Letting the Glow Flow: Lanternland

Given the recent posts on the magic of incandescents, and the "human angle" as covered in the light bulb hoarding documentary from Australia:
There are also a lot of related small enthusiastic businesses out there, family owned, and likely to be affected negatively by the light bulb regulations pushed through by Governments with the happy co-operation of profit-seeking major corporations.



As it happens, recently came across the Lanternland business in Mesa, Arizona.
From the about us page:

Hi. I’m Andrew Medway co-founder of Lanternland.

In 1979 my parents, Ronna and Sheldon Nitzky, opened Design Lighting Products, and started manufacturing hand crafted lighting near Phoenix, Arizona. Beginning with just two part time employees and eventually growing to more than 130 full time employees, they manufactured the highest quality American made lighting for more than 30 years. After selling 2nd Ave Design in 2009 Ronna and Sheldon put their passion for lighting and design to work in their newest venture, Pentimento Lighting & Furnishings in Mesa, Arizona.

In 1997, after becoming a single father with a two year old son, I made the decision to start my own online business to have the flexibility to spend more time caring for my son.

In 2011, having achieved success with own online ventures, I was asked by Ronna and Sheldon to put my online experience to work creating a website to showcase the lanterns currently being manufactured in their Arizona factory. After seeing the lanterns and realizing that these are some of the most beautiful and the highest quality lanterns being made in America today, I made the decision to join Ronna and Sheldon in co-founding Lanternland.

Andrew also has informative and enjoyable blog and facebook page, about lighting and other issues.

A few examples of Lanternland products ... from a very large collection:




To be continued shortly with a post about carbon filament maker Bob Kyp and his company, of whom a documentary was just launched, August 16, in Chicago.

Paul Ryan New Vice Presidential Candidate "Change your Leaders Not Your Light Bulbs"

 

source  thoseshirts.com

Of relevance not just in the USA... for anyone against the ban ;-)
Admittedly in the SovietEUnion it does not seem to make much difference who rules or where.




Republican Vice Presidential candidate Ryan voted against the light bulb ban last year
[Roll Call 563, 12th July 2011].

While otherwise not apparently having commented on the issue, or stated any position on it on his website, it seems from other sources as if he might be pretty committed about it:
As reported, Paul Ryan is "a virulent denier of climate science", "slashed clean energy investment" and "voted to eliminate light bulb efficiency standards" (for some reason efficiency is always equated with energy efficiency in some quarters!).

Mitt Romney meanwhile has indeed in his campaign questioned the light bulb regulations - as for example reported by TPM Livewire earlier this year...
..."and the [Obama] government would have banned Thomas Edison’s light bulb"


Any complete repeal of the ban of course first has to work its way through Congress,
and it unfortunately seems a particularly partisan issue
(unfortunate, since on a "liberal" tax and spend ideology a taxation policy that could pay for reduction on energy saving alternatives and so "not just hit people with taxes" while keeping choice, would surely be seen as preferable to a ban also by a Democrat electorate if properly presented and promoted, while of course a competition policy in turn is better on a Conservative agenda - regulatory bans being the worst choice of all both in choice and energy saving as covered and referenced in the "How Bans are Wrongly Justified" section and on the Ceolas.net website)

In other words, the Congress elections are at least as important, and so only Republican majorities in both House and Senate would give any likelihood of progress.

The presidential position is simply to sign or not sign the Bill coming through.
President Obama would veto any such bill, a President Romney would now almost certainly
sign it, given his more pronounced ideological stance underlined by his vice presidential choice.

That said, as always there are workarounds...
If the President considered it important enough, given his executive powers, he could conceivably act to interfere with the implementation side of the law, such as supporting the funding block measures that have been attempted by House Republicans.
 

Energy Efficiency Regulations Lambasted: Consumers are not Irrational, and Environmental Benefits are "Negligible"

 

Returning to American criticism, after the "world tour" of the last couple of posts.
I received this Working Paper, the authors may therefore make adjustments.

Overriding Consumer Preferences with Energy Regulations by Ted Gayer and W. Kip Viscusi, Mercatus Center, George Mason University, Arlington, Virginia, August 2012

The study is here (pdf document). An alternative link.
A summary (also a pdf document, and similar to the website page embedded below).


The study authors

Ted Gayer
tgayer@brookings.edu
Ted Gayer (more) is the co-director of the Economic Studies program and the Joseph A. Pechman Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution.
He conducts research on a variety of economic issues, focusing particularly on public finance, environmental and energy economics, housing, and regulatory policy. He received his Ph.D. from Duke University.

W. Kip Viscusi
kip.viscusi@vanderbilt.edu
W. Kip Viscusi (more) is Vanderbilt’s first University Distinguished Professor, with primary appointments in the Department of Economics and the Owen Graduate School of Management as well as in the Law School.
He is the award-winning author of more than 20 books and 300 articles, most of which deal with different aspects of health and safety risks.
He received his Ph.D. from Harvard University.

Abstract

This paper examines the economic justification for recent U.S. energy regulations proposed or enacted by the U.S. Department of Energy, the U.S. Department of Transportation, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
The case studies include mileage requirements for motor vehicles and energy-efficiency standards for clothes dryers, room air conditioners, and light bulbs.

The main findings are that the standards have a negligible effect on greenhouse gases and the preponderance of the estimated benefits stems from private benefits to consumers, based on the regulators' presumption of consumer irrationality

Mercatus.org currently have a website summarizing the study: embedded below.




Society benefits are therefore seen as negligible, in what after all should be done for Society's good:
Consumers may make some enforced personal savings, from a ban on what they otherwise would have bought.

However, as the authors also point out, the assumed consumer irrationality is a mistake:
Consumers may have good reason to buy cheaper products for shorter or temporary usage, and the energy using products may have compensating features that consumers like - obvious enough, or they would not prefer them.
So what is called "benefits from correcting consumer irrationality" comes from additional purchases not otherwise made.
In simple English, having to buy what they otherwise would not buy.
[For more on the common regulator supposition of "market failure" and that people "only buy energy using products because they are cheap" and that "regulation is the only answer to this", see commenting below]

The authors also note the irony that new extensive information labelling requirements should provide the information that the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency), NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) and other responsible instances say that consumers lack when they need to make informed purchasing decisions.

Amongst case histories is a particular section on light bulbs.
The authors say
"DOE presents relatively little documentation on how it calculated the costs and benefits of the standard."
"No consideration was made for consumer preferences for different types of light bulbs or for such things as the rebound effect. Thus, the quality of light, whether the bulb is dimmable, and other aspects of light bulbs are irrelevant to the DOE assessment"


Edited extracts from the actual study [my added emphases again]:

Introduction

The efficiency rationale for any government regulation rests on the existence of some type of market failure.
The ways markets may fail are quite diverse, ranging from characteristics of the market structure to various kinds of externalities; that is, adverse effects on parties other than the buyer and seller of a product.

