// A further more recent July update here //
Courtesy of this Michigan Capitol Confidential article of July 21 by Jack Spencer, the bill is due to be taken up by the House Energy and Technology Committee in the fall, probably in the first 5 weeks...and the prospects appear to be good for the bill:
“We're meeting this week in Lansing to plan out a schedule for after we return in the fall,” said Rep. Kenneth Horn, R-Frankenmuth, Chair of the House Energy and Technology Committee. “I expect to be taking it (the light bulb bill) up within the first five weeks.”
“We might have some hearings where we take testimony on it before then,” Horn added. “We'll be checking with the governor's office as we make our plans. Overall, I really don't see it taking up much time.”
The key to Horn's statement was probably the idea of checking with the governor's office. The strategy for moving the legislation could depend on whether or not Snyder supports the bill as it is currently drafted. If Snyder wants changes, a negotiation process could slow things down....
McMillin's bill is probably a “slam dunk” to pass in the Michigan House, and it's difficult to imagine it not passing in the Michigan Senate as well. It appears that Senate Energy and Technology Committee Chair Mike Nofs, R-Battle Creek, supports the bill in concept, which should help. What's more, the public outcry over the federal law would probably make it very difficult for lawmakers to oppose or postpone taking action.
# # # # # # #
Original post June 27th:
As informed by Rep. Tom McMillin and the Right Michigan organization,
he has launched a bulb ban repeal bill in the Michigan House of Representatives with 27 early co-sponsors, although as yet unreported either by news media or Michigan Legislature press releases.
Bill extract:
The legislature finds all of the following:
(a) An incandescent lightbulb that is manufactured in this
state without the inclusion of parts, other than generic or
insignificant parts, imported from outside of this state and that
remains within this state has not entered into interstate commerce
and is not subject to congressional authority to regulate
interstate commerce.
(b) Basic materials, such as unmachined and unshaped steel and
glass, are not incandescent lightbulbs and are not subject to
congressional authority to regulate incandescent lightbulbs in
interstate commerce in as if the basic materials were actually
incandescent lightbulbs.
(c) Congressional authority to regulate interstate commerce in
basic materials does not include authority to regulate incandescent
lightbulbs manufactured in this state from those basic materials.
Comment
There are as seen issues of Federal v State regulation:
It played a part in the earlier veto by Arizona Governor Jan Brewer of their bill, but subsequent bills in different states have taken that aboard, and been phrased accordingly, at least in some cases after communication with the Attorney General's office.
News of the passing of the Texas bill into law was posted earlier.
Updates on other bills here (http://ceolas.net/#li01inx).
No comments:
Post a Comment