USA: Congress blocks Light Bulb Ban Funding

As of a few minutes ago as this is written, the House of Representatives has easily passed the Omnibus spending package 359 to 67, partly thwarting the light Bulb ban (blocking oversight funding).

January 14 article in USA Today by Wendy Koch

Excerpts:

Congress to bar enforcement of light-bulb phaseoutThe $1.1 trillion spending bill, which covers all federal agencies
and is expected to pass the House and Senate this week, bars the
Department of Energy from spending money to enforce federal rules that
set tougher efficiency standards for light bulbs. Such a measure has
been attached to prior budget deals as well....

This phaseout -- begun in January 2012 with the 100-watt, followed by
the 75-watt last year and the 60-watt and 40-watt this month -- has
angered many Americans who dislike newer bulbs partly because of their
higher up-front costs. House Republicans have tried but failed to stop
the phaseout so they've focused instead on de-funding its enforcement.

In announcing the new budget deal, Rep. Harold Rogers, R-Ky., chairman
of the House Appropriations Committee, called the
light-bulb-efficiency standard "onerous" and welcomed the enforcement
ban.

The issue is also covered Jan 14 on ARS Technica by John Timmer, and more widely repeated:
Unfortunately (!) he gets it wrong that the standards are repealed, rather than just the funding.
"As part of the new budget deal announced today, Congress has voted to eliminate standards for light bulb efficiency"
Perhaps that is why his story was widely reported on the internet.
It follows similar misunderstanding from previous budget blocks.

Nevertheless with slight editing, his remarks were true:

Recent Congresses have tried many times to repeal the standards, but these have all been blocked.
However, US budgets are often used as a vehicle to get policies enacted that couldn't pass otherwise, since having an actual budget is considered too valuable to hold up over relatively minor disputes. The repeal of the [funding of] these standards got attached to the budget and will be passed into law with it.

Following up on this, Washington Post today, Jan 15 in an article, asks...

My emphases and [] added comment:

....So what did Congress just do?

Tucked inside the $1.012 trillion spending bill that Congress is considering, there's a provision that would bar funding for enforcement of the new lightbulb standards. (It's the same bill that Burgess was pushing last summer and which he added to a 2011 budget bill.) That means the Energy Department can't spend any money to prohibit the manufacture or import of old bulbs.


Will this enforcement provision make any difference?

In some ways, no. All of the big manufacturers — General Electric, Philips, Sylvania — have been working for years to comply with the new standards, churning out new CFLs and halogens and LEDs. They're not expected to change course now.

But some stores could, in theory, try to sell the older incandescents if they can get their hands on them. Opponents of the enforcement provision have worried that foreign companies will do exactly that. "Given that American manufacturers have committed to following the law regardless of whether or not it is enforced," said Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio) last year, "the only benefit of this ill-informed rider is to allow foreign manufacturers who may not feel a similar obligation—to import noncompliant light bulbs that will not only harm the investments made by U.S. companies, but place at risk the U.S. manufacturing jobs associated with making compliant bulbs."
[presumably more likely re distributors rather than manufacturers]

Whether that happens or not remains to be seen. It's still illegal to make or import old lightbulbs. The rider just makes it a little easier to get away with it in practice.

Again, today:
Fox News 15 January 2014 unsigned article

My emphases added again:

Congress offers glimmer of hope for incandescent light bulb
The House is expected to vote on a $1.1 trillion spending bill that dictates the budgets for all federal agencies House Wednesday afternoon -- and it may be a desperately needed lifeline for the light bulb.

The bill includes a prohibition on funding for “the Administration’s onerous ‘light bulb’ standard,” as Appropriations Committee chairman Hal Rogers (R., Ky) described it, which had sought to dramatically improve the energy efficiency of ordinary incandescent light bulbs but ultimately spelled the end of the road for the century-old technology.

A portion of that 2007 law, which finally took effect on Jan. 1, mandated that manufacturers improve their light bulbs: 40W bulbs must draw just 10.5W, and 60W bulbs must draw no more than 11W. The result is the effectively a ban: Incandescents simply can’t keep up with those twisty compact fluorescent (CFL) and newer LED bulbs.

But there's hope for those glass globes yet, however: Citing “a continued public desire for these products,” the Energy and Water Appropriations section of the bill would prohibit funds to implement or enforce the higher efficiency light bulb standards.

“None of the funds made available in this Act may be used … to implement or enforce the standards established by the tables contained in section 325(i)(1)(B) of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act,” reads section 322 of the bill.

Critics call the funding ban a nuisance, but said it likely won’t stop the shift toward more energy-efficient bulbs, according to USA Today.

"The market has marched forward despite this rider," Franz Matzner, associate director of government affairs at the Natural Resources Defense Council, told the paper. "The manufacturers have all been saying -- we're going to comply anyway."

The demise of the incandescent bulb might come as a surprise to most Americans. A recent study by Lutron pointed out that fewer than 1 in 3 adults (just 28 percent) were aware of the planned phase out. A similar Socket Survey by Sylvania showed slightly more awareness -- 4 in 10 were aware of the phase out, it revealed.

A quick check of Home Depot’s website indicates no shortage of incandescent bulbs; the company sells a six-pack for just under $10 -- and for the born hoarder, a pack of 288 for $118.

In late December, Home Depot told FoxNews.com it had a six-month stockpile before the supplies ran out.

Comment

The amendment to the yearly Water and Energy bill was made in July 2013 by Texan Congressman Michael Burgess
and follows the same manoeuvre in 2012 and 2011.


In practice the result is less clear, as local manufacturers are wary to base production on temporary if to date yearly
Unsurprisingly Texas Congressmen have been behind this, since Gov Rick Perry legalized regular incandescents in Texas which would otherwise be subject to federal opposition, like Arizona gun laws etc


Interesting comment made in the USA Today article above by NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council), normally very much in favor of the ban as per their website.

With my emphasis

"The market has marched forward despite this rider," says Franz Matzner, associate director of government affairs at the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group. "The manufacturers have all been saying -- we're going to comply anyway."

Yet Matzner says the ban should be eliminated, because it can create a loophole for illegal imports of the old incandescents and doesn't allow DOE to help U.S. companies meet the new standards. The phaseout doesn't stop stores from selling remaining stock of the old bulbs but bars them from making or importing them.

