I read Tom Sharpe's Dec. 25 story, 'Gentle wash of light to illuminate Loretto Chapel," with a mix of interest and apprehension.

I don't see a problem with the idea of lighting the chapel exterior in general. But, I must draw attention to the agreement made by the Historic Preservation Design Review Board and architect Eric Enfield. Tying standards or limits to lighting wattage is innately flawed. Any lighting engineer or designer will quickly confirm that wattage is related only to a light's power consumption. For the board to "reserve the right to ask for bulbs of less than 70 watts if the lighting seems too bright" is meaningless and subjective.

Recent developments in lighting technology have trended toward achieving the highest light output — measured as lumens — with the lowest possible power draw in wattage. Depending upon how a luminiere produces light, metal halide, sodium vapor, fluorescent, etc., the same wattage can produce a wide range of luminous output.

The stated concern to "enhance security and show off the downtown landmark" raises additional thoughts. The notion that more light is a solution to security problems is somewhat misleading.

The rush to install lights to create a more "secure environment" may actually cause more problems than it solves. Examples are found throughout Santa Fe where improperly installed residential and business lights create hazardous blinding glare for pedestrians and motorists and unhealthy light trespass into adjacent homes and properties.

At its best, historic preservation is handled with a balanced and progressive stance. I encourage the Historic Design Review Board to reassess its agreement with Mr. Enfield and use an objective measure based upon brightness in lumens and abandon their antiquated approach tied to wattage.

Santa Fean Peter Lipscomb is an advocate of sensible and energy-efficient lighting. His astronomy column, "Night Sky," appears weekly in The New Mexican.