In the absence of some type of market failure there is no legitimate basis for regulation from the standpoint of enhancing economic efficiency.
The regulations are based on an assumption that government choices better reflect the preferences of consumers and firms than the choices consumers and firms would make themselves. They assume consumers and, in some cases, firms are incapable of making rational decisions and that regulatory policy should be governed by the myopic objective of energy efficiency to the exclusion of other product attributes.

Energy efficiency standards provide a valuable case study of how agencies can be blinded by parochial interests to assume not only that their mandate trumps all other concerns but also that economic actors outside of the agency are completely incapable of making sound decisions. The assumption that the world outside the agency is irrational is a direct consequence of the agencies’ view that energy efficiency is always the paramount product attribute and that choices made on any other basis must be fundamentally flawed.

They then examine the rationale for regulations,
comparing consumer need and society outcome...

The Energy-Efficiency Gap

The clearest regulatory example questioning consumer rationality is with respect to energy-efficient consumer goods, for which consumers frequently face a tradeoff of a higher upfront capital cost versus lower future operating costs over the life of the product.
A rational consumer will [supposedly] consider things such as the expected future cost of energy, the expected lifetime of the product, the frequency of use of the product, and the discount rate to convert future savings to present value compared to the up-front capital cost.

A long-standing empirical finding, known as the energy-efficiency gap, shows that consumer choices for energy-efficiency purchases imply a discount rate much higher than market discount rates, suggesting that consumers underweight the future cost savings stemming from an energy-efficient product compared to the weight they put on the future in other market settings...

[But] empirical evidence suggests that consumers’ valuation of the long-term differences in fuel efficiency for different models of cars may be quite reasonable.
In an econometric study of prices of used cars, Dreyfus and Viscusi estimated the rate of interest implicit in a consumer’s valuation of the discounted value of vehicle operating costs... [were] consistent with market rates.”
Unlike some engineering studies that purport to show that consumers neglect energy efficiency, this study considered a wide range of car attributes other than energy efficiency that are valued by consumers...
[Also] if you are planning to move or have a current liquidity problem, buying the more energy efficient but more expensive appliance may not make sense from an economic standpoint.....

[Similarly] Anderson and Newell find that manufacturing plants reject about half of the energy-efficiency projects recommended by engineering analyses because of unaccounted physical costs, risks, opportunity costs, lack of staff for analysis or implementation, risk of inconvenience to personnel, or suspected risk of problems with equipment.

By ignoring these relevant characteristics of the product, and the specifics of the customer’s economic circumstances, the engineering studies can arrive at incorrect findings of personal savings from the products that have higher up-front costs but yield lower operating costs.
Since the engineering studies focus only on capital costs and operating costs, they do not allow for any heterogeneity of preferences and use of products across consumers.
Another possible explanation for the findings of apparently high consumer discount rates in engineering studies is that consumers do not expect to receive as high a return in energy savings as the analyst assumes.
The regulatory agencies [therefore] frequently rely on engineering studies that presume consumers can accrue benefits by regulatory standards that restrict consumption choices.

Taken as a whole, the engineering and empirical literature on the energy-efficiency gap does not provide strong, credible evidence of persistent consumer irrationality.

Providing accurate information to consumers would be preferable to regulatory mandates.
Indeed, Executive Order 12866 (signed by President Clinton and re-affirmed by President Obama in his Executive Order 1356316) requires each agency to “identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, . . . such as . . . providing information upon which choices can be made by the public.”
Informational efforts can and do provide energy-cost information over the lifetime of the appliance.

They then go on to "analyze documentation used to support energy efficiency regulations promulgated by DOE, EPA, and DOT" for different products.

Case Studies

CAFE Standards for Passenger Cars and Light Trucks
One does not have to be a reader of automobile reviews in Edmunds.com, Car and Driver, or Road and Track to realize that fuel efficiency is but one of many factors people use to assess the quality of an automobile.
Acceleration, handling, braking ability, legroom, riding comfort, safety, reliability, styling, and trunk storage are among the many other dimensions of concern to automobile purchasers.
Despite the NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) admission that it is uncertain whether the lack of market demand for higher fuel economy is due to consumer irrationality or consumer preferences, it proceeds to promulgate a regulation that assumes the former.

[NHTSA and EPA] justifications largely amount to problems of inadequate information, such as the reasoning that fuel-economy benefits are not salient enough to consumers, that consumers have difficulty calculating expected fuel savings, or that consumers might associate higher fuel
economy with inexpensive, less well-designed vehicles.
[This] raises the question of why a rigid mandate is warranted rather than an informational regulation that would provide consumers with the guidance to make sounder choices.
Indeed, in 2011 EPA did just that by issuing its Motor Vehicle Fuel Economy Label Final Rule. The mandated label for all new cars is quite extensive, including an overall mpg rating, a city mpg rating, a highway mpg rating, gallons/100 miles, driving range on a tank of gas, fuel costs in five years versus the average new vehicle, annual fuel costs, fuel economy and greenhouse-gas rating, and smog rating.

What is striking about the EPA analysis of the CAFE standard is [therefore] that the EPA regulatory impact analysis does not even mention the existence of the agency’s own new label rule.
This oversight goes to the heart of the CAFE standard analysis, as most of the benefits needed to justify the regulation relate to consumer choice failures targeted by the new labeling..

The agencies that regulate these standards—the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and EPA—estimate greenhouse-gas benefits make up less than 10 percent of the total claimed benefits. But when benefits are restricted to only the United States, they drop to just over 1 percent of total claimed benefits.


Clothes Dryers, Air Conditioners, Clothes Washers
DOE estimates the global greenhouse-gas emissions benefits of clothes dryer standards as between $93 million and $1.49 billion which is below the estimated private benefits range of $1.08 billion to $3.01 billion.
DOE estimates the global greenhouse-gas emissions benefits of room air conditioner standards as between $77 million to $1.16 billion as compared with the estimated private benefits range of $570 million to $1.47 billion.

An earlier proposed regulation of clothes washers was purported to have great energy savings for consumers, but a Rasmussen Research poll found tremendous consumer opposition to the standard.By a margin of 6 to 1 the public opposed regulations that would effectively eliminate top-loading washing machines.
Much of the opposition arose because most consumers wash fewer loads per week than the DOE analysis assumed; for this group the present value of the cost savings is far less than the estimated savings.
Engineering studies divorced from consumer usage and preferences can produce policies that produce far fewer benefits than predicted.


Other Appliances
Acting under authority from EPCA, DOE has promulgated energy-efficiency regulations for other appliances as well.
For example, DOE issued standards for residential refrigerators in 2011, and for industrial products, such as high-intensity light fixtures (known as metal halide lamp fixtures) and walk-in coolers and freezers in 2012.
As in the case of the fuel-economy standards, for each of these appliance standards, the preponderance of the estimated benefits consists of [supposed] private benefits to the purchasers of the products:
There must be some form of individual irrationality or behavioral shortcoming of individual choices to give rise to these benefits. DOE provides little, if any, analysis and documentation of this assumed irrationality in its rules.

