Save Tungsten - Incandescent - Lamps!

Thumbs up to some others acting against the ever increasing regulation of what lighting can or can't be used. Unsurprisingly, it comes from a special sector - it's no doubt easier to engage people on specific issues rather than more generally, all the more so if it involves their daily lives.
So, after petitions and complaints from those concerned with cinema/photography or museum/exhibition work, here's a campaign from those primarily concerned with theatre, music and other event and stage lighting:
The UK based Save Tungsten Campaign (website, facebook page, twitter)

The organisation behind it is therefore ALD, the Association of Lighting Designers, quote
"the professional body representing all those who work or are interested in the creation of lighting design for live performance and events in the United Kingdom and around the world".



Save Tungsten Campaign Website introduction:

Incandescence — The Magic of Light

Stage lighting is telling stories with light . . . light that creates the air that surround the performer, magically creating ‘place’ in which the theatre: actor and audience, spring to life.

We need light onstage; sunlight, moonlight, twilight, firelight, candlelight, oil, gaslight, limelight, fluorescent, carbon arc, plasma, LED . . . and incandescent light. We know we live in a time of dramatic change. It is mandatory that we in the theatre reduce our carbon footprint, otherwise our stages will likely be washed away before our globe becomes uninhabitable.

We designers welcome and embrace change. We revel in new things and new lights. But we cannot throw away all the good things that we have inherited. We applaud new light sources, we will learn their characteristics, and enjoy the new opportunities they bring.

We must have flexible light; light that can be warm or cool; light that can be ever-so dim or blindingly bright, light that can subtly or brashly change its characteristics, full wave-length light that can truly reveal every color in the spectrum; but most of all, beautifully illuminate the human face, the humanity, which lies at the heart of all our work.

At the present time, that means that the incandescent lamp is an essential weapon in the designers’ arsenal . . . it cannot be done without. Nothing exists that offers the subtlety that is fundamental to our stage. We will use all that is new, but we must not lose or destroy the beauty of the light that has, for so long, been the center of our world of theatre.

Preserve the availability of incandescent light sources for theatrical use.

Richard Pilbrow
ALD President
Friday, March 15, 2013

Extract from the Facebook description:

Michael Hulls, Paule Constable, Neil Austin, David Finn and a whole bunch of us are trying to galvanise support amongst live event lighting designers, electricians and supervisors (concerts, drama, musicals, opera, dance) for a campaign to preserve Tungsten sources and their production in the future.

We started off worrying that Government legislation would kill off Tungsten as a source but many of us are now more concerned at the reduction in the production of various types of Tungsten lamps - it seems the manufacturers themselves are starting to push towards other sources and are phasing out Tungsten lamps by stealth.

So we propose to lobby manufacturers of lighting instruments and lamps, particularly Phillips because of their enormous global market and because they have stated that they are no longer investing any R&D into Tungsten lamp technology.

Facebook update post October 23 2013
(my emphases and parentheses [italic] comments added)

Progress update from James Laws:
In any “Save anything” campaign, there is an initial wake-up call to a situation, followed by a lot of worrying in ignorance. Thanks to the two meetings précised below, we can now work within evolving parameters, which is less exhausting and more likely to bring us results. By the time these meetings were convened, there was realisation that, in general terms, the supply of tungsten lamps is endangered by legislation and lamp manufacturers’ interpretation of and reaction to that legislation.

Meeting 1: London, 12 June
The ABTT show was the first chance for the Save Tungsten campaigners to meet with a major lamp manufacturer, John Gorse of Philips Lighting. Mr Gorse is also Chair of the Lighting Industry Association (LIA) Technical Committee. His Philips colleague, Id Inval Wynne Jones, who is Secretary of the same committee, was also there. The following brief resume is taken from some excellent notes taken by Andy Collier with an accuracy and scientific understanding that we shall sorely miss.

Richard Pilbrow chaired the meeting for some twenty campaigners. Michael Hulls stressed that we want to sort fact from fiction on how legislation affects the lamps that we need and what the timescale is for withdrawal of tungsten.
Laurence Barling, Technical Manager of the LIA, explained that legislation is progressing from non-directional lamps to include some directional lamps next year. However, many of our lamps are protected, as they are non-domestic.
Specific examples of domestic lamps as tabled by Mark Jonathan were vulnerable because LED alternatives are being developed and marketed. However, Philips is worried at the speed of banning [Hardly!] (complete in some cases by 2016) because of the problem of dimming the replacements.
A discussion ensued concerning dimming and questioning the will of Philips and others to continue to manufacture tungsten domestic lamps for specialist markets.

[Presumably here as elsewhere Philips seeks bans on all their less profitable varieties to block others from making them - which is understandable, but should not get political backing]


Meeting 2: Brussels, 21 June
This was a short exploratory meeting between Ruben Kubiak, the Official of the European Commission (EC) who is responsible for the Regulations on Ecodesign of Lamps, and Simon Pike, ALD member. Simon was able to demonstrate that LED is not always an adequate substitute for tungsten. From this initial understanding, the following points emerged:
• We need to make specific requests to the EC and others. Blanket modification of regulations will not happen.
• Our use of domestic lamps for theatrical use can be protected within the regulations.
Simon then gave a good explanation of the differences in scope of the non-directional and directional regulations. Simon gives some useful websites for further research and four specific recommendations, as follows:
1) Lighting designers need to define their objectives in terms that are understandable to policy-makers (in particular, the European Commission).
2) The ALD should become involved in the quarterly UK government meetings on Ecodesign (I will investigate further).
3) Investigate whether PEARLE would be an appropriate body, and willing, to represent the interests of the lighting community on the Commission Ecodesign Forum. Do any Save Tungsten campaigners have contacts in SOLT or TMA? Paule Constable is currently in touch with SOLT.
4) Investigate whether lack of knowledge is discouraging theatre suppliers from selling lamps as “special purpose lamps”. If this is a problem, consider developing a guidance note.
“Our Man in Brussels” will prove invaluable as this saga unfolds.
Thanks to John Gorse and Philips for their contribution to clarifying the situation.

May follow up with these in separate post or posts to prevent undue length here:

Philips reaction, June 2013
Philips allays theatre designers’ fears over future of tungsten lamps
eg John Gorse, technical marketing manager at Philips, said that – in terms of the legislation – "the amount of products that are going to be specifically affected is nothing really to worry about"... "loopholes in current legislation banning tungsten bulbs for the domestic market enable theatre designers to access lamps that might be banned in the UK." Ah yes, sounds familiar.

Also, UK lighting designer and EU consultative "stakeholder" Kevan Shaw of savethebulb.org has on his company blog a good post about this, describing the limitations of LEDs in substituting for Tungsten lamps for concert lighting.

Regarding the EU consultations mentioned, there will be a public consultative meeting November 25 in Brussels about the general EU incandescent lighting regulations as introduced 2009 on domestic markets.
More information about it will be seen here and on the Facebook group that relates to this blog:
Incandescent Light Bulb Alliance (http://facebook.com/groups/bulballiance)

The EU Beginning to Waver on Light Bulb Regulations?

