Energy-efficient lightbulb initiative switched off in House vote

Energy-efficient lightbulb initiative switched off in House vote

Summary: 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.

SHARE:

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:

Topics: Emerging Tech, Enterprise Software, Telcos

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

17 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • Let's get rid of catalytic converters in cars ....

    ... and encourage citizens to "take the law into their own hands" to streamline the process and "save money" while we are at it!
    kd5auq
    • I agree!

      @kd5auq - .
      People
  • Encouraged vs. Requires

    Heather Clancy --
    "That?s right, it encouraged, it didn?t ban as has repeatedly been claimed by opponents of the idea."

    NY Times article cited by Heather Clancy --
    "The first stage of the standards, which will be phased in from Jan. 1 through 2014, requires bulbs to be 25 to 30 percent more efficient. The second stage could require bulbs to be 60 percent more efficient by 2020. The law includes exceptions for specialty lights, like candelabra lamps, three-way bulbs and black lights. "

    Perhaps you might like to get your facts straight?
    LesN
    • RE: Energy-efficient lightbulb initiative switched off in House vote

      @LesN
      You are both a bit wrong. Yes, it does REQUIRE light bulbs to be more efficient, but no, it does not BAN incandescent bulbs.
      30otnix
      • RE: Energy-efficient lightbulb initiative switched off in House vote

        @30otnix
        Well, I don't think that I was wrong. All I did was point out that the article referenced by the author contradicted her statement. It's clear that one of them is wrong, but it is certainly possible that both are wrong. She, on the other hand, should have either agreed with the article she referenced, referenced an article which agreed with her, or cited the article as wrong. By making a statement then silently referencing an article which contradicted her statement, she was wrong, even if she happened to be right. :) (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.)
        LesN
  • Simple. CFL is still way too toxic and LED is still way too expensive and

    underperforming. This wont stop the industry from advancing at all, just stops us from being forced into having to choose between two poor alternatives. When the tech is ready for primetime the market will come flooding in.
    Johnny Vegas
    • RE: Energy-efficient lightbulb initiative switched off in House vote

      @Johnny Vegas There's no more mercury in the CFL's than what is released into the environment along with other heavy metals by all the coal burning power plants that are required to keep all the incadesent lights lit! Not to mention that the CFL's last a lot longer reducing it by even more. I don't like that mercury is in there either, and I have started switching to LED's for certain lights, but CFL's are still a better bet than having enough power plants to keep us from having to switch. This is blatantly an attempt by big business to stymie these rules using there lobbying power.
      mgrubb@...
      • RE: Energy-efficient lightbulb initiative switched off in House vote

        @mgrubb@... Very reasonable analysis. You got it.
        RelaxWalk
    • RE: Energy-efficient lightbulb initiative switched off in House vote

      @Johnny Vegas

      Stop buying bargain bin CFLs and your performance problems will go away. Even the "expensive" CFLs save a ton of cash over their lifetime via energy savings.
      toadlife
    • RE: Energy-efficient lightbulb initiative switched off in House vote

      @Johnny Vegas Here's a little lesson in economics. If it costs me 10 cents to produce something that I can sell for a dollar, I have a really high profit margin. And when that 'something' has a limited life and has to be replaced often, then I get to make a high profit margin over and over. But, when it costs me a dollar to make something that is hard to sell at a price over 2 dollars, the profit margin is a lot less. I can sell one item for 9 times it's cost, and another for 2 times it's cost. Now, to make the more expensive item even less attractive to produce, the more expensive item will last 10 times as long as the cheaper item. So, in a given time span, I can make nearly 9 times as much by selling the least expensive item. All things being equal, the seller will choose the first item. So, that is why government is needed to step in and make things "not equal".
      mgrubb@...
  • Here here to freedom!

    .
    People
  • RE: Energy-efficient lightbulb initiative switched off in House vote

    The bill signed by George W Bush in 2007 was just like most of thebills congress passes then and now. NOBODY READS THEM! I guarntee not one mention of this was made to Bush or anybody else when this government power grab was made.

    I am stocking up on the incandescents and when those run out I will buy as many of the piggly tailed versions and then drive up and down the streets throwing them out my car window.

    Every time government takes away one of my freedoms I will suspend my obedience and respect for that government until I make myself feel better.
    BlackAmerican
  • RE: Energy-efficient lightbulb initiative switched off in House vote

    You're STILL using incandescents in the US?

    Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain.
    tonymcs@...
  • RE: Energy-efficient lightbulb initiative switched off in House vote

    The requirement to be more efficient is a back-door way of banning them - claims that incandescent bulbs are to be banned are essentially correct.<br><br>There are serious problems with the coming ban - the CFL and LED bulbs are not available for all applications. In some form factors, needed brightness and color values (esp. the color values) are not available at all, and some form factors don't exist at all (and I'm not talking about the exceptions in the law, for some of which new bulbs already _do_ exist, e.g. candelabra bases). I cannot buy an outdoor flood bulb that works in common outdoor flood bases - LED's don't seem to exist yet, and the available CFL's have too fat a base above the threads and literally do not fit in the fixtures. The candelabra bases mentioned above are an example of color value/temperature non-availability - all I've found are "yellow-white" LED bulbs, with no white, warm white, or cool white available, leaving me with no usable product for my ceiling fan lights, which we use to provide light, not "ambience" in our family room.
    zellich
    • RE: Energy-efficient lightbulb initiative switched off in House vote

      @zellich
      I think you need to do some more research.....

      http://www.besthomeledlighting.com/led_floodlight
      hoaxoner
  • RE: Energy-efficient lightbulb initiative switched off in House vote

    Personally I think they should repeal the whole government energy bill. Necessity is the mother of invention, I do believe, and with government legislation, necessity is gone and idle hands are about us all, mostly in prison.
    Dumber_z
  • How many Congressmen should it take to change a light bulb?

    How many Congressmen should it take to change a light bulb?
    None.
    How many Citizens should be allowed to choose?
    Everyone.

    Re Comments, it is a Ban:
    All known incandescents including Halogens etc will be banned before 2020 on the Energy Act 45 lumen per Watt specification, and the temporarily allowed replacements have a different light quality anyway, as well as much greater expense for marginal savings.

    Little Savings for Consumers anyway:
    1. Regulators take the most COMMONLY used lights and multiply supposed savings accordingly. American 45-bulb household has many other lights. Less usage means less savings, apart from breakage, losses etc

    2. A typical CFL has twice the so-called power factor (not same as power rating) of an incandescent, which means it uses twice the energy at the power plant to what your meter says - which you eventually have to pay for.

    3. There are many other reasons why the savings don't hold either for society (less than 1% US energy usage,
    2% grid electricity) or for consumers, using DOE and other official statistics - http://ceolas.net/#li171x
    There are as seen much more relevant ways to save energy (in electricity generation, grid distribution, real consumption waste).

    4. Not only do consumers pay more for the light bulbs as an initial cost but are also being being forced to pay for them, via taxpayer CFL programs -and coming LED program support (eg the Philips L-prize bulb)

    5. Regardless of energy savings:
    Little Money savings for consumers anyway.
    That is because electricity companies are being subsidised (again by consumers as taxpayers) or allowed to directly raise Bill rates, to compensate for any reduced electricity use, as already seen both federally and in California, Ohio etc, and before them in the UK and
    other European countries (as referenced, ceolas.net/#californiacfl )
    lighthouse10