Not forgetting light bulbs...

General Service Incandescent Lamps

DOE presents relatively little documentation on how it calculated the costs and benefits of the standard.
The DOE analysis calculated cumulative national energy savings as the sum of annual national energy savings, which in turn was estimated as the difference in annual national energy consumption between the base case and the case with the new General Service Incandescent Lamps (GSIL) standards.
DOE estimates 14.14 quads in cumulative national energy savings.
The net present value to consumers is computed as the present value of operating-cost savings minus the present value of increased total installed costs.

DOE computed the operating-cost savings for a given year by multiplying the surviving stock of GSILs of a given vintage in that year by the per-unit operating-cost savings for that vintage (obtained by multiplying the vintage’s expected energy savings by forecasted energy prices), then summing over vintages.
DOE computed increased total installed costs for a given year by researching product catalogs, online distributors, and manufacturing interviews to estimate “the increase in unit prices for products that comply with EISA 2007.”
It then multiplied the surviving stock of GSILs of a given vintage in that year by this annual per-unit total-installed cost increase, then summed over vintages.

No consideration was made for consumer preferences for different types of light bulbs or for such things as the rebound effect.
Thus, the quality of light, whether the bulb is dimmable, and other aspects of light bulbs are irrelevant to the DOE assessment.

DOE’s net present value estimate is for $27.5 billion (7 percent discount rate) or $64.2 billion (3 percent discount rate) in cumulative savings to consumers from 2008 through 2038 stemming from the efficiency standards for light bulbs.
These estimates of private benefits far outweigh DOE’s estimate of between zero and $16.34 billion in benefits from reducing carbon dioxide emissions.
Once again, [supposed] private benefits to consumers drive the economic justification for the analysis.

Conclusion

The economic puzzle raised by all these energy regulations is why consumers are this remiss.
How can it be that consumers are leaving billions of potential economic gains on the table by not buying the most energy-efficient cars, clothes dryers, air conditioners, and light bulbs?
Moreover, how can it also be the case that firms seeking to earn profits are likewise ignoring highly attractive opportunities to save money?
If the savings are this great, why is it that a very basic labeling approach cannot remedy this seemingly stunning example of completely irrational behavior?

It should be quite simple to rectify decisions that are this "flawed".
It should be a red flag that something is amiss with an analysis that assumes such perplexing consumer and firm behavior that runs counter to the most rudimentary economic theory and our general sense that we do not live in a world in which people never make sound choices.

It might be that there is something that is incorrect or perhaps even irrational in the assumptions being made in the regulatory impact analyses.
Indeed, upon closer inspection it is apparent that there is no empirical evidence provided for the types of consumer failures alleged.
Even if some consumers do sometimes fall short on certain dimensions of choice, the magnitude and prevalence of such a shortfall is important and is never addressed in the regulatory assessments. Nor is there adequate consideration of the actual and potential role of informational remedies that have already been adopted.

Perhaps the main failure of rationality is that of the regulators themselves.  [!]
Agency officials who have been given a specific substantive mission have a tendency to focus on these concerns to the exclusion of all others.
Thus, fuel efficiency and energy efficiency matter, but nothing else does.
If other attributes matter, it is assumed they either are irrelevant or will be included at no additional cost in the post-regulation products. In effect, government officials act as if they are guided by a single mission myopia that leads to the exclusion of all concerns other than their agency’s mandate.
Institutional biases of this type are common and are fundamental characteristics of organizational behavior. Indeed, the existence of parochial visions by agencies is a major reason the Executive Office of the President has institutionalized a formal regulatory oversight process beginning with the Ford administration and including a BCA [Benefit Cost Analysis] test since the Reagan administration.
One question raised by these analyses is whether the legislation mandating these standards permits OMB [Office of Management and Budget] to provide credible evidence of the market failures pivotal to justifying the regulations.

Adopting a more accurate economic analysis does not imply that government agencies do not have any policy tools that can be used to foster greater energy efficiency.
Informational policies and more limited forms of policy intervention may be warranted on a benefit-cost basis.
Recent regulatory analyses demonstrate that the current energy-efficiency initiatives do very little to address climate change. Rather than squander societal resources on more ineffective policy efforts, a more productive approach would be to search for policy options that offer greater potential for making a serious dent in greenhouse-gas emissions.

Even the modest environmental benefits are overstated because they are based on projected benefits to the world — not just to citizens of the United States.

Comment

A further note on the supposition that "there is a market failure that requires regulations".
Market failure is the underlying reason for regulations, in other words that consumers are not voluntarily buying the "right" products, and so the markets have "failed".

As the study authors point out,
the concept of market failure is questionable, in that consumers may have rational reasons for buying what they do:
- either in that the overall cost may be too high for short term or temporary use,
- or that the product may have other desirable features attracting a purchase
These issues are also extensively covered here, regarding the exemplified effect of
regulatory standards on product characteristics, product price and usage savings, http://ceolas.net/#cc21x.

A common follow-up by "market failure" advocates is that people only buy the products because they are "cheap", not because of any useful features:
Therefore, people should be "happy" in being pushed or forced to make purchases "expensive to buy but cheap in the long run".
However, people do buy many other products which are virtually identical except that the expensive kind "is cheaper in the long run", as illustrated with the battery and washing up liquid examples in the Deception of Light Bulb Ban Arguments rundown on this site.

Also more generally do people buy expensive product versions, or they would not be on the market.
In fact, that is precisely the situation with energy saving alternatives, as with the CFL and LED and Halogen alternatives relevant in the context of this blog, and as both American (DoE) and EU (EcoDesign) research has shown:
Most have some of these in their households already - but they obviously don't want all their lighting to be of such kind.
How hard can it be to understand this?


Again, even if it is accepted that "something must be done" to correct the supposed market failure, then, as the authors suggest, better information is the first line of action, informational labelling that has just been introduced in new extensive forms in both the USA and EU (as with light bulbs), and that therefore could be given time to act, again echoing what the authors say.

Ignoring that, regulation is still not the answer to save electricity:
As covered in point 13 of the mentioned Deception rundown.
In other words, stimulation of market competition, or taxation-subsidy policies.

Stimulated market competition involves helping new inventions to market, but without continuing subsidies.
With electricity, it also involves the increased competition of service providers in the grids, thereby using their energy resources efficiently under market pressure - without regulation.

Market Competition and Taxation-Subsidy policies as alternative to Regulations, using Light Bulb example: http://ceolas.net/#li23x.

Taxation is not the best option, but is interestingly and oddly shunned also by liberal pro-regulator tax-and-spend politicians: As said it can pay for price reductions on energy saving alternatives, so people are "Not Just Hit By Taxes".


Bankrupt California has seemingly got round to asking the electorate
"How you want to be taxed, as increased taxation is now a necessity".