Lighting designer Kevan Shaw (who runs the Save the Bulb blog) knows more than most about the goings-on in Brussels:
He is a recognised stakeholder, regularly consulted over regulations, and has been a participant in relevant meetings for several years.
If anyone can stick a finger in the air and see what way the wind is blowing, it's someone like him.

Interesting therefore his last post, which almost answers his own previous one, that called for the EU to take note of the irregularities and lack of savings evidence from hitherto implemented regulations (and which was also covered here, see "SaveTheBulb on The Incandescent Light Bulb Ban").

His last post then from October 2, slight editing
(photo, also from blog post: Storm Clouds Above Wind Farm; Margarie Card, Pikes Peak Camera Club)

Political Storm Clouds

It seems that there is a growing political backlash against the EU lamp ban legislation.
We noticed that the forthcoming reflector lamp and associated items that was due to be implemented in September 2013 has failed to be published and a recent question to the EU was answered with a holding reply saying that there would be further information in the middle of October.

A fellow traveller, Rik Gheysens has posted a comprehensive listing of questions raised by MEPs of all parties and across Europe about the ban in the impacts along with links to the replies. This make interesting if somewhat sad reading as most of the answers just do not provide any real information, in fact the stamp of bureaucracy is very clear in the language and tone.

We can hope that DG Energy is now beginning to get the message that this rule making is both unpopular and infective in achieving the aims of energy saving.
While I doubt that they have the appetite to rescind the ban we can hope that they will not try and push further and get rid of Halogen energy savers in the review of non directional lamps next year, we may also hope that they do not implement the reflector lamps ban as it is currently drafted, I guess we may know more in a couple of weeks.

Kevan Shaw
October 2, 2012

The point about continuing to allow halogen lamp replacements,
otherwise due to be banned by 2016 on the Class "B" requirement is a good one
(EU rules: http://ceolas.net/#li01inx)

No doubt there are always egos involved in backing down, but a good compromise is surely to allow the similar halogen lighting, including the frosted varieties, banned at the outset for no good energy saving reason.
[Rather, it was simply to force EU citizens to buy fluorescent lighting when clear transparent lighting was not seen as of essence... though the regulators put it conversely, that they showed magnanimity in allowing clear lighting a little longer..."ye pays yer money and ye take yer choice" on what to believe].

Peter Stenzel Light Bulb Site Update

Austria based Peter Stenzel's now revised site at Gluehbirne.ist.org ("Argumente für die Glühbirne", "Arguments in support of incandescent light bulbs") is an excellent resource, whether you live in Europe or not, as already linked in the Resource Links section.
Note that it includes many more sections than may seem from below, including well illustrated lighting comparisons, special sections on CFL and LED issues, regulatory news, campaigns/petitions in different countries, and more, also from outside the EU.

Google translated English version (linked pages from that should also automatically be translated, to a reasonably understandable English).


Part-view of the front page in German embedded below


 
 

Howard Brandston Senate Testimony and Follow-Up

 
Updated May 3 with direct link to video clip of his testimony

Well known New York lighting designer Howard Brandston has been covered before in the excellent work he is doing to try to save the availability of regular incandescent light bulbs in the USA and indeed elsewhere.

A lot of his good defensive argumentation has arisen from participating in the Senate hearing
hearing in March 2011, of the B.U.L.B. (Better Use of Light Bulbs!) bill s395 seeking to repeal the federal ban on regular incandescent light bulbs.


Click to go to the Committee Video of the Hearing:



Alternative links to the video, on Committee site or on C-Span

Link clip of Howard's speech,
and the support shown to him by one of the committee members:
http://www.c-spanarchives.org/program/S39&start=6050&end=6500

The full hearing record can be seen here (pdf document).
Howard's testimony begins on page 53 of the testimony (page 57 in the pdf document).

As seen, it includes both the version as spoken, and the fuller submitted written version
The written version is also handily available on Kevan Shaw's Save the Bulb site, here, posted march 13 2011, copied below, with my highlighting.

Howard Brandston’s testimony to the US Senate
Howard presented the following very eloquent testimony to the US Senate Energy Committee on 10 March 2011, It states the case beautifully:

Chairman Bingaman and ranking member Murkowski, thank you for inviting me to testify today in support of S395, The Better Use of Light Bulbs Act.
My name is Howard Brandston – I am a lighting designer with over 50 years experience and have completed nearly 3000 projects in approximately 60 countries. I am particularly proud of the work I did for my country, the United States of America. A short list that of that work you might recognize includes: The US Pavilion, Expo 70, Japan; Women’s Rights National Historic Park, Seneca Falls, NY; Memorial for Women in Military Service, Arlington National Cemetery, Washington DC and the relighting of the Statue of Liberty, New York City, NY.

I am here today to ask that you revisit a portion of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 that provides for a de facto ban on the traditional incandescent light bulbs. I firmly believe that the restrictions put on incandescent lamps will have a significant negative impact on almost every residence in our country. I believe how one lives in their home is a decision that rests with the occupant and is not the purview of the government. I believe this violates the very principles upon which this nation was founded and I, as a devoted citizen, am most proud of, our freedom of choice in our personal lives.

What disturbs me even more is that the restrictions placed on incandescent lamps will not save enough energy to be worth the expense and the risks that every person in America will be subjected to. Some of the most knowledgeable people I know have begun to stockpile a lifetime supply of incandescent lamps to protect themselves from the need to use Compact Fluorescent Lamps. The public at large does not understand the problems as these professionals do. And further, the misleading claims made about the benefits of the lamp technologies that are touted as beneficial replacements seduce people to purchase these products. We have over 100 years experience using incandescent lamps. By comparison we have very little experience using the new light sources – especially in residences.

You will hear a wide range of statistical data of energy saved in comparative terms that give the illusion of saving energy and the environment- the plain truth is – according to the Energy Information Administration – only 3.6% of total energy is consumed by incandescent lamps. So you will save some portion of that miniscule number. But I ask, when you enter everyone’s home, and subject them and their families to the list of potential consequences I will list, is that worth it? I do not believe it is.

Consider the following:

• Lighting is not a product – it is a system designed for a purpose.
This act separates one component of that system, the light source, and that destroys the success of the final design.

• Although lamp manufacturers are developing new sources to compete with the incandescent lamp, if they are so superior they should be able to compete in the open marketplace where price will be a factor. Alternative lighting to the incandescent lamp will have to be worth price differential.

• The Compact Fluorescent Lamp contains mercury. This 2007 light bulb standard brings a deadly poison into every residence in our nation.

• The plastic lamp jacket warning is totally insufficient to protect the user. It is a cop-out to protect the manufacturer.

• We do not have enough knowledge of the potential consequences of being continuously exposed to the electromagnetic fields Compact Fluorescent Lamps emit. There are millions of people with Lupus, an auto-immune disease. Exposure to low doses of light from these lamps causes a severe rash. There are over one hundred auto immune diseases.

• Currently you come home and your old fashioned incandescent lamps provide a safe, flattering comfortable scene. You can easily dim these old lamps and the light they emit becomes even more inviting.