Note, his remark
"the manufacturers have all been saying -- we're going to comply anyway" is presumably in regard to the recent legal block.
Otherwise, as amply covered - and referenced - elsewhere here, major manufacturers jumped in with green activists to seek the ban to stop any small or new local outfits from making the easily made simple generic patent-expired popular cheap bulbs, profitable to the local manufactures on small overheads, but admittedly less profitable than patented complex expensive new CFL/LED alternatives for the majors - and they also wanted "political payback" for any such encouraged investments.
This of course also follows the exact same tactic by the exact same manufacturers to stop small companies from making incandescent bulbs lasting longer than 1000 hours, under the Phoebus cartel, also covered previously here.
Even as the pro-ban lobby themselves typically say, albeit with a different rationale in justifying government legislation:
"The manufacturers had decades to stop making them - but didn't".

As always, the main point is not of manufacturers naturally seeking to make profit and to lobby for them, but rather that legislating politicians wrongfully hand them over...



How Regulations are Wrongly Justified
14 points, referenced:
Includes why the overall society savings aren't there, and even if they were, why alternative policies are better, including alternative policies that target light bulbs.
 

The Edison Obama Light Bulb...

Given the US election campaign kicking off in earnest with the first TV debate last night, there have of course been plenty of satirical images around on the light bulb issue, which (unfortunately) is a clearly split partisan issue:

While I know of several against the ban on "right wing" freedom of choice grounds, there are also those against on environmental grounds, readers of the blog who Í know would otherwise have a "left wing" political orientation.

Still, I am sure the latter won't mind a little fun with some politically oriented images against the ban ;-)
The image sources are on the images.

Explaining the above for those unfamiliar with the context, President Obama has at various times praised the American entrepreneurial spirit, citing past examples that he nevertheless has sought to ban, or to implement and strengthen a ban on (different light bulbs) or to alter by federal regulation in various ways - and not because the products were unsafe to use...


President Obama, State of the Union Address 25 January 2011:

What we can do - what America does better than anyone - is spark the creativity and imagination of our people.
We are the nation that put cars in driveways and computers in offices,
the nation of Edison and the Wright brothers...

A year later, in the 2012 State of the Union address, he also said
"I will not back down from protecting our kids from mercury poison"...








How Regulations are Wrongly Justified 14 points, referenced: Includes why the overall society savings aren't there, and even if they were, why alternative policies are better, including alternative policies that target light bulbs.
 

The Choice of Chu's isn't Freedom to Choose

 

As stated by US Energy Secretary Steven Chu, a man keen on getting American citizens to use the CFLs that his lab helped develop.


 
Continuing a theme, as posted previously...


Incandescent Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Arc Lamp
(the sequel? Why, the Temple of Gloom, of course)

image  Otitis"Light Bulb Hoarding means Water Boarding"






Getting a Light Sentence?

image  David Dees





The Charge of the Light Brigade

image  AdminGirl


 

A Mercurial Twist

 
From the Send Your Light Bulbs to Washington blog post, quoting the Washington Times, with added highlights and image.

Washington Times Editorial January 27 2012
Obama’s Twisty Light Bulb Logic

President Obama said in his State of the Union address, “I will not back down from protecting our kids from mercury pollution.” Of course, no one is asking him to back down. There is no movement in favor of exposing kids to mercury poisoning. It was like boldly proclaiming opposition to organized dog fights.

Mr. Obama was obliquely referring to his support for the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) rule issued late last year by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In a December presidential memorandum, Mr. Obama claimed that “by substantially reducing emissions of pollutants that contribute to neurological damage, cancer, respiratory illnesses and other health risks, the MATS Rule will produce major health benefits for millions of Americans - including children, older Americans and other vulnerable populations.” MATS is the most expensive EPA rule revision in history, and compliance will cost power plants $10-18 billion a year. These costs will be passed directly to consumers.

Some critics have charged that hyping mercury poisoning in MATS was just a cover for the EPA to ramp up its regulatory assault on the coal industry. Trace amounts of mercury from coal-fired power-plant emissions affect a small number of Americans, chiefly those who live near the emissions sources.

At the same time, however, the Obama administration has been trying to force Americans to accept even greater mercury risks by insisting that traditional incandescent light bulbs be replaced with compact fluorescent lights (CFLs).

The mercury vapor in CFLs is at a much more dangerous concentration than anything coming out of power plants. The associated risks are magnified because the toxic vapors and dust from a broken bulb would be contained in a room or enclosed area.
The same EPA that is sounding the alarm about mercury emissions from power plants has written a detailed guide explaining how to respond to a broken CFL. It involves, among other things, evacuating the room in which the breakage occurs, shutting down central heating and air conditioning, airing out the room, carefully collecting bulb fragments and dust with rolled up duct tape, and placing all cleanup materials in airtight bags in a protected area outdoors pending proper disposal.
Who knew that dropping a light bulb would instantly turn a home into a HAZMAT zone?

If Mr. Obama had his way, fluorescent lights would be in every home and school in America.
The administration was set to enforce the ban on traditional incandescent light bulbs that passed in 2007 and was to begin this year, but a provision was included in the budget bill passed in December that would prohibit the Obama administration from spending any money to enforce the light-bulb ban. Energy Secretary David [Steven] Chu mocked this as “a choice that continues to let people waste their own money.” But it might also let them better protect their kids.

Remember when you are handling a CFL that it contains potentially deadly poisons. You can recognize the bulbs because they are twisty, like Mr. Obama’s policy logic.

 

The Virginia Bulb Bill and its Background

 
As covered in an earlier post (copy below),
local Virginia statehouse delegate Bob Marshall is joining local politicians in other states in opposing federal light bulb regulations.

However, the earlier referenced article did not make clear he had already launched the bill (Bob Marshall's 2012 session bills here):
It was launched on December 19 2011, as bill HB66, and has been referred to the House Committee on Commerce and Labor.

Bill Summary

Establishes a procedure by which a manufacturer of incandescent light bulbs (ILBs) in Virginia may obtain a license from the State Corporation Commission.

Licensed manufacturers are required to distribute their light bulbs only within the Commonwealth. The license of any licensed manufacturer is subject to revocation or suspension if it violates such requirement or engages in other prohibited conduct.

The Office of the Attorney General is authorized to represent, or assist in the representation of, any licensee in any action instituted by the federal government, or by any person acting pursuant to color of federal law, in which it is alleged that the licensee has violated any provision of federal law regulating the manufacture or sale of ILBs.