Well now!
There is hardly a less painful way to achieve government income than to base energy standards on taxation rather than regulation, be it building construction, cars, washing machines, TV sets, light bulbs etc, given the plethora of current bans accompanied by subsidies to utilities and manufacturers.
It allows such subsidies to be covered, or of course other Government spending, while ensuring greater consumer choice.
Environmental targets are still kept as desired, a high tax simulates a ban, while intermediate levels give high government income for compensatory "Green" measures.

No - taxation is not the best option.
But it is yet another way that the supposition "market failure requires regulation" is wrong:
if there actually is a "market failure" when people are allowed to buy what they want!


Perhaps one day the officials pursuing bans or "energy usage based phase outs" of popular useful products will start to think about what they are doing.
The question is, when.
 

Getting a Blast out of Incandescents

 
Originally seen on Kevan's Save the Bulb blog,
this, er, "educational" game has since been updated...

Strange things happen in America
...a major Minnesota based energy company with a broad portfolio of generating assets including Coal and Nuclear have launched “Bulb Blasters”, a free iPhone game that uses a variety of compact fluorescent “weapons” to blast incandescent lamp based flying saucers. I couldn’t resist this however can report that it is possibly the worst implementation of a classic Space Invaders video game that you could possibly imagine. Maybe they should have spent their money on some proper research in cleaning up their Coal fired generating capacity or saving it for decommissioning their nuclear plants!

The game can be downloaded for Google Android or Apples iTunes devices from
Bulbblasters.com.

It was developed by Voltage digital applications company for Xcel Energy...
From their iPhone apps page:

We’re excited to announce a new iPhone app developed by VOLTAGE for Xcel Energy is now available in the App Store. The FREE game – Bulb Blasters recalls the good ol’ fashioned awesomeness of 80′s arcade play as you try and blast less efficient incandescent bulbs off the screen with your energy saving CFL Cannon...

The Bulb blasters site modestly expands...

BLAST YOUR WAY TO ENERGY EFFICIENCY


Embark on a futuristic mission to defeat the Incandescent Drones that suck over 75% more energy than an efficient CFL bulb.

Conquer the inefficiency of incandescent light bulbs by blasting them out of the sky with a Compact Fluorescent Light Bulb Cannon. Along the way you’ll learn triumphant facts about how CFLs save you energy, save you money, and can help save the universe from the evils of inefficiency.
Fight your way through futuristic worlds filled with incandescent invaders.
Learn to save without sacrifice every where around your home by connecting to Xcel Energy via Facebook, Twitter, and ResponsibleByNature.com.



What's New in Version 1.1
Take the battle against inefficiency to the next level.
Blast your way through to the mothership, and liberate lighting efficiency once and for all!

The company behind it is therefore Xcel Energy...

they profile themselves as follows...

Xcel Energy is a U.S. investor-owned electricity and natural gas company with regulated operations in eight Midwestern and Western states. Based in Minneapolis, Minn., we provide a comprehensive portfolio of energy-related products and services through our four wholly owned utility subsidiaries.

More specifically related to the game is their subsite
ResponsibleByNature.com, a site dedicated to energy saving tips.
These include tips specific to lighting, in turn including a series of videos.
The videos tell you how all light bulbs have advantages, including incandescents, for different uses and locations! (oh alright... they tell you you should change all your bulbs...).



Comment

Whatever about the game itself,
note the underlying message from a plethora of Government sites, from Environment organizations and from Energy companies to You, the Citizen:

"Hey, save lots of money by cutting down on energy use!"

So what's so wrong with that?
Nothing:
Except it handily replaces how consumers could really save money on their electricity bills - by subjecting electricity companies to supply competition in the grids.
Even better, from future smart grid and metering changes to allow easier switching between suppliers also in real time (a much more cost relevant use for such meters, rather than today's flustered politicians praising them because "they can tell you if you left a light bulbs on").

Today's policians and their hangaround environmental cronies subscribe to massive upfront
cost exercises in for example grid changes needed to accomodate intermittent wind and solar supplies, and still more to back up such energy with conventional base loading alternatives:
Utilities happily benefit from the relevant energy and grid subsidies, paid for by consumers as taxpayers.
[Yes, environmental considerations may necessitate generation and grid changes, but that could be handled very differently, with greater effectiveness and less consumer impact as covered on Ceolas.net, first section]

Utilities profit still more from the current policy:
Just as the neutral observer can - and should- question why major light bulb manufacturers welcome being told what they can or can't make i.e. so expensive patented bulbs can be offloaded to choice-deprived consumers,
so utilities can happily offload expensive electricity to choice-deprived consumers.
Hence all the necessitated "save energy and save on your bill" promotional campaigns.


But wait, it gets better...
Often the utilities have a stake in or control the supplying grids,
and if captive customers reduce energy use the utilities can simply raise the price and squeeze more money out of the customers... increasing profits without having to expand the grid to seek new customers.
Regulators? That is precisely what US/EU state regulators are allowing, as referenced below.

Better still,
the utilities are getting (still more) state subsidies in advance for the calculated expected sales loss from an energy consumption reduction, an energy usage reduction which, as seen from the Deception summary on this site and more expansively explained on Ceolas.net, is hardly likely: But hey, that's money already in energy company executive pockets!
And yes, that includes subsidy agreement with Governments to push "energy saving bulbs" and other knick-knacks on customers who would otherwise not buy them.

As extensively referenced http://ceolas,.net/#li1ax onwards, US California, Ohio, Washington, Canada BC, and EU Britain examples.


The bottom line is that you, the reader, are being screwed:
Screwed by your politician, screwed by your friendly environmental organization, screwed by your light bulb manufacturer and screwed by your electricity supplier, all singing off the same hymn sheet in happy unison.

So with any screwable incandescent in turn disappearing from view, why not play at finishing the job with that game there... ;-)
 

USA Light Bulb Law "Wattages not Legalized"

 
An obscure and seemingly unknown link to video legal research into the actual light bulb regulation adjustments to US law.


Claims that they forgot to actually enter the wattage equivalents into the relevant legal text! (the standards are of course lumen based but still have wattage references...) True or not, the lumen based regulations already, as previously explained, raises their own absurdity  >> US Regulation Absurdity: Dim 100W bulbs allowed, Bright 100W bulbs banned!  >> The Good, the Bright, and the Dim ...such that dim 100 or 75 W bulbs are legal for the time being (restrictions will apply with time), and bright ones illegal. This is made use of by "rough service" and "high voltage" incandescents currently marketed in the USA as "saving consumers money because they have longer lifespans". As per above links, this is a fallacy, since 1 dim - currently legal- bulb lasting say 5000 hours drawing 100W uses a lot more energy and costs more than 5 equivalently bright regular - banned! - 75 Watt bulbs lasting 1000 hours each.... USA, EU, Canada, Australia light bulb regulations   http://ceolas.net/#li01inx US state exemption bills (legalized Texas June 2011)   http://ceolas.net/#bills  

Fact: Americans Brighter than Europeans!