• The compact fluorescent lamp does not dim well and the color of the light it emits deteriorates as you continue to dim it.

• If you do not install these lamps in appropriate fixtures they might cause a fire. Save energy by incinerating part of your home.

• The cost to retrofit your lighting to use the new light sources may be beyond the financial and technical capacity of most home owners.

• This Standard sends lamp-manufacturing jobs to China.


I have a particular passion for saving energy – I was a member of the committee that wrote the first energy code for the USA in 1975. My contribution was the mathematical formula that set the upper power limit for lighting in that code. It was a performance based equation – not a product restricting simplistic solution. The Energy Information Administration noted that by the year 2000 it cut the energy used for lighting to pre-1970 levels. It cut in less than half the energy used for lighting by 1990.
The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 ignores the fundamentals of good lighting practice and intrudes on our ability to choose how we live. Please respect the privacy of our homes, allow people their indispensible right to choose how they live and light their homes and eliminate the restrictions on the incandescent lamp.

Thank You. I look forward to answering any questions you may have

Since then, Howard has followed up with a good lengthier rundown of issues arising from the Hearing - including answering questions put to him by Senators.

Copy below from his website commentary section,
direct link to the document, alt link.






Comment

I started going through a lengthy comment - so many good points there - but it is probably easier to see how most of them find echo in the The Deception: The Arguments behind the Light Bulb Ban page (regular readers might notice I renamed it... calling it "The Deception behind Banning Light Bulbs" led to too many assuming it was yet another "Hey this is not really a ban" type of statement!).

Indeed the "this is not a ban, you can still buy replacement incandescents like halogens, for regular use" type of argument predictably resurfaces.

It should be noted that those touted replacements will in fact be banned too
in phase 2 of EISA that kicks in after 2014, that politicians fail or conveniently forget to take account of http://ceolas.net/#li01inx

Besides, the Halogen and other replacement type incandescents have already existed for some time, and are not popular with either consumers or politicians, as they cost much more for marginal energy savings, so politicians have not pushed their use with subsidies etc as with "energy saving" fluorescent bulbs (CFLs).

The replacement incandescents also have differences in light quality, in running hotter, and so on, compared to traditional simple incandescent bulbs, and in the EU are hardly available anyway, CFL usage being pushed also in the in-store display of supermarkets and general stores.

Finally, one has to be aware that the manufacturers supporting the ban would hardly
seek to further improve incandescent technology, given the more profitable alternatives,
as covered in the linked Deception rundown.
In the EU, the promised Philips Halogen Ecosaver improvement was quietly shelved, once the ban was in place.


To take up another point,

Cooper goes on to say, ―Our analysis of the energy efficiency gap identifies a number of market imperfections that cause the market to undersupply energy efficiency… Standards are the ideal way to address these market imperfections

It is odd how the Consumer association representative is so against consumer choice.
His repeated arguments, also in other statements, is of "market failure",
which he then basically clarifies (put more simply) as
"people won't buy expensive bulbs even if they save money by doing so"

Of course, there are other reasons to choose a light bulb than to save money,
and as Howard also goes into, overall savings are much smaller than supposed, for many reasons.

On a more basic market level, people also don't keep buying cheap products that don't satisfy their needs, while expensive alternatives are not avoided either - or no-one would be buying woollen coats, Energizer/Duracell longlasting batteries, certain washing up liquids etc "expensive to buy but cheap in the long run" - and properly marketed as such.

Mr Cooper is even wrong, if he had been right(!):
That is, if it was really necessary to interfere in the market,
then a tax on incandescents could subsidise lower prices on CFLs and LEDs,
equilibrating the market, making money for politicians (for other or additional spending),
and keep choice,
while not "just hitting people with taxes" in that they would have cheaper alternatives than before.

No, I don't expect Mr Cooper understands that either...
and taxation is not justifiable of itself anyway (if a specific light bulb policy really was needed, stimulating competition would be better also to save energy, as in the Deception rundown explanation) - it simply is just another reason the arguments don't hold up...

(I will likely edit and brush up on this post in coming days)
 

More Fun and Games in the European Union

Updated March 30, first posted March 29

While people like me simply comment on light bulb issues,
we should acknowledge our heoroes on the coal face (pun intended), like Howard Brandston in the USA and Kevan Shaw in bonnie Scotland, who actually have to deal with the intransigient legislators!

As covered previously,
Howard was involved in the hearings preceding the US 2007 legislation, and has
commented about it in a worthy e-book read (co-authored with Michael P Leahy, as reviewed).
He has continued to be a lone voice among invited speakers at Congress hearings, such as the one by the Senate Energy Committee last year, and is currently getting a Facebook campaign together, for the general public as well as those with special interest in the issue.

Meanwhile Kevan has do battle with a never ending stream of EU regulation proposals (who knew there were so many lamp types ;-)), moreover written in incomprehensible English, as some of us have seen.
And, similarly to Howard, he is not just as a lighting designer "stakeholder", but also more broadly defending the needs on the public, including those with light sensitivity issues.


Before getting into this, to those not familiar with the EU:
The basic workings of the EU is covered in the introductory section to the Ceolas.net coverage of how the EU Light Bulb Ban came about, "Fun and Games in the European Union", http://ceolas.net/#euban.

So day-to-day it is run by something called the European Commission,
headed up by an unelected body of political cronies called Commissioners, with immense legislative and executive power - they have sole right to initiate legislation concerning all EU members, and also to see that the legislation is carried out.
[The mis-named "European Parliament" is basically a glorified talking shop, and like the nominally overseeing Council of Ministers, usually rubber stamp Commission decisions, with some comment or other addendum, to justify their existence.
Also, because Council decisions are more and more taken by qualified majority, any objecting party has to win over others, which becomes even less likely in the scenario where ministers jet in at regular intervals to sign off on reams of legislation that their COREPER bureaucrat armies stick under their noses]

It should be said that the Commission system had a certain logic when it was known as the High Authority, overseeing coal and steel production for 6 member states, but hardly nowadays.
A particular problem is that money keeps going missing - literally.
The Commission's own accountants have refused to sign off on the accounts for nearly 2 decades now! 2011 report, BBC report in 2007 here.
Insider critical accounts by those directly involved in EU accounting include Marta Andreasen, "Brussels Laid Bare", Paul van Buitenen, "Blowing the Whistle: Fraud in the European Commission", Bernard Connolly, "The Rotten Heart of Europe".
Needless to say they were bumped off rather than praised, while their corrupt masters either stayed in their jobs or got fat pay-offs for their Great Service.

So why do national governments play ball?
Because they also gain in the way the financing works.
The EU Budget was set up as a Gross rather than Net payment system, meaning that net gain countries like Greece make nominal initial contributions, basically to make them feel equal to others.
So countries pay in gross amounts, which they then do everything they can to claw back in all sorts of ways, in agricultural and local spending.
Needless to say the less clearly the money is sloshed around, the better for all concerned.
It is made worse still in that the EU, to win hearts and minds with minimal financial input, often requires "matching local funds" for local projects that they then stick their flag on and brag about - a funding mishmash that again makes auditing difficult.