Bill Purpose
(from the full text of the bill, extract:)

§ 59.1-551. Purpose.

A. The purpose of this chapter is to encourage the manufacturing within the Commonwealth of ILBs that will be distributed only within the Commonwealth.

B. The General Assembly finds that:

1. Licensing manufacturers of ILBs will encourage the manufacturing of such bulbs in Virginia;

2. Access to a plentiful supply of ILBs will protect the public health, safety and welfare by providing citizens of the Commonwealth with better lighting quality than is provided by other types of light bulbs;

3. Providing Virginians with ILBs will protect their eyesight from risks associated with the use of light bulbs that provide poorer quality illumination;

4. The use of ILBs protects the public safety and environment from the risk of mercury poisoning in homes, offices, and other places of residence and business and from pollution caused by landfill disposal of mercury-filled compact fluorescent light bulbs; and

5. The manufacturing within the Commonwealth of ILBs will benefit the public welfare by ensuring that Virginians, especially those receiving public assistance, have the opportunity to purchase ILBs at an affordable price.

Comment

As seen from previous state bills,
this bill has a slightly different emphasis, on specific local licensing, from the Virginia State Corporation Commission, with the local Attorney General in turn authorized to defend the licences against any federal opposition.


Background
As also noted in the previous update,
Virginia is of interest in having a tradition of incandescent manufacturing, the GE closure of the Winchester plant also being covered by Tim Carney in this Washington Examiner article, "GE backed regulations that killed GE jobs in U.S", September 2010, extracts:

On Thursday night -- sometime around 8 o'clock -- 130 years after Thomas Edison commercialized the incandescent light bulb, Dwayne Madigan helped make the last such bulb Edison's company, General Electric, would make in the United States.

GE supported the [US federal light bulb] regulations. Many Winchester workers, noting that the CFLs are made in China by lower-wage workers, say GE wanted to force the higher profit-margin bulbs on consumers, and Winchester is collateral damage.

GE management in a press release last year blamed the factory's closing on "a variety of energy regulations that establish lighting efficiency standards" that will "make the familiar lighting products produced at the Winchester Plant obsolete."

But one worker, who went out of his way to talk to me, said the regulations are just a "scapegoat." GE wanted to send their jobs to Mexico, and the regulations provide political cover.
So GE is still making traditional incandescents -- but in Monterrey, Mexico, instead of Winchester. "We look at our business as a global business," Fraser explained.

The Washington Post 2010 article adds

The [GE] company developed a plan to see what it would take to retrofit a plant that makes traditional incandescents into one that makes CFLs.
Even with a $40 million investment and automation, the disparity in wages and other factors made it uneconomical. The new plant's CFLs would have cost about 50 percent more than those from China, GE officials said.

"For those who make incandescent bulbs the law was bad for business," [China based CFL manufacturer] Yan said. "For people like us, it was very good."

The Guardian followed up in November 2010, including...

To workers in this pre-revolution frontier town, the incandescent bulb – virtually unchanged in a century – may be outdated but GE's refusal to equip the factory to make energy-efficient bulbs amounts to a slap in the face.

Political leaders, they say, recite a mantra of hope but they have little to show for their words. "Obama talks about bringing green jobs to America but they're going to China and it doesn't seem right," said Brady Allen, 56, an engineer now working in a retail auto parts store near the shuttered GE plant.

US fears of falling behind China in clean energy manufacturing are being compounded by a dispute over recent Chinese curbs on the export of rare earth metals used in clean energy products. In short, the promise that decades-long job losses from traditional manufacturing might be made up by American-led growth in areas of new technology, is coming up empty.

The earlier post covering the Virginia bill particularly focused on the Local v Federal rules issue, is copied below for convenience.


#     #     #     #     #     #     #     #     #     #     #


As also a Virginia Freedom Bill is launched:
What chance of Local versus Federal Law?


Update (January 6):
Unlike many other states, Virginia does have a history of local light bulb manufacture.
General Electric had a plant at Winchester, Virginia, said to be the last major US incandescent
manufacturing facility (some American incandescent manufacture remains), a plant which closed controversially in 2010, as GE switched to invest in China.
See the contemporary 2010 articles: Washington Post, The Guardian
I will make a follow up post on Virginia.


At least 7 American states have launched local freedom of manufacture and sale bills, which in Texas as posted has been enacted (June 2011).

Now comes the news that Virginia House delegate Bob Marshall (more) is preparing to defend a similar freedom for Virginia.



Virginia Statehouse News article 5 January 2012 by Bill McMorris, with my highlighting
(copy also on Virginia Watchdog)

VA tries to dodge fed ban on incandescent lightbulbs
Delegate Bob Marshall hopes to do for lightbulbs in Virginia what California did for marijuana and Arizona did for guns. But he faces an uphill climb.
The Manassas Republican introduced a bill to allow makers of incandescent lightbulbs to set up shop in Virginia after a federal ban on the bulbs went into effect Jan. 1.
Marshall, a skeptic of global warming, said he has safety concerns about the compact fluorescent bulbs, or CFBs, that are supplanting traditional lightbulbs. The more energy-efficient bulbs carry traces of mercury, and federal guidelines recommend evacuating the site of a broken bulb for up to 10 minutes before trying to clean it.

"The solution is worse than the problem," he said, "When you drop one of these mercury bulbs you have hazardous materials. It's a health risk that you wouldn't have with one of Mr. (Thomas) Edison's bulbs."

The same federal guidelines, however, say mercury levels fall below hazardous standards, and increased efficiency has resulted in lower levels of mercury.

Marshall's proposal would avoid the Interstate Commerce Clause in federal law by limiting distribution to the state. The federal government has used the clause to push regulation on items including guns and drugs. The legislation mirrors efforts in Arizona, where in-state gun magazines have skirted federal firearm regulations, as well as California's own medical-marijuana industry.

"I have identified other powers reserved to states under the 10th Amendment that we can manufacture these in Virginia without federal interference," he said. "This is the kind of economic development I get behind. We're not tossing taxpayer money at companies, we are just allowing them to exist."

Constitutional scholars are skeptical.
Saikrishna Prakash, who teaches constitutional law at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville, said Marshall's efforts may not hold up in court.