 

Well, at least certain types of bulbs are... ;-)





Few people seem to know just how much brighter 110-120 volt driven bulbs are, than their 220-240 volt equivalents, a very noticeable difference.

Rounding off typical values,
a 100W American bulb gives out 1800 lumens, the European equivalent 1300 lumens.

Put another way,
a 75W US bulb (1100-1200 lumen) is closer to the European 100W bulb,
conversely, the 100W US bulb is close to a European 150W bulb (2000 lumen).


"Dimmest" of all are the Brits...
At least in theory, given 240 volt rated mains voltage and with imported bulbs rated 230 volt or 220-240 volt in lumen value, so as to also correspond to other European countries.
In return, the British bulbs should last slightly longer.

That is also why 100W US bulbs were commonly (pre-ban) only rated 750 hours,
compared to 1000 hours for EU 100W bulbs, and 1000 hours for 60W and other lesser wattages, regardless of origin.




image Ronald Hudson  123rf.com



Both energy and cost wise, "brightness wins" over lifespan trade-offs:

Look at the new fad of selling "legal long lasting incandescents" in the USA, as 130 volt bulbs, or as rough service bulbs, the latter also in the EU.
While they may only be a temporary workaround for those seeking to use incandescents
(imports and sales are monitored, at least in theory in the USA, given the current ban on oversight funding as covered in previous posts, see below), there is as mentioned an irony here: They use much more energy than equivalently bright banned incandescents!

This is easy to work out once you start taking a 100 watt long-lasting legal incandescent
and work out the energy usage of shorter lasting 75 watt legal incandescents
- bulb cheapness means that even using up 5, 10 or more bulbs for 1 long-lasting bulb,
the overall cost as well as energy use is much higher with the legal kind.
A worked example is covered in the http://ceolas.net/#li01inx section,
also in the post "US Regulation Absurdity: Dim 100W bulbs allowed, Bright 100W bulbs banned!"
 

House passes Light Bulb Amendment to Bill

 




The funding block of the oversight of American federal light bulb regulations, due to expire Sep 30, has been covered in several posts on this blog.
The last post here also covers Texan Congressman Michael Burgess's reasoning for proposing, and seeking to extend, this amendment.

It was indeed voted through yesterday for another year by the House of Representatives.
However, presumably like the last amendment, the Senate will have input on this - though most likely they will simply let it pass, and for similar reasons...

Senate Democrat spokesmen like outgoing Energy Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman have previously pointed out the small actual effects of the funding block, and it is true that major manufacturers and distributors are unlikely to want to take chances in skirting federal law on import and manufacture, and are likely to want to pursue the greater profits of alternative bulb sales anyway - after all, the manufacturers sought and welcomed the ban, on admitted profit motives (http://ceolas.net/#li1ax onwards).
Also, as in the EU, one can expect retailers and others to have extensively stocked up, which again delays any ban impact, since sales of existing stock is not banned.

However, when states like Texas and possibly soon South Carolina (see local US repeal ban bills, http://ceolas.net/#bills) pass local laws allowing local manufacture and sale, it may encourage smaller operations selling the easily locally made simple incandescents.
It also of course "sends a message" about the justification of the ban itself, ahead of the presidential and congress elections this fall.


A good summary post by Erika Johnsen at Hot Air, linking to various reports.

House votes, again,
to delay enforcement of traditional light bulb ban
Last night, the House approved [link to The Hill report] of two amendments that will further stay the enforcement of the infamously intrusive incandescent light-bulb ban.

In a voice vote, the House approved an amendment to the Energy and Water spending bill for 2013 that would prevent the Department of Energy from spending money to enforce a 2007 law that sets bulb efficiency standards. The law bans the sale of 100 watt incandescent bulbs and will ban the sale of 75 watt traditional bulbs in July 2013.

This year, like last year, the amendment was sponsored by Rep. Michael Burgess (R-Texas), who said the federal government should not be in the business of requiring certain light bulbs to be used.

“We shouldn’t be making these decisions for the American people,” Burgess said on the House floor. Burgess added that his amendment was approved last year and signed into law by President Obama, after which the House quickly passed his amendment again.

I like that the House Republicans are sticking with the regulatory travesty that is the incandescent light bulb ban, the only problem being that just delaying enforcement of the ban, instead of actually repealing it, only creates more uncertainty for businesses. It’s the best they can do with the state of the legislative branch being what it is at the moment, but manufacturers have already started battening down the hatches in preparation of the ban and moving away from production of normal light bulbs. A mere short-term guarantee just isn’t going to do much for them. Bloomberg has more:

Even if the House language approved last night survives in the Democratic-led Senate, the impact for consumers probably will be limited because manufacturers such as Royal Philips Electronics NV (PHIA) and General Electric Co. (GE) have revamped manufacturing to comply with the law, making bulbs that use less electricity to generate the same amount of light. …

“The law couldn’t be enforced,” Burgess said of his amendment in an interview. “‘We don’t need no stinkin’ badges. We’re the energy police.’”

Blocking the Energy Department from enforcement might let unscrupulous foreign manufacturers push non-compliant products, including to bulk buyers such as builders. Those sales are difficult to track.

“Some in Congress are willing to put U.S. jobs at risk for political positioning,” said Joseph Higbee, a spokesman for the National Electrical Manufacturers Association, a Rosslyn, Virginia-based group. “This is an example of a few politicizing light bulbs at the risk of American workers and the economy.”

Democrats are trying to spin this as if Republicans are ignoring the effect on American jobs. They contend that the delay will allow Americans to purchase traditional light bulbs from foreign manufacturers instead of the American manufacturers who make the new energy efficient light bulbs, but let’s just knock that notion on the head right now.

Buying American, just for the sake of buying American, does not help to create jobs — free trade and buying goods from wherever they are produced most cheaply and efficiently leads to good-for-all economic growth that creates actual, productive jobs. If Democrats really cared for American jobs and the health of the overall economy, maybe they should stop sticking up for a law that forces people to buy certain goods that they wouldn’t be choosing to buy in the free market. (Really, now — “unscrupulous” foreign manufacturers? They’re just meeting an existing demand, for crying out loud.)

 



image  dailyworldwidenews.com

Texas Hold Em... and Congressmen Fight for Federal Rights

 

While it nearly happened in Arizona under Governor Brewer, and a South Carolina bill
is now almost due to go to Governor Haley, Texas became the first state to legalize local manufacture and sale of federally banned incandescent bulbs, from a bill brought by George Lavender, Marva Beck, Cindy Burkett and Bryan Hughes in the spring of 2011, as seen passing relatively rapidly through the legislature, to be signed into law by Governor Perry in June (more on state as well as federal light bulb bills, http://ceolas.net/#bills).