So it is a Big Circle Game, and a pointless and enormously wasteful one, because the Budget system could of course be run on a Net Pay system: So for example Country X does not pay in 1 billion and desperately claws back 300 million, but simply pays in 700 million for pure EU cross-border project spending - and is responsible for its own local spending, therefore with less waste.
Put another way, it means that all EU Projects are directly financed and monitored instead.

The Commission has lots of Commissioners to satisfy 27 countries, giving obscure "matchstick-making" type responsibilities (look up ec.europa.eu) so everyone has a hook to hang their hat on (with lots of side-hooks for "directorates", departments, committees, and hangaround friends and cronies).

One eager committee is the Committee concerned with Eco-Design in the EU (suitably Orwellian sounding), setting energy efficiency standards on all kinds of products, including lighting.
It should be said that in a free market economy it is perfectly right and understandable to set standards so that products may be graded and more easily traded and sold, with everyone knowing what they are getting.
However, that of course does not necessitate banning products, that are otherwise safe to use.
The lack of logic in all other respects in which the Eco-design committee operates is seen in the Deception arguments 13-point rundown, as seen below or on separate page.

For some kind of legitimacy, this Committee, like other EU institutional organs, pretends - pretends seems to be the operative word - to take into account the wishes of "stakeholders", those with an interest in the legislation at hand (which, interestingly, is never assumed to be the ordinary consumer - the way that EU institutions deal with EU citizens is also dealt with in the account of how the EU ban on light bulbs came about, on the Ceolas.net site).

As a topical point, now on 1 April 2012 with big fanfare the EU will open its "Citizen's Initiative", a 1 million citizen petition system which was also cited as a means for those against the light bulb ban to voice their protest. More about this, and the initiative itself on the Ceolas.net site, http://ceolas.net/#citizenInit. The official EU site about it is here.
As seen the rigorous conditions and all the data required (name, address, place and date of birth, passport number etc for signatures) makes it next to impossible - and then the Commission can reject and alter any proposal anyway!

It is called "European Democracy", folks.




Enter Stakeholder Kevan.

From his blog, the following interesting posts,
edited extracts.

From March 27 post:

Bye bye T12 Fluorescent Lamps

While there has been much concern over the majority of the EcoDesign legislation on lighting emanating from Europe, there has been little attention paid to the impacts of the “Tertiary Lamps” rules.

April 1 2012 sees the banning in Europe of the manufacture and sale of T12 fluorescent tubes.
There are many millions of these older lamps and fitting still in daily use so this legislation will impact on many small businesses who are faced with having to change not just lamps but all their fittings. These lamps are also still in widespread use in the transport sector and can still be seen in London Tube trains of the 1960s and railway carriages in many countries dating from similar periods. So should we welcome this necessity to change at this time?

Kevan seems willing to concede an energy saving justification to their ban compared to other lighting, but the same principles clearly apply to them, in that energy saving mandates change product characteristics, that overall energy savings are limited, and that any "low price giving market failure" argument does not hold up and can be dealt with by several other policies if it did, as per the argumentation rundown on this blog.

T12 types are also being banned in the USA from July 14 2012: more.
I will likely follow this up in another post.


Earlier, more obvious hassle with the European Union...
(amazing news: those who run the EU don't like criticism - let alone any open debate)

Tuesday, February 28, 2012
They knoweth not what they do!

I have upset the EU by blogging the impact of the draft legislation on reflector lamps!

I received a call on Friday from Andras Toth, policy officer at the Directorate General for Energy [and overseeing the Eco-Design Committee] in response to articles in the Daily Mail and Daily Express last week.
He believed that my previous blog on this issue had been the source of these, as usual inflammatory, articles.
It was clear from the conversation that there was no intention to ban MR16, AR111 and other lamps and he felt that the provision for continuing IRC and Xenon filled versions, at least to 2016, answered that. Basically this provision does mean that some of these lamps will still be available, albeit at inflated prices, it does not, however, do anything to ensure that the current huge range of light outputs, beam angles and reflector options will still be available after September 2013.

Press statements from ELC and the Commission have tried to smooth out the situation however the lack of understanding is highlighted by the headline picture in the Commission’s article being a mains voltage rather than a low voltage lamp!

The bottom line remains that we do not know what products will be available after the September 2013 cut off. Requests for information that would enable me to actually work out the “Maximum Energy Efficiency Index” (MEEI) to both lamp manufacturers and the ELC remain unanswered at this date. Until we have this information for ALL currently available lamps no one can claim that lamps are not being banned by this legislation!




Monday, February 06, 2012
New Year New Ban!

MR16 and AR111 Low Voltage Tungsten Halogen Lamps to be banned in September 2013 with more efficient Infra-Red coated types not guaranteed beyond 2016.

This is the proposal in the Draft Legislation on reflector lamps that landed on my desk on January 24. Since then I have been trying to make sense of the implications. To be frank the actual proposal has come as quite a shock after being involved in both consultative and technical sessions on this over the past 3 years. During the most recent technical session in September we thought that the message had got across that there is no reasonable replacement for these LVTH lamps in the market now or in the foreseeable future that will meet the requirements for the professional applications . We also thought that the efficiency requirements would be set to deal with the older and less efficient classes of lamps such as the R40 , PAR38, PAR 30 and the like and permit the LVTH lamps to continue in use to replace the more critical applications for these technologies producing energy savings of 50% or more!

The delay in posting of this blog is that I have been trying to work out exactly what lamps are critically affected.
The problem here is that the energy performance criteria have been set around an arbitrary value of Lumens in a 90 degree cone from the centre of the lamp. This value is just not something that is published by lamp manufacturers. It has no sense or use in the consideration of reflector lamps and can only be properly measured using a goniphotometer, a seriously expensive and relatively rare piece of kit! Again this was pointed out to the technical meeting particularly by the individual countries representatives who will need to use these to undertake market surveillance in order to enforce these regulations.

So I am at this point unable to determine what lamps fall foul of this newly invented and complex metric, the “Maximum Energy Efficiency Index” (MEEI) all I can rely on are the statements in the guidance notes:

Stage 1 (2013)
Poor conventional low voltage halogen lamps (D class) are phased out even at low lumen outputs already in Stage 1.

Phases out quality conventional low voltage halogens starting with high lumen outputs (12V 50W MR16 lamp). Leaves only B-class enhanced lamps (infrared coated or xenon filled)

Stage 2 (2014)
Completes the phase-out started in Stage 1, now applying to low lumen output lamps.

The legislation will be reviewed in 2015.
Meanwhile the lamp industry has no guarantee that TH IRC lamps will be permitted beyond 2016 therefore have no guaranteed return on investment to buy the necessary machinery for the IR coating process. At any event the technical meeting was advised that both the machinery and coating materials have become a monopoly supply in Europe so prices are very likely to increase significantly in the short and medium term.

The legislation also limits efficiencies of LED solutions to points that just cannot be achieved by high quality colour rendering devices and really fails to address the problems in achieving colour consistency and clean narrow beam angles. The meeting in September was also told that in particular MR16 LED lamp replacements could not have their lives guaranteed as components in the integral power supplies are running beyond their design limits.