"If the federal government does not want these bulbs built, they can ban interstate and foreign trade and, to make the ban more effective, they can ban intrastate trade to prevent the bulbs from trickling into the market," he said.

Prakash said the lightbulb policy could go the way of California's legalization of medical-marijuana production in 1996.
In the 2004 case, Gonzales v. Raich, the Supreme Court ruled even if marijuana was grown for personal medical use, legal under state law, the federal government can ban production under interests of interstate commerce.

"Supreme Court doctrine over the years has indicated that Congress can regulate intrastate sales if it relates to interstate sales, so I'm not sure it would hold up," Prakash said.

Marshall's proposal says the Virginia Attorney General's Office would defend bulb makers if the federal government tried to stop production.

"If we tell them they have the protection of the state of Virginia and our attorney general, then they will say that Virginia is the place to do business," he said.

Caroline Gibson, spokeswoman for Republican Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, said the office has not yet taken a position on the proposal.

Under a 2007 federal law, the U.S. Congress adopted efficiency standards that did away with traditional 100-watt light bulbs. The law led to increased production of CFBs, and light-emitting diode bulbs, or LEDs, which can be up to 10-times more expensive than traditional bulbs but save energy costs over time.

Former Republican President George W. Bush signed the bill into law, but his contemporary party mates, including Marshall, have taken aim at the regulation.

"This was not a response to consumer demand; it was the federal government interfering in something it had no business doing," he said.

Should the proposal become law, there's a decent chance it could survive:
Gonzales v. Raich has not interrupted the medical-marijuana trade in California, which has grown into a $2 billion industry with more than 2,000 dispensaries.

"You have all of these U.S. attorneys and marshals and FBI and they have to determine who they're going after, and they decided to spend their resources elsewhere," Prakash said. "That doesn't mean it's legal, it just means the federal government does not have the resources to shut down the activity."

The federal government's ability to crack down on traditional incandescent light bulbs has even fewer resources after congressional Republicans defunded the enforcement program in December.

But even if the law passes, Virginia is unlikely to attract any new business, since energy companies have invested millions preparing for the bulb ban, said Joe Higbee, spokesman for the National Electrical Manufacturers Association, or NEMA, an industry lobbying group based in Rosslyn.

"The traditional incandescent bulb is not being made anymore," he said. "People are still able to purchase incandescent bulbs; they are more advanced and efficient because manufacturers are looking ahead."

Marshall is not worried.

"The market is still there, and I think there are plenty of entrepreneurs in Virginia who will take the industry forward if we provide them protection," he said.

Environmental groups have pledged to contest Marshall's proposal.

"We don't want any type of circumvention of these environmental protections," said Lisa Guthrie, executive director of the Virginia League of Conservation Voters, or VLCV.

State Sen. Dave Marsden, D-Alexandria, does not expect the bill — or the spirit behind it — to advance far.

"I don't think it's going anywhere; they tried this same thing with guns in the past and it hasn't gone anywhere," he said. "This whole 'keep-it-in-Virginia' mindset makes Virginia look like it has secessionist tones, which is not good for business."

Marshall said Wednesday that he plans to move forward with the proposal when the General Assembly 2012 session begins. The session starts next week.

Comment: The Federal v State issue

The federal versus local state issue has of course arisen also with regard to the other state bills, as linked above. As with drugs and guns, the letter of the law is one thing - local enforcement another.
In other words, it depends on local support.

In this regard, note the difference as well as the similarity applying to Arizona and Texas, and their local legislation.


Arizona,
where Gov Jan Brewer vetoed the local light bulb freedom bill, as reported in the Arizona Capitol Times article of May 11 2010, excerpts:

Brewer said the goal of H2337 [local light bulb sales] can be more easily achieved with another bill she signed in April, H2307, that states that any firearm manufactured wholly in Arizona is not subject to federal regulations if it is not sold outside the state.

Brewer wrote in her veto letter that the guns bill is a better way for Arizona to assert its 10th Amendment rights because the state would need to begin mining and processing tungsten, a critical component of incandescent light bulbs.

“I believe that the Firearms Freedom Act is the more immediate and practical vehicle for achieving this objective,” Brewer wrote in her veto letter. “HB2337 would take many more years to achieve its goal.”

Also, a letter from Gov Brewer explaining her stance, here (pdf document).


Notice that she says she believed in the case, and could have asserted state rights, according to the 10th Amendment: as she says, she had already done so, with local Healthcare, and with the Firearms Freedom Act - but chose not to do so in the case of local light bulb sales, because of "no active tungsten mining or mineral processing facilities in Arizona".

The lack of local tungsten or its processing seems a lame excuse:
The iron in Arizona made firearms does not come from Arizona mined or processed iron ore!
See Arizona Government on mining resources (2010 map, pdf), and their (latest) 2007 mining production report.

The import of "generic non-specific components" is allowed according to most commerce clause interpretation in other bills - what is prohibited is rather the import of specific, significant parts.
In other words: tungsten itself has a lot of other uses in other states - so import is not ruled out.
However tungsten filaments have few other uses - so they would have to be made locally.
Again, comparing with Arizona gun law legislation, notice how special parts are indeed imported, and how hardened steel etc is produced outside Arizona.

Besides, nearly all manufactured products, in any locality, will of course have some non-locally made component.
The logic of "local manufacture and sale", of light bulbs as of other products in other state bills, in no case includes the necessity of local mining of any and every mineral involved.

The clear impression is that Gov Brewer did not sign it for some other reason, which she did not wish to mention.


More importantly overall here,
Gov Brewer's actions with healthcare and firearms shows that if individual states are against federal legislation, it seems difficult to stop them.
There is also a moral isssue: if a federal law should apply everywhere, then it should also apply to those states who wish to subject their residents to stricter interpretations of the law. In other words, California should not be allowed any earlier or stricter light bulb ban, any more than Arizona or others should be allowed to avoid them.
The European Union also allows such local "stricter interpretation", when if a federal law is (questionably) needed in the first place, it should be the same for all, particularly if product safety is not an issue.


As for Texas,
covered earlier, I understand that Gov Perry's office dealt with both local and federal attorney generals over the issue, before Gov Perry signed the bill, which presumably he would not do if he did not consider it legal - also in the absence of Texas tungsten mining!