Local legislation of American states (immigration, health care, guns, marijuana...) are constantly subject to challenge federally, but there is also the morality involved, so that in this case, if California can apply their own light bulb laws, other states should be able to do the same.
Of course, a common (federal) legislative view on the federal v local issue (as also applied in the European Union) is that local laws may be stricter though not more lenient than federal laws - but that still does not take away the morality involved:
If local laws are allowed in the first place, then they should take precedence, more lenient or not - while if local laws are deemed unsuitable, then obviously Americans should all be subject to the same law, Californian citizens just like Texans.
A wider issue in such "subsidiarity" debate is of course who decides whether laws should be made federally or not: In the USA as in the EU, and for that matter Canada, Australia and similar legislatures with strong regional governance, it is unsurprisingly resented that it should be decided federally if federal laws apply, rather than locally (devolvement upwards rather than downwards of legislative rights). Federal cohesion versus local democracy....

Returning to the light bulb issue,
the arguments in this blog are of course that regulation laws are wrong in the first place, federally or not, and it is perhaps not by chance in the USA that not only has Texas led the way in local legislation, but that Texan representatives in Washington have tended to lead the way and act in support: Joe Barton, Michael Burgess, Ron Paul, Ted Poe, Bill Flores, Blake Farenthold, Randy Neugebauer, Louis Gohmert, Pete Olson, and in the Senate John Cornyn and Kay Bailey Hutchison.
It "even" included the support of local Democrat Congress representative Eddie Johnson for a while, until persuaded otherwise on a particularly hot partisan regulatory issue, that former Democrat speaker Nancy Pelosi from California and allies are equally keen to uphold and indeed make stricter, as seen from their efforts to pass stricter federal bills as well as from the stricter local regulations legislated for California (all of which incidentally continually gets ignored in the media, in their ranting about "only right wing politicians caring about light bulbs").

Ironically - as also covered in a comment to the below article - regulations are as wrong on left wing as on right wing ideology, in particlar for a bankrupt state like California, that could gain massive income from taxing certain energy using buildings, cars, TV sets, washing machines, light bulbs and all other products they now simply ban on energy usage consideration - and they could liberally defend that taxation on the basis that it would help pay for price lowering subsidies on energy saving alternatives - so "people are not just hit by taxes".
Market competition is better still, also to save energy, as considered on the Ceolas site (http://ceolas.net#li23x) and returned to below, but the point is how regulations are a bad choice regardless of ideology.


What then of the current federal situation?
The good efforts of Texan Congressman Michael Burgess and allies to amend the 2007 EISA light bulb legislation by blocking the oversight funding of it, has been covered in previous posts. The currrent amendment runs out September 30. A new amendment is therefore under way, as mentioned in the post: "Bright Burgess Bulb Bill Block... part 2".



Dr. Burgess was interviewed about his stance on May 31 by Minjae Park of The Texas Tribune. Relevant sections:

Michael Burgess: The TT Interview
Many issues energize both sides in Congress, especially those that touch on the role of government. One issue that particularly riles some Republicans: lightbulbs.

Specifically, efficiency standards for lightbulbs set by a 2007 law that ended the sale of the common 100-watt incandescent bulb.

When the House takes up spending bills in the coming weeks to keep the federal government running in the next fiscal year, U.S. Rep. Michael Burgess, R-Lewisville, will offer an amendment to block funding to the Department of Energy for the implementation of the higher lightbulb efficiency standards, he told the Tribune.

The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, signed into law by then-President George W. Bush, does not ban the sale or use of incandescent lightbulbs but requires that manufacturers make them 25 percent more efficient. Higher efficiency standards that went into effect Jan. 1 ended the import and manufacture of 100-watt incandescent bulbs. (Stores are allowed to sell remaining inventory.)

Burgess has a history of fighting the 2007 law, along with fellow Texas Congressman Joe Barton, R-Ennis. In 2010, both lawmakers, with Rep. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, introduced a bill to repeal the section in the law that creates the efficiency standards. That bill died in committee. Barton tried to advance a similar bill last July but couldn’t garner enough votes.

Burgess then introduced a narrower measure last July that passed: an amendment to the energy and water spending bill to block the Department of Energy from spending money toward implementing the efficiency standards.

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor placed the energy and water spending bill on his calendar for Thursday and Friday under “possible consideration.” Once the bill comes to the House floor, Burgess will introduce his amendment.


Burgess explained his opposition to the 2007 law in an interview with the Tribune. The following is an edited version of the transcript.

TT: Last year, you introduced an amendment to the appropriations bill. Do you have something planned this year?

Burgess: Yes.

TT: Exactly the same thing?

Burgess: Correct. It’s the Energy and Water Appropriations bill. And it’s to prevent the Department of Energy from spending any funds for the enforcement of the ban on the 100-watt incandescent bulb.

TT: Why is this an issue you care about?

Burgess: For one thing, it’s the government exercising power nobody ever intended to give them in the first place. We can all be okay with increasing the efficiency of our lightbulbs. That’s ultimately a good thing. But the mandatory or compulsory purchase of those by excluding the availability of the older and cheaper technology was really a step too far, and it also was compounded by the fact that there was no bridging mechanism.

In 2007, perhaps people thought that in five years, the newer technologies would be available at a price point that made them competitive but the fact of the matter is they aren’t. Lacking any type of flexibility in the legislation, it seems unreasonable to make people pay the kind of price differential that they will have to shell out in order to get a comparable lumens from the newer technology bulb.

TT: So it’s not that you have anything against fluorescent bulbs, except for the prices.

Burgess: This is not so much about pro- or anti-fluorescent. Now, there are some people that are concerned with mercury in the compact fluorescent bulb. There is newer technology coming along with other things that will allow lightbulbs to meet the energy standards without the reliance on the compact fluorescent design. But there, again, the biggest obstacle is the cost of these newer technology incandescents that are able to meet the government’s requirement for number of watts burned per lumen produced, but the cost is about a hundred times what it was for the older incandescent bulbs.

TT: And those costs aren’t covered by the eventual savings?

Burgess: One of these new Philips bulbs that burns 72 watts for the same lumens as a 100 watt (incandescent) bulb — that costs $60 apiece. I don’t think I’d live long enough to recoup the savings.

TT: Sen. Jeff Bingaman (the New Mexico Democrat who chairs the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee) says that cutting off funding will have little effect because lightbulb manufacturers have been working toward these standards for many years.

Burgess: Fine, that’s just great. But to the extent that they have existing stock in the warehouses and want to be able to sell them at your local hardware store, they will be able to do so without running afoul of the enforcement people at the Department of Energy. That’s all my little amendment does. It keeps them safe while they sell these stores of existing technology.

TT: What is it that you’re hoping to achieve on this issue?

Burgess: What got people so upset about this was the government wading into an area where it didn’t have any business in the first place. Let me make my own decisions about how much energy I purchase and how I use that energy. It’s not that I have anything against energy efficiency as a concept or as a practice. I drive a hybrid car. When my wife and I built our house in 2005, we put dimmer switches on every light in the house because we wanted to be able to control the amount of light that we used in a given room at a given time. Now I’m being told that it’s not good enough for me to have that freedom and that ability to control. The government wants to do it for me. Well, that’s what drives people over the edge. There’s no reason for that. Let me make my decisions about how many kilowatt hours I consume and I’ll be a better arbiter about that than Dr. Chu and his folks at the Department of Energy.