So we are now in a position where we cannot determine the MEEI of currently available lamps so we just do not know how to correctly advise our clients for whom we have specified LVTH solutions over the past 25 years. As and when the lamp manufacturers provide responses to this I will update this information.

Kevan Shaw 6 February 2012

Regarding the ELC manufacturer association comments

As an industry we are confident that in the future there will remain an adequate choice of high quality, low voltage lamps to satisfy different consumer budgets and needs.

Hardly surprising, for more about the ELC see http://ceolas.net/#ELC.

The mentioned EU press release predictably denies there is a problem, re “press rumors” that low voltage halogens are going to be banned.

As usual they give the impression that they are doing everyone a “favour” by enforcing lower energy usage, ignoring that people can choose it themselves if they want, since of course it also changes lamp characteristics as well as lamp cost.


I am clearly biased against both the EU (as currently run) and its regulations.
However, one can also base such criticism on references and official data, and in the case here, on other ways to achieve any energy saving objectives, even if such objectives themselves are questionable.
 

User Testimonials

 
Send Your Light Bulbs to Washington, February 2 post

The comprehensive website Light Bulb Choice has a new testimonial section.

The debate is often political in nature, but one should not forget the impact these and other society regulations can have on people.
That includes the choice of what lighting to use from comfort and enjoyment aspects, since the smooth broad spectrum light quality of incandescents is not found in CFL or LED lighting, with their more spiky emission spectra, a more "unnatural" light in that regard.
But it also includes the deeper problem for some people, who suffer from light sensitivity conditions, such as some migraine or skin sensitivity disorders, or other electromagnetic radiation sensitivity.
See http://ceolas.net/#li18x onwards.

Politicians are of course sometimes aware of this in talking of how "Joe X" told them this-or-that in how "Washington rules are bothering them" - so such testimonials can be a further reference for them.

in the UK, Savethebulb.org as seen also works with light sensitivity groups such as the Spectrum Alliance. They also have a page with people's stories.


The common retort is that "incandescents are not banned", you can "still buy Halogen incandescent replacements", and the like.

Certainly, the lighting choice reduction is not as drastic as some critics would have it.
However, although in the short term, also from stocking up, the lack of choice will not be so evident, it should be noted that not only will incandescent technology be effectively banned for ordinary lamps by the ever more stringent phase out standards that will come to apply in the USA (after 2014) or the EU (by 2016) in enacted legislation, but the light quality of replacement incandescents is somewhat different too, they run hotter etc, and of course cost much more for marginal savings.
See for example the Freedom Light Bulb "Yes it is a ban" post.

 

Resource News Update

 

  #   #   #   #   #   #

Update Tuesday January 10:

(Last update... will return with a new fill of resource news in a week or two, as appropriate!)


Peter Stenzel has noted (translation) the Aero marketing of 20 000 hr life incandescent bulbs
As he says (somewhat adjusted and corrected from the Google translation)

According to their website, their 20 000 hours bulbs have the following advantages:
* Extra-durable filament
* Additional protection against vibrations
* Extra-strength to absorb surges

1 pack of 6 bulbs costs only $ 11.99.

Aero-Tech Light Bulb Co. was founded in 1987 by Ray M. Schlosser as a company producing special lighting. They have over the years developed a complete line of 20,000 hours bulb in many shapes and sizes, from 11-200 watts, and the company is the only manufacturer of 20,000 hours bulb that is still left in America.

More from Halogenica

LED drawbacks
"summary about solid state lighting a.k.a. LED and what has transpired over the last couple of years"
Observations on different LED types, and lifespan and safety issues


U.S. Incandescent ban – will it save the planet (and my economy)?
A good updated rundown from a household savings perspective.

One might add, when looking at this from the viewpoint of whether regulations are justified or not, that society regulations are, or should be, about society savings - not individual savings
(unless "interference in people's lives" is a primary government objective!).

On that basis the percentage electricity and energy savings are even smaller, since household use is only a relatively small part of grid electricity use.
(and see from the blog post that I could decrease the overall 1-2% grid electricity savings I keep referring to!)



Update Monday January 9:

Also good to see Halogenica back in action, as always with an insightful blog post.
The latest, yesterday, covers a Q & A about the US incandescent ban, on to what extent it is a ban, the lamps affected, about halogen replacements and where to get them, and background issues to the ban.


Excerpts, adding to information previously posted here
(the original text also includes a lot of useful links regarding the below text)

If you want incandescent you can still buy 72 watt tungsten halogen Energy Savers and get as much light as from a 100 watt lamp (see my Halogen Energy Savers review). If you can find them. Amazon sells them, Home Depot only have reflector lamps, Lowe’s have more flodlight reflector models, but they can be hard to find in regular stores (ask for them)....
....just a few days ago IKEA proudly announced that they will not sell any incandescent lamps (spinning more-$$$-for-IKEA-from-new-$14-LEDs to sound like “IKEA-saving-the-planet”). More retailers may follow, regardless of how the dispute ends.

Also, regarding the "Blame Bush" jibe at Republicans... the ban was a bi-partisan job
back in 2007:

The original light bulb legislation was written by Fred Upton (R-MI) and Jane Harmon (D-CA) says CNS News.

“In 2007, Harman and Upton introduced bipartisan, bicameral legislation–which became law as part of the Energy Independence and Security Act–that bans the famously inefficient 100-watt incandescent light bulb by 2012, phases out remaining inefficient light bulbs by 2014, and requires that light bulbs be at least three times as efficient as today’s 100-watt incandescent bulb by 2020,” explained a 2009 press release put out by the two House members.

The bill was passed under the Republican Bush administration and signed by president G.W. Bush in 2007. President Obama and the Democratic party have embraced it. However, Upton later changed his mind, as did many other Republicans (and many didn’t think it was a good idea in the first place).

As a comment, and as I also tend to leave out, less common 75 Watt bulbs are also banned from Jan 1 2012 in the Act (in fact, any regular incandescent over 72W, Energy Dept info).

//
Post update correction: Halogenica was right.
The absurdity, that 75 W "dim" bulbs are allowed but 75 W "bright" ones are banned!
This is because the regulations are based on lumen (brightness) rating, rather than energy usage.
The above Dept of Energy link seems to indicate a 72 W maximum, but several other official documents clarify the legality of regular 75 W bulbs, until 1 Jan 2013.
See updated comment to USA regulation on this http://ceolas.net/#li01inx
//


Also, as Halogenica says the above is only about the first phase of the ban, the Halogen replacements will effectively come to be banned too, in the less well known second phase after 2014 that also forms part of the Act, on the 45 lumen per Watt end regulation (they typically only reach 22-25 lumen per Watt), as covered before in this blog.