 

Light Bulb Testimonial

 
 

 

Having done one review of a book that welcomes the demise of Edison's simple bulb, a blog like this might balance it with something that does not...
also in these holiday times when a good read might be welcome!

Published last summer 2011,
the latest December Congress developments may have halted things at "Death Row" level, but of course the ban has not gone away...

To begin with,
it should be clear that this cheap e-book, only around US $2 dollars (say on Amazon) is really about 2 lengthy essays or articles, than a book as such.
But for the price of a Cappucino, you certainly get good value, by 2 knowledgeable authors.


I can't better the overall review of the Broadside Book Publisher site:

I, Light Bulb: A Death Row Testimonial demonstrates how the American economy has gone from free markets to politically correct, government controlled crony capitalism in the half century since Leonard E. Read wrote the classic essay, “I, Pencil.”

Author Michael Patrick Leahy tells the story of the ban on the current generation of incandescents from the perspective of a condemned 100 watt light bulb. In the voice of the light bulb, Leahy points out the need for political activism to reverse this ban, arguing that it not only prevents an innocent incandescent light bulb from continuing a useful economic life, it also deprives every American of their own economic liberty and freedom of choice.


Readers who buy I, Lightbulb will also receive the bonus companion e-book The Disastrous Lightbulb Ban by Howard Brandston, at no additional cost.

Brandston, the internationally recognized expert on lighting most well known for lighting the Statue of Liberty, explains why the federal government’s ban on the current generation of incandescent light bulbs is such a bad idea.
He explains how in 2007 a Democrat controlled Congress, the lamp manufacturers, the Department of Energy, and George W. Bush combined to force us to replace inexpensive and safe incandescent light bulbs with expensive, unsafe Compact Fluorescent Light bulbs that contain mercury. In this companion book to I, Light Bulb, Brandston concludes by encouraging citizen political activism to repeal this ridiculous ban.

The August 2011 Weekly Standard article by editor Joseph Bottum,
puts the issues raised in a wider perspective. Extracts:


It's Green and Blue, But Not Bright

The two essays in a new pamphlet in the "Voices of the Tea Party" series from Broadside Books — I, Light Bulb: A Death Row Testimonial by the editor Michael Patrick Leahy and The Disastrous Light Bulb Ban by Howard M. Brandston — both identify the primary cause as an activist and out-of-control government, manipulated by crony-capitalist corporations:
"If you want to find the ultimate roots of the movement... it all began when Herbert Hoover was named the Secretary of Commerce under Warren Harding, when he set about organizing manufacturers into cooperative industry organizations."

In this telling,
the otherwise forgotten 1924 "Phoebus Cartel" of light-bulb manufacturers looms large, but the story only really gets rolling with the oil crisis of the 1970s, when Congress decided energy policy lay squarely within its remit and began to pass laws mandating all kinds of usage standards for cars and factories.

In those days, of course, the announced purpose was American "energy independence" rather than our currently declared goal of reducing greenhouse gases.
But the real motives, say the Tea Party authors, were always the same: a mistrust of ordinary people and an insatiable hunger for increased government. All of which culminated when the 2007 Democrat-dominated Congress (led by Nancy Pelosi, Nanny of the House) set out to do something, anything, that expanded government power, changed the nation's lifestyle, and rewarded the large manufacturers such as General Electric that had supported the Democrats' election. An inattentive or uninterested President Bush signed the bill, and here we are.

But if it hadn't been incandescent bulbs, it would have been something else.
The truisms of the nannies, the trite expressions of public morality spraying from the religious weight of environmentalism, will not be denied. One way or another, they force themselves out into the public air.

Among Republicans, Fred Upton, the Michigan Republican who chairs the House Energy and Commerce Committee, is under some attack for having sponsored the amendment that kept the light-bulb ban alive in the 2007 energy bill. George W. Bush is tarred with the same indictment for having failed to veto the bizarre legislation. But, really, those poor men were just trying to do the right thing. They accepted the faux-science of CFLs and the pseudo-economics because they wanted to believe. They wanted to share in the great public morality of environmentalism, and everyone seemed to be telling them that light bulbs were the way to do it.


In the event, light bulbs weren't the way to do it,
but that's really beside the point.

You want to know where the light-bulb ban began?
It wasn't Nancy Pelosi, and it wasn't Herbert Hoover, and it wasn't even the shadowy Phoebus Cartel, though all who do evil love the darkness.
The light-bulb ban was carried forward by the placards about towels in motel rooms. It was nursed at the local coffee shop, where we are lectured in high moral language about how only sustainable coffee beans — gathered, if the illustrations are accurate, on the misty slopes of Ytaiao Mountain by Rima the jungle girl — can redeem us. Saving the planet, one Starbucks at a time.

The demand for CFLs was inculcated at "Earth Day" plays,
in which grade-school children got to act out the roles of bunnies and butterflies who've come to warn us that we must be nice to the Earth
(As James Lileks once noted, those school plays typically end with "a hymn to nature that makes the Romantic poets look like strip-mining company CEOs.")
The desire to eradicate incandescent bulbs grew up with myths of the Cuyahoga River catching fire and the smog of Los Angeles rolling through the Hollywood Hills like malevolent mud.

The truth or falsity of such things is a trifle, a quibble, a bagatelle.
What matters is that they form our national mythology and our cultural worldview. They form our public religion — the one moral vocabulary that can be spoken in this country anywhere and anytime.

Of course, the result is the kind of general feeling that something must be done about it all, and if that something is rather pointless — the peculiar rush to legislate 1.6-gallon toilets is a good example — nonetheless we have shown a righteous will by trying. We have the guilt-release of a noble attempt. We have the warm feeling of being on the side of good.
We have asserted our standing as children of light, even if rather ineffectual ones. We have followed the sayings of nanny.

I also refer to some interesting passages of the e-book on the Ceolas.net site
in relation to the famous (infamous) Phoebus cartel.

To quote, from Michael Patrick Leahy's I, Lightbulb:

During World War I, the War Industries Board was a government-authorized, industry-staffed effort engaged in industrial planning. General Electric executives such as Gerard Swope participated:
By so doing, and by watching Hoover in action in the sister agency, the Food Administration, they got the idea that by participating in such government authorized planning efforts, they could keep out competitors, control the market, and maximize their profits.

When Swope was named president of General Electric in 1922, he immediately set about applying those principles to the electrical lighting market.
Swope knew that the tungsten patent [vital to well-working light bulbs] would expire in 1927.
How was he going to maintain his monopoly?