TT: You mentioned some of the things you’ve been doing personally, and I’m curious, what kind of lightbulbs do you use? Were you one of the people who stocked up on incandescent bulbs at the end of last year before the law went into effect this Jan. 1?

Burgess: That would be my son, and he will sell you a bunch of those at a hefty markup. I have compact fluorescent bulbs that I use in my home. I have LEDs that I use. But let’s be honest, in order to get the output form current technology LED bulbs, you’ve got to spend a significant amount of money for that bulb. The two LED bulbs I put outside my backdoor several years ago are little better than Christmas lights out there. They perform perhaps a decorative service, but they’re not really doing much as far as illuminating the path of the staircase or even keeping my home burglar-free. The output is simply inconsistent with anything that I had before when I had incandescent bulbs out there. There’s another area where I did purchase a more expensive LED that I leave burning overnight to shine on the flag and I thought that was a nice patriotic decision. That’s not the government telling me how to do or what to do with that.

TT: Is this an issue you’ve heard from your constituents about?

Burgess: You bet. First and foremost, they’re upset about the federal government taking power that didn’t belong to it in the first place. But I’ve got people who are entrepreneurs, who sell fashion lighting and designer lighting and their place in the market has just about been eliminated because these very expensive bulbs that are coming online, the market’s dried up, their ability to mark up a product and combine it with a decorative, fashion-conscious lamp is, I mean, it’s just gone away.

So the market’s disappeared and it’s disappeared because of action that Congress took in 2007. Was it really necessary in the grand scheme of things? I’ll submit to you that no, it was not. This was a solution in search of a problem, and as a consequence, we’ve hurt real people on the ground.

TT: The particular amendment that you would offer, that would just be on the funding side of it. It wouldn’t be about repealing the law that passed in 2007, right?

Burgess: There were other attempts to do that. They failed. My last ditch attempt was, “oh for heaven’s sake, let’s not punish anybody if they sell 100-watt incandescent bulbs in their hardware store.” And that’s what my amendment did. Now, like anything else, think about the ban on offshore drilling that was essentially an amendment that had to be renewed every year. The Hyde Amendment, banning the use of federal funds for the termination of pregnancy, had to be renewed every year. So there’s plenty of precedent in Congress for doing something on an appropriations bill every year to keep a practice going or to prevent a practice you don’t want to see happen. So this is no different from some of those other things.

TT: Your goal ultimately would be to get a repeal of the law.

Burgess: That’s not possible with the current makeup of the Senate. That’s not possible with the current occupant in the White House. But, yes, should some of those things change, then you bet I could go to work on that again in a heartbeat.

Comment

While the regulation and amendment has been extensively covered already here
(as can be searched on the left), it needs repeating in the sectarian US political climate that regulations are a bad idea whether from right wing or left wing political perspective.
That is, energy usage regulations on buildings, cars, washing machines etc as well as light bulbs. Energy usage mandates affect characteristics on all these products, as described (http://ceolas.net/#cc21x and onwards):
There is No Free Lunch, not even for Washington Bureaucrats!

Whether market competition or taxation, both policies are better (from the "liberal" tax perspective, the latter also helps pay for lower prices on alternatives and other energy subsidies and spending that such politicians favor).
Both policies keep choice, both policies save more energy overall:
http://freedomlightbulb.blogspot.com/p/deception-behind-banning-light-bulbs.html#policies
 

Howard Brandston interviewed on CBN

 
CBN News video and transcript article, June 1, including a Mark Martin interview with well known lighting designer Howard Brandston, of whom more in the Resource Links and earlier posts on this blog.






Some of the transcript:

Lights Out: Congress Making 100-Watt Power Grab?
HOLLOWVILLE, N.Y.
For more than 130 years, Thomas Edison's incandescent bulb has lit up homes around the world. Now, the light bulb as we know it may soon be a thing of the past.

Beginning this year, the federal government plans to phase out traditional incandescent light bulbs. The first to go is the 100-watt bulb.

It's all a part of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. Republicans in Congress are fighting its enactment. But if they fail, the law will go into effect later this year.

Is this an energy-saving move or another example of a government power grab?


Energy-Saving Move?

The law requires basic light bulbs to be about 25 percent more efficient and would remove traditional incandescent bulbs from the market.

"I think it's very wise because maybe 40 or 50 years ago, it wouldn't have worked because there weren't alternatives," Sandra Miles, a veteran of the telecommunications and lighting industries and president of the Goeken Group Corp., told CBN News.

"But now you have plenty of great energy efficient alternatives that give you the same look and feel of an incandescent," she explained.

Those alternatives primarily fall into two categories: CFLs, known for their curly shape, and light-emitting diodes or LEDs. They're supposed to save energy and last a lot longer than traditional light bulbs.

However, lighting professional Howard Brandston isn't ready to give up on a bulb that's not broken. Brandston is known for lighting structures like the Statue of Liberty and Malaysia's twin towers.

Brandston stands by Edison's invention, using traditional incandescent bulbs to light his home.


Save the Bulb

Under current law, the standard 100-watt incandescent light bulb is to be phased out this year, a move he strongly opposes.
In fact, Brandston considers it a moral obligation to speak out against the phasing out of incandescent bulbs.
He's even launched a campaign entitled, Save the Bulb.

"Look at all the people who have lost their homes," he told CBN News. "Look at all the people who are out of work. Look at all of that, and now we're going to impose a new... a new financial burden on them."

On his website, Brandston wrote, "I see no good reason to relegate one of America's greatest inventions to the dustbin of history -- other than to suit the particular interests of uninformed politicians, light manufacturing giants, and their lobbyists, and energy zealots."

"I know a couple of senior researchers in the lighting industry, who've started to hoard light bulbs, and me included, because I might not win this fight, although I'm dedicated to it," he said.

That dedication includes a lifetime supply of bulbs stored in his basement.


Light Bulb Socialism

Miles hopes the attraction of energy savings and long life will win over consumers.

Brandston bases his skepticism on the uninterrupted, smooth color spectrum emitted by Edison's safe, low-cost bulb.

But his opinion may not matter unless the new effort by conservatives in Congress can stall what has been called "light bulb socialism."

 

Update on James Bedell's Lighting Book

 
Lighting designer James Bedell is quite unusual among lighting designers, in supporting the ban (or phase out) of incandescent bulbs for ordinary use.

Whatever one's opinion on that particular issue, he has, as reviewed before, written an interesting e-book on lighting, "Losing Edison" encompassing all areas of home use, thankfully including halogens for those who like incandescents, and with an interesting project development section as described.

His enthusiasm also shines through in welcoming feedback and offering personal lighting advice to those who purchase his e-book.