  #   #   #   #   #   #




I am going to do a weekly or so look at what others are doing, particularly the linked resources...see how it goes.
(May update somewhat, ahead of the next relevant post)


Howard Brandston will soon have an article on the lack of logic in targeting mercury thermometers, yet not doing anything about CFL mercury (as I understand).
In a coming Mondo magazine article (probably either this or this link)

Kevan's blog is as seen just updated, looking at Lighting Regulatory Landscape for 2012, with a European perspective (extract, my highlight)

2012 will also see the beginning of [European Union] consultation on the first revision of the Ecodesign regulations for domestic lamps part 1, aka the Incandescent Lamp Ban.

It is vital that the Lighting Design Community engage with this process and do not get left out like we did at the beginning of the first round of this legislation.
From what we have seen and learned it is now vital that we secure the future of the Halogen energy saver lamp.

At present we are beginning to see the problems I and others have forecast with the disposal of CFLs. We are also seeing increasing numbers of people with non specific photosensitive disorders coming forward. These people can not live with CFLs or LEDs and so far there is insufficient research to understand what this apparently broad range of disorders are caused by though all seem to be able to live with incandescent light.

...good point about saving halogens, also on a practical note as to what is achievable.

Trishah at Light Bulb Choice covering the latest delays in Canada as well as how the Republican amendment affects, or does not affect, the 2012 situation.

The Montana permaculture people has an extensive 2 hour podcast on CFL issues
- interesting, coming from avowed environmentalists...

Send Your Light Bulbs To Washington report on a humorous take on CFLs, with a mock CFL sales campaign, a spoof that nevertheless also shows up several problems with CFLs that don't often get highlighted.

Peter Stenzel's Gluehbirne site, news section (translated: from German, here) also covers the Canadian ban delay, and has LED test report information.

 

New Book on Home Lighting

 
Update 17 May 2012 with video promotion by the author, see end section

No, not a book lamenting the demise of the simple cheap bright broad spectrum Edison light bulb - rather the opposite, but hang on...



Book Review

Losing Edison
By James Bedell

Available via Amazon for Kindle reader around 11 dollars, other options click on image or the book title above.
Print-On-Demand version coming, says the author.

Since this book was written to show that phasing-out incandescents does not matter in making good lighting choices I was a bit sceptical, on getting a copy for review....

As the author introduces himself on his website
"It is my belief that all good lighting design must be sustainable lighting design."

But don't be deceived by the title,
it does therefore go way beyond that issue.

The author says it was his first attempt at any public writing longer than a blog post, but this certainly does not come across.
It is also well illustrated, both with useful functional drawings by the author, and photographs.

While on the content side I (and others) would argue that with incandescents one can make even better choices in some described situations, it is really a book about understanding lighting as a whole, and about how lighting designers reach their decisions.
As such it is of value not only to anyone making lighting choices, but also I would suggest to lighting designers themselves, in the breadth of the issues raised, which includes a very useful concluding part about how lighting designer work fits in with architects, interior designers, builders...


But to take first things first, in this book of three parts.

Part I,
usefully covers definitions such as lumens (which everyone will have to deal with rather than Watts), color temperature, color rendering index (CRI), and their roles.
It also covers Halogens, CFLs and LEDs in that respect, with good tips on what to look for in buying them, depending on the purpose they are for
- and with a good US Department of Energy Lighting Facts Label illustration.

EISA specifications follow, that is until 2014
(EISA specifications will also rule out the replacement Halogens in following years,
but fortunately for the sake of lighting advice, given also that the author is not overly fond of their still relatively high metered electricity use, Halogens are included in the book).

Then, different uses of different lighting and typical running costs based on defined electricity rates finish the first part.



In Part II,
the three basic concepts of residential lighting are covered,
ambient, accent, and task lighting,
with explanations of the principles involved in reaching relevant decisions of what
to use and how to use it.

Apart from the various types of lamp lighting and uses,
natural light and fire in various forms are included too, in a comprehensive overview.

Lighting control is not forgotten,
explaining the three major types of control systems:
local dimming/switching, single area controls, and whole-home systems.

As the author says, a common failure in lighting control is that the controls, whether a slide dimmer or a keypad, are misplaced in the room.
Ever on the sustainability note (which recurs with useful savings tips throughout),
a reminder how dimming makes lighting more sustainable.

Again,
for completion, outdoor Lighting is also covered:
Acknowledging that not everyone has such surroundings (or control of them),
entryways driveways and Walkways, patios and decks, trees/shrubbery are mentioned:
"Outdoor and landscape lighting is probably the least thought-out aspect of residential lighting for most homes."



The final Part III,
then takes a given lighting idea from concept to implementation.

Or, to put it as an edited extract:
"Having a lighting designer on board, let's figure out who else should
be on your team. I'm going to assume that all projects have an
electrical contractor and, in many cases, a general contractor.
Since we're talking about lighting design here, I've broken down potential
projects into three basic categories, which will serve as a rough
guide to who should be on your team:
1. Re-lighting a room. Here's a good opportunity to work with a
lighting designer; no other designers/collaborators are necessary.
2. Redecorating a room. If there are one or more spaces in your home
you'd like to redecorate, it's time to bring in an interior designer.
3. Total Renovation. If you are gutting one or multiple sections of
your home, you'll need the most complete team. Here's where bringing
in an architect."

Helpful advice on finding good architects, interior designers and lighting designers follows, along with choosing and working with project managers,
creating project budgets - and indeed sticking to them, and to any time limit that may apply.

Again, with practical and easily forgotten tips,
such as designing with an eye toward maintenance,
and guides to buying light fixtures as well as light bulbs.

The author also helpfully offers to give further advice to readers, in respect of his time.


To sum up then,
do not be misled (one way or the other) by the title of the book.
Edison is still included, of sorts, in describing the use of Halogen incandescent derivatives, and the book usefully covers home lighting in all its aspects.

(Look forward to that whiskey bottle now James ;-) )


Here is an update video by James himself talking about his book, including promotion price $4.99 for May 2012:




 

"Ban" or "Energy Efficency Measure"? Still wrong either way...

 
Increasingly, a lot of light bulb regulation supportive media are emphasising that "it is not a ban", just a great measure to make light bulbs more energy efficient.

A recent example is the Media Matters website.

Mediamatters.org, November 28 post:
Right-Wing Media Continue To Mislead On Nonexistent Light Bulb "Ban"

With some provisions of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 scheduled to go into effect on January 1, right-wing media have revived the false claim that the government is "banning" incandescent light bulbs. In fact, the law simply restricts the sale of inefficient bulbs and has led companies to develop numerous alternatives, including energy-efficient incandescents.

... going on with Republican media excerpts and rebuttals

See the more extensive earlier post on why it is a ban, and why it is wrong as such.



A "Ban"?

While some may welcome it, it is obviously a ban, in the sense that not allowing products that don't meet a certain standard is the same as banning them.

But that is not all.
It is effectively also a ban, on all known incandescent replacements for ordinary ("general service") household bulbs, including the touted Halogen types, by 2020 at the latest.

Besides, as also seen from all the pre-existing CFL programs, the temporarily allowed Halogen-type incandescent alternatives are less pushed and less available (and in any case are different to simple incandescents in light quality etc, as well as costing much more for marginal savings, which is why few buy them voluntarily).