The Phoebus Cartel
In 1924, General Electric, along with several major European corporations,
and with the implicit blessing of Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover, formed a cartel - a cooperative group of competing firms who agreed to fix prices, share technology, establish production standards, and use common marketing practices.

By sharing incandescent light bulb patents that kept competitors out, and by agreeing on exclusive geographic spheres of influence, the member companies could maintain high market shares and high profits.
Called "The Phoebus Cartel" after the Swiss company Phoebus, they set out to keep track of all their activities around the world.

Under the agreement,
General Electric got the United States,
Associated Electrical Industries got the United Kingdom,
Osram got Germany,
Philips got Holland,
and Tungsram got Eastern Europe.
The European companies got to share the British overseas territories, and they all could compete in the rest of the world. General Electric was guaranteed that none of the other major manufacturers of incandescent light bulbs would enter the American market.
When the agreement began, General Electric had a 90 percent market share.
When it ended fifteen years later, General Electric still had a 90 percent market share.

Only a few dozen small, scrappy Japanese manufacturing companies dared to enter the American market and take on General Electric:
They ignored General Electric and related Phoebus Cartel patents, copied what they could, and shipped their less expensive, shorter-lasting incandescent bulbs into the United States. When they began to show some increase in sales, General Electric got friends in Congress to slap a tariff on imported incandescent bulbs, and the price advantage disappeared. Japanese inroads were stopped.

When the cartel was first organized, the life span of the average bulb was 1,000 hours. Fifteen years later, when the cartel came to an end due to World War II, it remained the same.
This is not the kind of progress you would expect if the full engineering and research capabilities of General Electric had been tasked with expanding the life span. Word in our family has always been that this was intentional:
Every 1,000 hours, you had to buy a new incandescent light bulb. Why expand the life span to 2,000 hours? You would just cut your sales in half...

Howard Brandston's contribution The Disastrous Light Bulb Ban is again illuminating, if such words may be used, especially in my view his direct personal involvement in light bulb legislation, having been consulted not only in the proposals leading to the 2007 legislation but also more recently in the Senate hearing this year that looked into reasons or not to proceed with the ban ("phase out").

He clarifies how light bulb manufacturers actively sought the ban
(slightly edited and highlighted extracts):

The NEMA (National Electrical Manufacturers Association) Lamp Subcommittee was composed of General Electric, Osram Sylvania, and Philips, the same industrial giants who formed the old Phoebus Cartel back in 1924 and was conducting its own research and internal hearings that culminated in a recommendation to ban the incandescent light bulb.
When I asked NEMA for help in fighting the incandescent light ban, I was politely told that they could not be involved in any research program like that...
In April 2007, ahead of Congress hearings, NEMA announced its support for the Government's energy efficient lighting policy.

He also runs through reasons why the ban is wrong,
as I reference to on the website, and is unnecessary to repeat here.




Footnotes:

Michael Patrick Leahy
biography, website, blog
As seen, an extensive background in business management and conservative politics.
Michael is currently the Series Editor for Broadside Books' "Voices of the Tea Party" series of e-books.
Also not idle on the light bulb front - helping to put out a rough service bulb that "beats the ban"!



Howard Brandston
biography, commentary, business
As seen well known lighting designer with numerous projects, also a guest lecturer, visiting professor, and as noted the Congress choice of expert opinion on lighting issues.

Has written a book Learning to See, A Matter of Light,
full description here...

As one reviewer puts it,
“This is a gem of a book. For the design beginner it sets the approach to discovery. For the lighting professional it gives insights that can inspire creativity. The teacher will find useful methods for involving students in lighting concepts. The interested person will gain a higher understanding of how light affects the quality of our lives.”

About the 9 1/2 Month USA Ban Delay

 
This will be updated continously for some time ...

# # #
Sunday (final?) update on this post

The initial misunderstanding about this all being about a ban being overturned,
has been replaced by misgivings that it was a futile amendment that changes nothing.

True and false:
As laid out in a new post with clarification of light bulb regulations,
little changes for consumers, since the 2012 sale of incandscents was never banned in the first place (only manufacture and import), and stores were stocking up anyway.

But the further point is that the Republican amendment was all that was achievable in a Democrat controlled Senate, and its most important function was to force Congress to look again at the whole light bulb issue in late 2012, at election time.

In turn,
the idea that light bulbs are an unimportant issue,
does not hold in the sense, as said, that people do use artificial lighting much of their time, and it is of course "bellwether" type regulation for all other energy efficiency regulations on cars, buildings, washing machines etc.

As covered in a preceding post, the underlying desire to save energy and electricity, to whatever extent ideologically desired, can be met much more effectively by other means.

Democrats and Republicans are wrongly ideologically divided on the light bulb issue,
which as explained is wrong in both left-wing and right-wing terms,
and regarding any party members who still believe that targeting light bulbs is a good idea, there are the more relevant described alternative policies, taking in both left-wing and right-wing ideologies.
# # #


# # #
Saturday update

RE American manufacturers continuing to make incandescents:
[ this has since been expanded on in a separate post ]

Aside from smaller outfits making "rough service" and other legal incandescents,
USA has relevant incandescent manufacture in for example South Carolina and Pennsylvania - plants which apparently will continue to make the incandescents in 2012 after amendment provisions, and who are backed by local political representatives also on the issue of the halted federal regulations themselves.
See Pennsylvania bill
More on that and South Carolina etc manufacturing bills here.

Texas has no current manufacturing,
but Gov Perry spokesmen told me earlier this year that they were looking for interested companies, after legalisation of local incandescent manufacture in June 2011.
There was the contention of contravening federal laws, but I understand they had been in touch with the Federal Attorney General's office before legalising it locally
(an issue which was seemingly one reason that Gov Jan Brewer of Arizona did not sign their local bill beforehand). More on Texas in an earlier (updated) blog post.


One can also note that California had no problem in locally legislating on the issue,
albeit the other way round, in banning local sales of higher wattage incandescents earlier this year.

Therefore, even after Sep 2012, it is not clear to what extent federal laws would apply in all states.
# # #



# # #
Update Friday evening
The Hill again
Sen. Bingaman: Light bulb rider will have 'little practical consequence'

“This decision may have little practical consequence on which incandescent light bulbs are available in stores because, starting Jan. 1, it will be illegal to produce or import the inefficient, wasteful bulbs in the United States,”
Bingaman said in a statement.

