a significant portion of their operating budget there is inherently the possibility of conflicts of interest.

It would be informative if the AOLP would issue a statement about ANSI/UL 1838 since many "certification" programs ignore these standards for safety by promoting higher output (up to 22v) equipment. Could it be that there are two levels of certification: one with a 15v limit and another with a 22v limit?

There is nothing improper about any of this and the phrase "fox in the henhouse" simply refers to the possible but perhaps inconsequential conflict of interest. Pick up any trade magazine and you will find articles about companies or products that just happen to also feature a large ad in that issue. Was the editorial content related to ad revenues? No one is surprised; it is just business.

It would be candid to admit that the "seed" money for the establishment of the former LVLIA came primarilly from sources other than the rank and file membership. The make-up of the various boards, including the members of the certification committee, is beside the point. One would not expect that representatives of the varied, for profit, funding sources would sit on committees or form any part of the governing body of the organization.

My attitude toward the AOLP has become increasingly benign over past few years. It may be that my earlier comments, remarks, etc. in reference to the organization were more in the nature of criticism in the past than they are now. My post was carefully worded not to offend.

I stand by my views in the matter of funding by other than the rank and file members of AOLP. However, if the intention is to deny that the organization is funded in part by profit based companies it should be so stated.

My comments were clearly meant to state the obvious in mild terms. This forum acccepts no support from anyone be it from individuals or advertisers. There is no fox in this henhouse; in fact there is no fox nor are there hens.

[Paul]

Let me start by saying that my expressions on this forum are mine and I am not speaking in an official capacity as the Vice President of the AOLP.

Thank you for a little clarification on your statements. First, I hope that I'm the president of a profit based company, NightScapes Corporation, and therefore I also hope all of the members of the AOLP make a profit. After all, we're all in business to make money.

Now if you are referring to the manufacture and distributor members of the association, thank goodness we have them. This is an association for the outdoor lighting industry, not just "installers". It includes lighting designers, lighting manufactures, landscapers, irrigators, landscape lighting companies, The International Dark Sky Association and others that are involved in outdoor lighting. Do manufactures and distributors pay more dues than the contractor? Hell yes!! Manufactures and distributors have the most to gain in this industry and I sure hope that they are bringing in more profit per year than most contractors. They should be willing to "invest" in this industry on a national level and help the association grow and become strong.

As for the certification, I am not on the committee and would not want to speak for them.

I know that when the association changed from the LVLIA (Low Voltage Lighting Institute of the Americas, a name which always brings a giggle) to the AOLP (Association of Outdoor Lighting Professionals) it started standing behind the National Electrical Code as it's standard. This makes complete sense because the association is for ALL outdoor lighting professionals, not just low voltage. Some of us install both low and line voltage lighting. Some manufactures make both line and low voltage lighting. We could go around and around on UL1838 but that would be futile as the issue has been beaten to death on this and every other forum out there. I'll just say that the only "code" is the NEC, it's that simple. A national association for the entire outdoor lighting industry should stand behind the code and nothing else. If ANSI/UL1838 becomes part of the NEC than once again, the AOLP will stand behind it because it will be code.

One other thing about UL1838 and I think this is important to mention. The "system" of installing low voltage landscape lighting known as UL1838 is just that, a system of installation and it was developed for Intermatic and their Malibu line. It has been long confused with some kind of "code" which it is not. Most people do not understand and I was the same way until a Representative of the UL came the the AOLP conference in 2007 and explained what it is. When installing an 1838 system, all components of that system must be UL1838 listed. This includes wire, transformer, fixtures, connectors, lamps, etc. They must also be installed according to 1838. This really gets tricky because after talking with this gentleman, even he was confused.

I'm getting writers cramp so I'll stop for now. I do think it's good to discuss the AOLP though and I'm willing to answer questions.

[SteveP]

Paul, is the AOLP registered as a non-profit organization in the state of Arizona?

[Paul]

Yes it is. I know that one question Joe had a long time ago was it's website address not being a dot org. It is now www.aolponline.org.

[sitelights]

I stand by my "all". I would make the same statement about the training programs that were/are affiliated with academic institutions. My intention was simply to acknowledge a fact that must be obvious to everyone but is sometimes glossed over. The statement is a reminder and perhaps news to those interested in the field but unaware.

The comments on profit making for everyone connected with the business make my position clear on this matter. There was no intent (or content) that would reflect negatively on anyone

Some years back a lowvolt.org member stated, on another topic, that we learn more from those with whom we disagree than we do from those who share exactly the same opinions. [Sorry Eddie if I mangled your statement but I think my paraphrase accurately reflects the sense of your statement.]

The whole point of this forum is to initiate and sustain a dialog in matters that are of deep concern to those of us who are directly affected by the uncertainty surrounding the future of the "business'. If not here, then where?

Note that I compose my posts directly onto the site. This sometimes presents a problem since what is being read now may have been modified or corrected. [Such as this note.]

The members of the forum have learned more from these open exchanges than they have from the AOLP. Perhaps more information about the AOLP exists here than on their website. My assertion, impossible to document, is again simply an opinion. It is the nature of things that on matters where there is little consensus that the more we know the better off we are.

No one, especially me, speaks for lowvolt.org which provides equal opportunity to be heard and, if you will, to be counted. It is clear to all that the opinions expressed on this site are in no way constrained by the possibility of being censored or influenced by its funding source. There is nothing ambiguous about who does the funding here and there is no shadow of uncertainty clouding the issues.

The remarks about voltages are regretable since I stated in an earlier post that I was going to refrain from commenting on what is apparently a circular argument.

Check back for changes since there are surely corrections and modifications usually within 24 hours of the original post.

[Paul]

One of the reasons that I participate on this forum and have for so long is it's honest and reputable administrator along with a very unbiased reflection on materials associated with this industry.

I would also say that any discussion about this industry is healthy and varying opinions help everyone to learn. I know that Eddie, Steve, Joe, and all of those that participate often are interested in making this business of "outdoor lighting" stronger and more respected.

[SteveP]

Paul, you might mention to the AOLP webmaster that there's no mention of your non-profit status. Also, I'm wondering why you guys decided to launch the new website with whole sections "under development." If I was looking into the AOLP for the first time and saw all those blank pages. . .

[Paul]

I know Steve, I am actually trying to form a website committee to handle all of the site issues. It has been handled in a "shot gun" way for too long. I'm hoping that with all of the changes that we have made in management and such that we can be an all around more professional association.

[SteveP]

Paul, for your long-term thinking (as the budget grows), you might consider enlisting one of the web companies that focus on non-profits. They can incorporate fund-raising features as well as other promotional strategies.

A good fund-raising technique is to launch a project with a specific goal - say, a booklet aimed at educating homeowners on the art of lighting design. You then go to all the manufacturers asking for their sponsorship.

Many sucessful non-profits operate this way. The membership fees go to cover operating expenses; all projects and campaigns are funded separately through member donations.

[Paul]

That's a very good idea Steve, thanks for the input. The association is now being operated by a professional management company so I'm sure that we will be going through some major changes. I'm really excited about the future of the AOLP!!

[SteveP]

I didn't know that! That's good news!

[Paul]

See, if Cast were a member you would have had the scoop!! Just a little poke there Steve.

[SteveP]

The management, the way various things were done and the lack of progress on some of the goals are why we haven't joined. Let's see how things unfold.

[Paul]

I'm sure we'll be talking Steve. The changes that have taken place with this board have been huge and I like to think, good for the association.