Moreover, MediaMatters, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and similar defenders of the ban, for some reason choose to leave out part of the 2007 EISA specifications...

"The Secretary of Energy shall report to Congress on the time frame for commercialization of lighting to replace incandescent and halogen incandescent lamp technology.
If the final rule does not produce savings that are greater than or equal to the savings from a minimum efficacy standard of 45 lumens per watt, effective beginning January 1, 2020, the Secretary shall prohibit the sale of any general service lamp that does not meet a minimum efficacy standard of 45 lumens per watt"

EIA at Dept of Energy confirms:
"The second tier of efficiency improvements becomes effective by 2020, essentially requiring general service bulbs to be as efficient as today's CFLs"

No incandescent light bulb on the market, none of the new "Ecosaver" halogen or other incandescent types meet these requirements for general service type lamps. Period!
Anyone seen a "Halogen" rather than "CFL" Government/Industry replacement program?
Since the replacement incandescents politically involve expensive light bulbs with marginal energy savings compared to CFLs, and industrially involve a lack of relative profitability, the likelihood of manufacturers making more energy efficient unprofitable incandescents can be taken as zilch, beyond the immediate trumpeted alternatives offered, that allay consumer fears.

In the already ban legislated EU for example, where the regulation specifications will similarly ban all general service halogen replacements, Philips have abandoned their pre-ban trumpeted plans to improve Ecosaver halogens, beyond the currently available types.

So why would anyone want to make unprofitable incandescents, banned or not?
Because the profitability is relative:
Local startups can easily and cheaply make simple standard incandescents for local consumption and make profits
- the profits are relative, not all manufacturers can afford to make and market complex CFLs or LEDs.
The major manufacturer cartel lobbying going on of course also serves to stop any such upstarts!
Nothing new in this:
See the Phoebus cartel story, how all the major manufacturers got together to maximize standard light bulb lifespans to the 1000 hours that they still are today.


So much for green sustainability thinking, when the green brigade happily seek bans on simple, locally made locally transported and safe-to-use products, light bulbs that themselves of course don't burn coal or release CO2 gas!





"Efficiency"?

The above EIA quotation brought up efficiency:
the eventual requirement of general service bulbs "to be as efficient as today's CFLs".

Well, is it not great that Government is making sure that Americans use more efficient bulbs?

1. "Efficiency" is a relative word:
Energy efficiency is of course not the same as performance efficiency, whether with fast cars or bright light bulbs!

Yes, incandescents use less energy as light:
But are much easier to make bright 100 W + incandescents, than equivalently bright, omnidirectional CFLs or LEDs.
Go figure.


2. The defence "this is not a ban like on some unsafe product, just a measure to make sure the product saves more energy"
This just makes the measure less - not more - legitimate!
Energy saving mandates, whether on buildings, cars, washing machines or light bulbs, also change their characteristics - there is no free lunch.
Besides, why should someone not be allowed to use energy, that they pay for in its provision, as they wish.


3. The idea that Government needs to tell industry to make energy efficient products.

Energy saving products have always been invented, and improved.
Since energy saving is a positive money-saving quality, the energy saving bulbs can be marketed and sold as such (like some batteries, cleaner fluid etc in commercials)... "Expensive to buy but cheap in the long run".
Adequate free market competition is all that is needed: Governments can help new ideas to the market, but no more than that.

So Price is no Excuse:
Even if it was, incandescents could be taxed and help pay for price-lowering subsidies on CFLs and LEDs.
Choice, equilibrated market, energy usage reduction (supposedly), and Government income.
Wrong on free market principles, but obviously better than bans for all sides, not least for cash-strapped pro-ban left-oriented Governments
(Hello California, British Columbia, Washington, Brussels, Canberra...)




Ban or no ban,
end-user product regulations are token measures, certainly so in the case of light bulbs.
Only around 1% of grid electricity usage is theoretically saved from it (Dept of Energy etc sources), and much less in overall energy savings, as covered on http://ceolas.net/#li171x giving more relevant generation, grid distribution and consumption based policies.
Light bulbs don’t burn coal or release any CO2 gas!

Household energy saving does not necessarily save money anyway, at least not overall, to the extent promised:
Electricity companies are allowed to raise prices, or be taxpayer-subsidised, for any lowered electricity sales.
As already seen in CFL programs in California, Ohio etc

It is a new strange kind of political logic, not to allow the sale of simple safe cheap and popular products:
Little point in banning what people don’t actually want!



Worldwide,
Clean Tech Manufacturers of green (often patented) products are happy to avoid market competition, through Government subsidies, product substitution programs and switchover regulations, allowing them to greatly profit in shifting expensive wares which would otherwise not be bought, while singing about "Saving the Earth".

Governments should not keep falling for this idiocy.

Yes, energy saving is good: So deal with it directly then.
Don't keep supporting all your manufacturing buddies (hello, Solyndra) to such end.
 

Getting round the ban?

 

LightBulbChoice.com is coming to life again, a good comprehensive American campaign website with a forum, blog, petition links etc.

Recently they announced the possibility of allowing the incandescents to stay legal by means of adding a device...

"LightBulbChoice.com has recently joined forces with a corporation who has developed a device that makes incandescent bulbs meet the HR 6 energy efficiency guidelines. This product will be ready for market after the first of the year… just in time for the proposed beginning of the implementation of The Ban. With the introduction of this product we now can have our bulbs and save energy too!"

From further information,
"the technology is a diode that attaches the metal bottom on the bulb that turns AC into DC current which immediately reduces the energy consumed by incandescent bulbs by 40%... putting them within the new efficiency guidelines.
The corporation also has the patent on the design to put the diode directly inside the bulbs themselves. First they will come out with the "stick on" version, then they will come out with the actual light bulb."


Comment
Since light output seems lowered at an additional cost, the question is if consumers will go for this (even if legal).

German firms tried what seems to be similar current alteration devices some years ago without popular appeal, while the several other ways to improve incandescent energy efficiency, such as filament alterations and bulb coatings, (more: http://ceolas.net/#li8x) have all similarly lacked appeal, just like the touted halogen replacements.

As covered on the website, the appeal of regular incandescents goes beyond their price, in their simplicity and versatility, but if they are banned, then of course any of these developments might at least offer an alternative.
Unfortunately, EU and USA light bulb energy usage regulations effectively ban halogen and other incandescent replacements before 2016 (EU) and 2020 (USA).

In any case, major manufacturers have shown scant interest in improving incandescents, ever since the Phoebus Cartel limited their lifespans, and are even less likely to do so in the face of alternative profitable CFL and LED sales (cue China comment, previous blog post here).

That said,
if the corporation involved in the above device can temporarily exploit a legal gap in the market to provide a greater incandescent choice, so much the better...
 

Yes it is a Ban!

 

...and it is a ban with the clear intention to favor CFL sales...

Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007/Title III/Subtitle B/Section 321

"The Secretary of Energy shall report to Congress on the time frame for commercialization of lighting to replace incandescent and halogen incandescent lamp technology"

So the intention is clearly stated.