Some Democrats are as seen pointing out the illegality involved
- which is of course true:
It is simply funding of the oversight of the regulations that has been taken away. This is being compared to voluntarily declaring goods brought into the country, or voluntarily complying with any law, when noone is looking...

That said Republican Congressmen like Joe Barton and Michael Burgess are pointing out the de facto ban delay, as already described, an interpretation which most media commentators continue to share.
# # #





# # #
Update Friday evening
Seen on HyperVocal

The battle over light bulbs seems a silly one, but at the heart of the issue is how Democrats paint Republicans as opposing technological innovation and energy efficiency standards, while the Republicans paint the Democrats as wanting to regulate the homes of Americans.

In this very tiny issue is the larger picture of how both political parties fundamentally believe the country should be governed.

This is no doubt true... Light bulbs are made out to be a silly issue (despite people spending half their lives under artifical lights) but it no doubt also touches some raw ideological nerves, as a very visual symbol either of personal freedom, or of Government doing what is supposedly best for all.
# # #


# # #
Update 3pm Eastern Time:
The Hill reporting Bill passage through House. Extracts:

The House easily approved (296-121) a $1 trillion omnibus Friday,
sending the bill to a Senate for a likely weekend vote.
Senate passage would send the bill to the White House and avert a government shutdown.
Broad support for the bill among Democrats in large part reflected the reality that without passage, the government would shut down at midnight Friday.

Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.) said. "This house has spent more time debating light bulbs than we have putting American people to work. It's really been an outrage."
[Ah, Louise...]

# # #


Following on from yesterday's meeting as reported on this blog, an accord was reached last night and confirmed this morning, which effectively delays the ban on 100 Watt bulbs, due to start 1 January, until September 30, 2012.
That is, until the end of the government's fiscal year.

The spending deal still needs to be passed by the House of Representatives on Friday, ahead of a midnight funding deadline, but this is seen as a formality.

In other words,
the previously described Energy and Water Spending Bill amendment is implemented, that prevents funding of the oversight of ban compliance: a roundabout way of delaying the ban itself.

It therefore does not legally change the regulations themselves, the 2007 EISA legislation is still subject to enforcement, but of course it brings the position forward to 2012 elections.


While the basics are widely covered in media today, Politico has interesting additional observations from yesterday's negotiations...

"There are just some issues that just grab the public's attention. This is one of them," said Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.). "It's going to be dealt with in this legislation once and for all."

After giving up in recent weeks on dozens of other riders aimed at stopping EPA rules because of opposition from Senate Democrats and the White House, Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) told POLITICO that the light bulb rider was "going to be in there."

"Speaker [John] Boehner to Chairman [Fred] Upton to Chairman [Hal] Rogers, they all strongly support keeping it in," said Barton, who served as ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee in 2007 when the light bulb language got approved. "And it's a personal commitment because of their philosophy."

"It's the power of Michele Bachmann and the presidential campaign," added Rep. Peter Welch (D-Vt.), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee that approved the original language. "What can I say? If we can solve the energy problem with the outcome on the light bulb, America would be a great place."

Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho), chairman of the Interior and environment appropriations subcommittee, said Senate opposition to the light bulb provisions had up to this point been minimal.

"Amazing, isn't it?" he said. "They [the Democrats] objected to all the other EPA riders and stuff. That was the instructions from the White House. But apparently the light bulb ones didn't bother them too much."

As Kate Hicks at Townhall and others comment, the fact that Democrats allowed this exception gives hope that it will in fact become permanent later - not least being a decision at crucial election time.

Or to put it another way:
Vociferous opposition is likelier than vigorous acclaim.

That said,
Environmentalists are apparently mounting a last-ditch defense, with plans for a Friday press conference, that includes representatives from the National Electrical Manufacturers Association, Philips Electronics North America, Consumers Union, the Alliance to Save Energy and the Natural Resources Defense Council.
Republicans for Environmental Protection also hope to "shame its GOP brethren into backing down", as Politico puts it.
// Edit: No more news seen on any press conference or protest... maybe they made a wise withdrawal //


EISA regulation, the basics, and official references
http://ceolas.net/#li01inx
 

Ending the Confrontation over Light Bulbs

 
Since the US Senate Energy Committee are meeting from 9.30 AM onwards
today, apparently also with Dept of Energy officials about light bulb regulations and their scheduled start January 1,
it seemed apt to remind about lighting policy alternatives,
alternatives to the enforcement or not of regulations...


To recap,
Republicans are being criticized for holding up omnibus spending legislation, with last-minute amendment attempts reported on here a few days ago, and as covered in different media, for example The Hill 2 days ago:

A Republican-backed rider to repeal a slew of light bulb efficiency standards is one of a handful of issues preventing lawmakers from coming to a deal on omnibus spending legislation, according to Senate Democrats.

Most can agree it's good to save energy and emissions (CO2 or not)

How can this best be done,
taking into account the wishes of all sides?


To summarize the issue:

All lighting has advantages, including simple incandescents, and
the halogen incandescent replacements will eventually be banned too
on EISA 45 lumen per Watt end-regulation norms.

The object is to reduce electricity usage (especially coal)
and to reduce CO2 emissions.
Light bulbs don't burn coal, or release any CO2.
Power plants might - and might not
If there's a problem, deal with the problem.

As US Dept of Energy and official EU statistics show,
the overall lighting switchover savings are comparatively small, around 1% of grid use, and even then with reservations as listed and referenced on http://ceolas.net/#li171x.
It also goes into why the supposed consumer savings don't hold up, and the better ways to save energy in dealing with electricity generation, grid distribution and alternative consumption reduction (from actual usage waste, rather than from consumer product choice!).

But OK:
This is all about "significantly" reducing electricity use,
at least as far as Democrats are concerned.
But of course then coal, coal electricity, or any electricity, could simply be taxed, on liberal ideology
(and Govmt tax income could help pay for Budget deficit as well as insulating poorer homes)
- no need for petty usage rules.

Similarly,
if bulbs really had to be targeted, they could be taxed,
and help subsidise cheaper energy saving alternatives, so people are "not just hit by taxes":
Govmt income, equilibrated markets, lowered incandescent sales, and consumer choice all achieved
- same could be done with all other energy efficiency regulations
(buildings, cars, washing machines..) that reduce consumer choice.