An update video by James himself talking about the e-book, including promotion price of $4.99 for May 2012.
The regular, or initial, price last December was 11 dollars, as per the linked review, which has also been updated.




 

More Dim Issues with Philips new LED Bulb

 
Continuing the Philips prize awarded LED bulb saga,
Kevan has confirmed some dimming and the issues of the bulb as also found by the US Government L Prize test review and designated lab reports in the main post earlier.

From Save the Bulb blog, 13 May 2012
(original post has some more images)

L Prize (Fail!)
I have spent the last couple of weeks in San Francisco and taken the opportunity to observe the impact of the Californian ban on incandescent lamps that was implemented in January 2011. Basically it has had zero effect. Standard incandescent lamps are freely available through all retail supply outlets. I have checked corner stores, supermarkets, neighborhood hardware stores and DIY sheds all have a full range of conventional incandescent lamps. The “Energy Saving” options vary considerably. Most stores have a reasonable complement of CFLs some have halogen incandescent replacements but only on hardware store and the DIY sheds carry any LED incandescent replacements and just the DIY shed had the L prize lamp that I was very keen to get my hands on. These LED options are all selling in the range $17 to $24.


There has been so much store set by the quality of the L prize lamp that I was very keen to get one as it seems unlikely we will get them in the UK anytime soon. The first thing that surprised me was the extent of packaging for what is supposed to be an environmentally friendly product.

When first switched on I have to concede that the appearance of the light was OK in comparison to the GE Reveal lamp that it was replacing. The reveal is an incandescent with a slight blue tint.


As expected when dimmed things changed dramatically:....



The L prize got cooler in appearance and the perceived colour rendering became much worse casting a gloomy grey in the space. the lamp also suddenly went out about half way through the travel of the dimmer’s slider, the GE lamp dimmed right down to the minimum setting. What was really alarming was that the L prize lamp would not switch on at dimmer settings below about 70%. This was a serious problem in this location where three way switching was installed.


Really I am somewhat disappointed in a product that cost me $19.75 and does not work reliably at less than full power even when it claims to be dimmable. Solutions such as this must be made fully compatible with existing wiring infrastructure.

Another point about the massive cost for these lamps is whether or not the claimed savings are realistic in domestic use. How many people will be using the same lighting after 22 years? How many will still be living in the same house or apartment? At 58 years old I have to question whether I will still be alive to realise these claimed savings! It really is not good enough that the best of these lamp replacement products should be priced so high and fail to meet reasonable performance expectations that at least they do not risk leaving people in darkness! I do feel that the general lamp buying public are being conned into overspending for overcomplicated and ineffective products.

This page from EarthLed shows a dissection of the L prize lamp. It really does question the holistic sustainability of replacing such an elegantly simple device as the traditional incandescent lamp with something that requires computing power that would shame the flight computers of the Mercury and Gemini space programmes and has more electronic components than a transistor radio! All in all the resources used to make this thing are truly excessive for the required functionality.

Comment

The mentioned Earthled dissection of the bulb is also on the post "(S)tripping the Light Fantastic", with extensive commenting.

On the Dimming issue,
unsurprisingly it mirrors CFL problems since LEDs also have spiky emission spectra and with these LED types also use similar (phosphorescent) coating to help spread the light.
And dimming after all is also an “energy saving” benefit, that ban proponents welcome!

Dimming and other problems were as said also highlighted in the official committee test review and designated test lab reports on
“All about the new Philips LED Bulb, and how it won the L-Prize”

Renowned lighting designer and Congress lighting consultant Howard Brandston concurs on the dimming and other issues..

"The testing of this LED lamp was very narrow in scope and did not include some of the most important aspects of residential lighting.
As a lighting designer my primary concerns is the quality of the color of light emitted throughout the complete cycle of being dimmed, a common situation in homes.
In this use the lamp leaves much to be desired so I would never specify it."

A further interesting observation today (May 16) by Kevan

Apparently what I have is not the L Prize lamps but a confusing look-alike also sold by Philips!
This one is a Chinese made version, The L prize version itself is ”Assembled in the USA”.
So Philips are knocking off their own products!
The L Prize version is obviously too expensive for normal retail and is going out through specialists such as EarthLed!

... So are Philips using L Prize specs highlighted in reviews (eg a comparatively high lumen per watt efficiency), and the “kudos” from winning the L Prize, to push sales of cheaper inferior Chinese versions in ordinary stores for Joe Public who is assumed not to question quality and specs?

No! Never! ;-)
 

US Government LED Prize: Certain test reports not released...

 
As seen from the recent series of posts here about the new Philips LED bulb that won the American Government, L Prize (more), a particular source of interest was lighting engineer Philip Premysler's observations.

Following discrepancies he discovered in how the prize was awarded,
including deficiencies in the bulb itself, his further request for information has met with some resistance, as he allows me to make public... (his capitals, my added bold style highlights)

"The telltale sign of the Dept of Energy (DoE) having RIGGED the L-Prize contest is the DoE's refusal to release certain test reports on the L-Prize entry.
Several of test reports that are listed in the "Independent Data" column of the L Prize summary document were requested under the Freedom of Information Act [FOIA].

Based on the summary document we know these document would show failures of the L-Prize “winner” to meet the contest requirements.
The decision by the DoE to refuse to release the documents was appealed to the DoE’s Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) and the DoE was ordered to make a legal determination based on specific legal criteria as to whether the documents could be released
(see http://www.oha.doe.gov/cases/foia/FIA-11-0012.pdf)."

The mentioned test review summary document and appeal documents,
the test review report was as said previously discussed here.

"So far, the DoE has refused to carry out the OHA order. (Likely they see no way to avoid releasing the documents if they apply the OHA’s criteria)

Their tactic for stonewalling is absurd.
The DoE states that they expected the OHA to order a new search for documents and even though this did not happen and was not likely to happen they commenced a new search anyway, found some additional documents other than those requested and incurred some expenses. Then they took the position that unless payment for the new search was made by me, they would refuse to process the request. Thus far they have not responded to the OHA remand.
I should emphasize that there was no reason for the DoE to assume that the OHA would order a new search because the FOIA [Freedom of Information Act] request and appeal concerned specific documents that were identified by file name. In order for the DoE to make its initial negative response to the FOIA request they would have had to have already located the documents in question."

Summarized...

"Regarding the FOIA appeal, as may expected the DoE is stonewalling. They have yet to abide by the remand from the Office of Hearings and Appeals. I may appeal but I don't know how long that would take. Hopefully congress takes up an investigation and obtains all the relevant documents. In the meantime there is the published test report from Philips own website and there is the test report from the SCE, which you did a nice job on reviewing an selecting quotes.

The way in which the DoE is stonewalling is somewhat "creative". They claim they incorrectly assumed the OHA would order an expanded document search and therefore went ahead and conducted a document search and incurred some expense which they want me to pay. Apparently it is their position that they will disregard the remand order from the OHA until I pay for the expanded search which nobody requested (not me or the OHA)."