Moreover:

"BACKSTOP REQUIREMENT— if the final rule [not later than January 1, 2017] does not produce savings that are greater than or equal to the savings from a minimum efficacy standard of 45 lumens per watt, effective beginning January 1, 2020, the Secretary shall prohibit the sale of any general service lamp that does not meet a minimum efficacy standard of 45 lumens per watt"

Even the Dept of Energy itself, albeit reluctantly, talks of a second stage ban in this regard: that this
"may qualify as an outright “ban” on certain general service lamps"


The Energy Information Administration at the Department of Energy confirms:
"The second tier of efficiency improvements becomes effective by 2020,
essentially requiring general service bulbs to be as efficient as today's CFLs"
(efficiency being a relative word, energy efficiency of course not being the same as performance efficiency, whether with fast cars or bright light bulbs!)



So, contrary to what Americans are being told:
Federal US (like EU) regulations are not just about banning simple regular incandescent light bulbs, they are also about banning incandescent technology itself for ordinary common light bulbs.

1. Setting a standard that does not allow certain products is of course the same as banning them.

2. Setting energy efficiency standards that (by 2020) does not allow any of today's known or indeed announced ordinary incandescent bulbs - including the Halogens that are usually around 20 lumen per watt, maxing at around 25-30 lumen per watt - is the same as banning them too.

3. To say that if I climb Mount Everest then I can smoke a cigarette,
does not really mean that I can smoke a cigarette...


As it was in the EU, so now in the USA:
The pro-regulation propaganda machine is being rolled out to reassure American consumers - and their political representatives - that the popular light bulbs (8 out of 10 bought) won't go away, that they will still have "lookalike alternatives".

This has recently taken a new frenzy, following the launch of Congressman Joe Barton's repeal ban bill for a vote next week.

The USA Natural Resources Defense Council blog can do as a typical example:

"Supporters of the repeal falsely claim that lighting efficiency standards will ban incandescent light bulbs. But as Rep. Upton knows well, this is claim is simply untrue. Indeed, it’s a whopper. Advanced incandescent bulbs that meet the new efficiency standards – but look and provide light just the same as old-fashioned light bulbs -- are on the market..."

This is therefore not true, standards will be phased in for regular general service household bulbs that no known incandescent - Halogen or otherwise - can meet, and even if they could, they would hardly be made, as incandescent technology is admitted to be unprofitable for the major manufacturers (the industrial politics is covered here).


The further issue that keeps being forgotten,
is that energy standard requirements change product characteristics.
See http://ceolas.net/#cc21x regarding buildings and cars as well as washing machines, TV sets etc apart from light bulbs.
So, for example, a fuel efficient car may be lighter, flimsier, less safe, or slower and more poorly accelerating then the equivalent without fuel efficiency standard.

Similarly, replacement-type Halogen bulbs are still different from common simple incandescents in light quality etc, apart from costing much more for marginal savings, which is why they are not popular either with politicians or consumers:
If people really take up this "offer" to keep using incandescents that are less energy efficient than CFLs or LEDs the national energy savings would be even less than otherwise.

Post-ban EU shows what happens:
The temporarily allowed Halogen type replacements are only available in certain shops - and then only in in limited ranges - following the same bland promises from politicians there.
CFL and to a lesser extent LED sales are massively pushed in general stores, "to save people money", regardless of whether people like them or not (and liking a product does not mean one still can't appreciate other products, for their advantages).

So, people are denied the use of a cheap, safe, useful lighting technology
(and pushed to use questionably safe alternatives),
- an incandescent technology that easily achieves the brightness that is so difficult and expensive with CFLs and LEDs,
- and that also in transparent bulbs finds attractive uses that frosted CFLs and LEDs find impossible to emulate, among many other incandescent advantages.

Note thereby the particular irony that 100W bulbs are the first to be banned, with their simply and easily constructed bright omnidirectional performance, and indeed a warmth that in most temperate climates is another advantage (a heat effect ridiculed by government spokesmen until they talk about it's "bad effect" on air conditioning cooling - political logic, if you will).

Equally obviously,
energy savings are the main reason for energy usage standards.
The supposed amount of energy savings are in fact not there, and even if they were, there are much better and more relevant energy savings in electricity generation and distribution as well as consumption.
Given that the need to save electricity for paying consumers can be questioned in the first place, there is nothing to defend these federal regulations.


The final irony,
is that consumers as a whole will hardly save money – regardless of what the energy savings are.
That is not just in having to pay more for the light bulbs as an initial cost (or being forced to pay for them, via taxpayer CFL programs), but also because electricity companies are being subsidised or allowed to raise 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.

More on how consumers are being duped:
http://freedomlightbulb.blogspot.com/2011/06/big-deception.html
 

And Pennsylvania: Local repeal bill under way...

 

As communicated by the office of Pennsylvania House Rep. Matt Gabler, he and Rep. Matt Baker are currently looking for co-sponsors for a bill to locally repeal federal light bulb legislation, becoming the 7th state to seek to do so (see updates regarding other US state bills).

In the first instance they seek to
"memorialize Congress to make necessary mandate repeals before the light bulb related provisions of the Energy Independence and Security Act takes effect"

However, to ensure as far as possible the continuation of local manufacturing and freedom of choice for local consumers, a local repeal ban bill will also be launched.

More on this:
Rep Gabler audio statement (mp3 June 3, 2011)
Youtube video interview (uploaded by Rep Gabler on June 28, 2011)



Comment
As mentioned on the Michigan launch post, state legislators are aware of the inter-state commerce law and seeking to defend the rights of intra-state commerce.
Clearly, out-of-state visitors would come and buy these bulbs, but that is still hardly inter-state commerce unless they then re-sell them locally in other states.
That said, since regular incandescent light bulbs are small, cheap, and weigh little,
federal regulators are clearly going to see intended regulation effects circumvented.
The vigor with which they choose to pursue local state legislation may also be influenced by the Canadian Government proposal to delay a ban implementation to 2014,
also because alternative local state US purchases would benefit the US economy more
(remembering that around 2 billion incandescent light bulbs are annually sold in the USA
on 2008-2009 figures)

The second point here is that Pennsylvania, like South Carolina, and unlike say Texas,
already has current incandescent manufacturing at the Osram-Sylvania factory in St Marys (of which Matt Gabler is the State House representative).


The Sylvania site states that the factory
"manufactures nearly 2 million incandescent light bulbs each day, in 1,700 varieties and packages"
Attempts to safeguard some of the 265 jobs involve a conversion to making Halogen type less energy using incandescents - but these are far more expensive and less popular than regular simple incandescents, giving much lower sales versus more energy saving CFLs or LEDs (which of course is the ban intention), and, as set out on http://ceolas.net/#li01inx, all known incandescents will be banned by 2020 anyway: All of which hardly saves those jobs.
On the contrary, the continued sales of cheap bulbs would likely give more local jobs,
with all the extra purchases from out-of state visitors too.

Of further note is that the only Democrat in the US Congress sponsoring any of the federal light bulb ban repeals is Pennsylvania Rep. Tim Holden, alongside Republican Reps Tim Murphy and Glenn Thompson (St Marys District) and Senator Patrick Toomey.