Better still is simply to encourage competition,
all along the electricity supply chain:
Electricity companies and light bulb manufacturers then strive to keep down their own energy costs, while manufacturers are also pushed to make energy saving products that people actually want to buy
(and have always wanted, since savings are a marketable advantage:
"Expensive to buy but cheap in the long run"? - look at Energizer bunny rabbit commercials!)
New ideas, energy efficient or otherwise, can always be helped to the market.

Unfortunately,
lighting manufacturers instead got a much easier way to profits,
in successfully lobbying for a ban on cheap unprofitable incandescents, to sell their more profitable expensive wares, as covered on
http://ceolas.net/#li12ax and onwards, with documentation and communication copies that also cover the CFL programs in different states.



So:
Energy Efficiciency Regulations are the worst option for both Democrats and Republicans.

The US Budget Deficit needs Government income:
Democrats might note that 1 1/2 - 2 billion pre-ban sales
of cheap easily taxable light bulbs would give billions of dollars in coming years on modest taxation, while a large taxation simulates bans while still keeping choice.
And that is just light bulbs.
Then see the massive income from converting energy efficiency regulations on buildings, cars, and all other consumer products to taxation,
always with the possibility of paid-for subsidies to lower the prices of alternatives, given the general opposition of taxes.

However, Democrats might also see that overall energy savings are better achieved via competition measures.


Republicans can more easily see the competition arguments,
less so taxation,
but again, taxation is easier to implement and alter than regulations,
they keep consumer choice, and they are easier to remove when no longer considered necessary, without disrupting manufacture or production.
So it is better than regulations also for them.

In other words:
For both sides, on their declared ideologies,
competition or taxation measures serve them better than regulations do.

 

BB-Day USA

 
And so Bulb Ban Day January 1 2012 is approaching,
when the federal USA lighting regulations take effect.
It is indeed a "ban" on all known General Service Incandescents, including the touted Halogen replacements, by 2020 at the latest.

Unfortunately, the Burgess funding amendment to the Energy/Water Bill, reported on earlier in this blog as an attempt to hold up funding for regulation oversight and thereby also to hold up the ban itself, does not seem to be working out:
The "bait" was for the Democraticaly controlled Senate to swallow the whole funding package, an overall funding package for renewable energy etc that they reportedly were keen on getting through. However, they now seem happy enough to engineer their own bill and lobby it back to the House...

Any direct federal repeal process would of course face President Obama's veto, as he staunchly defends the regulations. That also explains the rather circuitous legal ways used to get round them.

As is often pointed out, the regulations were brought in under President Bush.
However, most if not all of the current crop of Republican presidential candidates are not as supportive of them, with Governor Perry, Michele Bachmann, and Ron Paul particularly active in repeal ban involvement.


Never to late to see the light...

Saturday's Washington Times Editorial reviews the current situation.

Washington Times Editorial    
November 26 2011    

Time to stock up on light bulbs    

Within four weeks, it will be a crime to manufacture a 100-watt version of Thomas A. Edison’s brilliant invention. Thanks to a Democratic Congress and the signature of President George W. Bush in 2007, anti-industrial zealots at the Energy Department received authority to blot out one of the greatest achievements of the industrial age.
They’re coming for our light bulbs.

Know-it-all bureaucrats insist that foisting millions of mercury-laden fluorescent tubes on the public is going to be good for the planet.
The public obviously does not agree.
Voting with their wallets, people have overwhelming favored warm, nontoxic lighting options over their pale curlicue imitators.
Beginning Jan. 1, Obama administration extremists will impose massive financial penalties on any company daring to produce a lighting product that fully satisfies ordinary Americans.

The Republican House hasn’t done enough to stop this.
Rep. Michael C. Burgess, Texas Republican, added language to the Energy and Water Appropriations bill to prohibit the ban’s implementation. A Senate committee deleted this sensible amendment in September, and it’s been quite a while since Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has allowed an up-or-down vote on a funding bill.

“This was bad policy in 2007 and worse policy in 2011, especially considering Congress‘ awareness of the American people’s opposition,” Mr. Burgess told The Washington Times. “Harry Reid has literally removed Americans’ choice over what to put in their own homes. This issue is too important to our core values as Americans not to pursue.”

Unfortunately, the Republican leadership hasn’t made this a priority.
Many in the GOP remain cowed by the fraudulent claim that these are just harmless “energy standards” and opposing them would be a crime against the environment.
The reality is that this ban is yet another example of the sort of job-destroying regulations that enrich the administration’s friends at the expense of consumers. Specifically, the rules turn a 50-cent light bulb into a purchase of $3 or more.

Rampaging bureaucrats aren’t just satisfied with foisting inferior light bulbs on the public.
The Energy Department uses the force of the federal government to redesign an entire suite of consumer products to meet their personal preferences.
In nearly every case, their meddling makes things worse.
Current regulations micromanage the function of ceiling fans, clothes washers, dehumidifiers, dishwashers, faucets, freezers, furnaces, heat pumps, lamps, pool heaters, power supplies, refrigerators, room air conditioners, shower heads, stoves, toilets and water heaters.

Enough is enough.

All of this is entirely unnecessary.
The public is more than capable of encouraging the development of efficient products.
House Republicans need to force a repeal of the light-bulb ban into the final budget deal so people will know each time they throw a light switch that their representatives see their concerns.

Comment

It should be said that Americans don't have to use the CFLs or LEDs for some time, but all incandescents will as said eventually be banned, and the temporarily allowed Halogen types are much more expensive for marginal savings, apart from having some light quality and other differences. Scroll below for more on the regulations...

Furthermore, some may avail of the fact that Canada has put off a ban for 2 years, and that Texas and perhaps other states may come to manufacture the incandescents.
Mexico, however, also has a ban in the pipeline, possibly next year - though they may consider the large subsidised CFL switchover program currently in operation, to be sufficient for now (considerable problems with the CFLs have been reported, due to Mexican electricity mains instability affecting bulb performance and life).

As noted before, the overall energy savings of a ban are low. with much more relevant alternative ways to save energy and emissions in electricity generation, grid distribution, and consumption.
Amazing as it may seem:
Light bulbs don't burn coal or release CO2 gas!