Not that they have anything more important to worry about, like figuring out how to cut the federal deficit or preventing a debt default in early August, but it seems that certain lawmakers in Washington felt that banning energy-efficiency light bulbs deserved their attention more.
After they failed to win a majority vote earlier in the week, the House held a voice vote last Friday to defund the U.S. Department of Energy’s standards that encouraged incandescent lightbulbs to be more energy-efficient. That’s right, it encouraged, it didn’t ban as has repeatedly been claimed by opponents of the idea. The standards were supposed to take effect early next year. What a difference four years make, when the 2007 energy bill signed by President George W. Bush received overwhelming support.
And what of all the great innovation that has happened over the past four years as both big-name companies such as GE and Philips and smaller players such as Lighting Science Group have unfurled a slew of energy-efficient lighting options?
Truth be told, since most of my friends didn’t even KNOW there was any kind of federal impetus behind the move toward energy-efficient lightbulbs, I believe these products have enough support from the forward-thinking citizens who decide to buy them and cut their energy bills proactively, with or without a federal mandate. But I have got to wonder, what is Washington afraid of that it continues to thwart attempts to encourage the use of energy-efficient products? What’s next? Energy Star? It wouldn’t surprise me at all.
Related posts:
- NRDC: GOP drive to repeal lightbulb efficiency law overlooks $12.5B in potential savings
- It’s lights-out for attempt to repeal lightbulb efficiency law
- Instant on: New GE bulb combines halogen, CFL in incandescent format
- New LED bulbs for indoor-outdoor use
- More oh-so-efficient green lighting tech: LED and dimmable CFL
(On the other hand, if the bill requires the lights to be 25 to 30 percent more efficient, then other than those which were excepted, it probably implicitly bans incandescent bulbs, regardless of whether it uses that wording simply because it is unlikely that someone is going to find a way of building an incandescent bulb which is that much more efficient.) 
