NAILD Issues a Second Open Letter to DLC, Raising Funding and Transparency Concerns
NAILD is at it again.
On Friday, NAILD released a second open letter to the DLC and this time included D+R International While your humble editor dislikes public attempts to embarrass people—I believe private conversations work far more effectively—I will give NAILD credit. This letter reads as more professional and less inflammatory than the first, and they even apologized for the tone of their earlier correspondence.
The new letter raises several valid points, particularly around the contrast to IES. I still argue that private dialogue would serve the industry better. NAILD leadership has often said that DLC is unresponsive. Yet in this same letter, NAILD admits that DLC attempted to reach the then-president of the NAILD with a phone call and through Linked In. However, to NAILD’s credit they did issue a private letter to D+R International on 24 JUL 2025. and to the DLC on 16 MAY 2025. Tina Halfpenny, Executive Director of the DLC, responded on 6 JUN 2025. Below is a portion of that response.
Below are excerpts from the 26 SEP open letter sent to David Steiner and Christina Halfpenny. My comments follow.
Public Correspondence
“Going forward, all correspondence from NAILD to you will be public and formally signed by our entire membership as a whole. While the vote was not unanimous, it passed overwhelmingly—with 89% of attending members voting in favor of the motion.
We didn’t want it to come to this.”
NAILD clearly wanted it to come to this—otherwise, why would they put the matter to a vote of the membership?
Phone Calls vs. Public Rebukes
“Rather than responding to the direct questions we raised in our letter, Ms. Halfpenny instead messaged our now immediate Past President via LinkedIn and made an unannounced call to his office.”
I see this as the professional approach. After receiving a pointed public letter, most leaders would respond by calling directly. A phone call helps them better understand the issue. Leaders achieve progress through intelligent conversations, not tit-for-tat exchanges in public forums.
D+R International’s Payments
“…it appears that between 2018 and 2024, D+R International has received an estimated $38 to $44 million from DLC. These funds appear to be allocated for what can only be described as spreadsheet management services—essentially, organizing and maintaining a spreadsheet after manufacturers have uploaded all required product information through a portal.”
I believe D+R delivers far more than “spreadsheet services.” Still, NAILD raises a fair question: is $38 to $44 million justified, regardless of the scope of work? I doubt it.
IES Funding Comparisons
“These figures are particularly striking when compared to the total annual revenue of the Illuminating Engineering Society (IES), a globally respected, long-standing non-profit standards organization in the lighting industry… each year exceeding, and in some cases nearly doubling, the entire annual revenue of IES.”
This may be the strongest part of the letter. Dollars spent with DLC are dollars not going to IES or IALD or Nuckolls Fund for Lighting Education or NALMCO, or NAED or NLB or the IALD Education Trust Fund, or……
Standards Development
“The comparison raises important questions about the proportionality of value delivered by non-profit organizations—particularly when considering that the Illuminating Engineering Society (IES) relies on volunteer experts to develop the foundational standards that underpin DLC certifications. These standards are contributed freely, in good faith, by professionals with genuine intentions to advance the lighting industry through a collaborative and holistic approach.”
One word comes to mind: Bravo!
Utilities and Their Stake
“The result is a system in which DLC effectively dictates to the lighting industry how utilities expect other people’s lighting products to be designed and manufactured. Lighting products that utilities will never actually own and have no stake in.”
I disagree here. Utilities clearly have a stake because they supply the power. With today’s strained electrical grid, energy efficiency matters more than when DLC began. The growing energy appetite of AI makes efficiency even more critical. Utilities have a huge stake in energy efficiency.
Funding Transparency
“But what we find most concerning is the pattern in how these payments to D+R International are calculated. The amounts fluctuate in a manner that suggests they represent whatever funds remain after all other DLC expenses are covered, rather than being linked to a defined scope of work or a performance-based contract.”
NAILD issues a damning claim here. They don’t explain how they arrived at this calculation, and I want to see the supporting numbers.
Accountability and RFPs
“Yet, D+R has never been publicly held accountable or replaced, and our committee could find no public evidence that DLC has ever rebid the contract despite what appears to be a consistently poor performance in spreadsheet management services.”
That statement is not correct. In the EdisonReport archives, I found a 2016 article: “DLC Plans to Issue RFP for Applications Work Presently Under Contract by D+R International.” But the point is important. Other than this 2016 RFP, have other companies been asked to bid on this work or does D+R have it locked up?
An Odd Conclusion
“The simplest way to begin rebuilding trust is for both of you to appear on a special Get a Grip on Lighting livestream, a podcast we have officially supported since episode 7. The livestream is scheduled for Friday, October 3rd, with Ms. Halfpenny appearing at 12:00 PM Eastern, followed by Mr. Steiner at 2:30 PM Eastern. The producer will send login credentials in advance, and you will need to log in 30 minutes prior to your scheduled time to ensure there are no technical issues.”
The close of the letter strikes me as bizarre. I assume DLC leadership has not agreed to this, yet NAILD set a date and sent login instructions anyway. That move feels presumptuous. Will Greg and Michael end up interviewing an empty chair? The ending makes me wonder whether the true intent is to help DLC improve—or simply to stir drama and generate headlines.
Read the complete letter below:
Go Deeper:
