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has been replaced by misgivings that it was a futile amendment that changes nothing.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.

 

Progress Report on Congress Ban Repeal Efforts

(Updated during the day)

As posted before,
action on repealing the coming US federal ban on regular 100W incandescent bulbs has stalled in the Democrat-controlled Senate Energy Committee:
From the anti-Republican NRDC blog post by Scott Slesinger, 17th November, the day after the relevant HR 2354 bill was up for consideration:

"The Senate has set aside work on a spending bill for energy and water programs for now, but earlier this week the possibility that it could come up prompted Senate Republicans to offer a cornucopia of counter-productive ideas....
(the) bill was shelved, at least temporarily"

Included among the amendments,
just in case the bill was actually going to be considered, was
Amendment No. 988
by Senators Enzi (R-WY), DeMint (R-SC), Paul (R-KY) and Johanns (R-NE),
the text of which apparently had no time to be filed,
(it is supposedly also in the linked Congressional Record as S7573, but not listed there)
which I understand essentially repeats the Michael Burgess House amendment
to cut funding for oversight of the 2012 100 Watt incandescent light bulb ban.

As reported earlier, it seems the original Burgess House amendment of the Bill was not going to be considered anyway as part of the Bill by the Senate Committee...so the new amendment was perhaps more for the record.



A Daily Caller article by Caroline May from the 6th of December, confirms the overall stalling of the bill, with further information, extracts:

According to spokesman Daniel Head, Enzi has filed an amendment to the Energy and Water Appropriations bill to delay implementation of the incandescent phase-out.

Head noted, however, that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced Tuesday that the Energy and Water bill would likely not be considered by the Senate.

According to spokesman Sean Brown [spokesman for Rep. Joe Barton, behind an earlier specific bulb ban repeal bill], Barton plans to work on passing legislation that would permanently overturn the ban during the second session of Congress.

Myron Ebell, director of energy and global warming policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, told The Daily Caller that there remain avenues for Republicans to stop the phase-out, including attaching language to the payroll tax cut bill or an omnibus bill.

“There are at least two vehicles here at the end of the year we could use to get this done,” Ebell said.

Further updates possible in coming days...
 

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!
 

American 2012 ban

The federal American ban on incandescent light bulbs is approaching...

As previously posted,
the HR 2354 Energy and Water bill as already passed in the Republican controlled House of Representatives,
contains the Burgess amendment that cuts the funds needed to implement and monitor American federal light bulb regulation starting January 2012, which would otherwise have seen regular 100 Watt bulbs removed from sale at such date.

This bill is now in the Democrat-controlled Senate:
Since it funds a range of energy measures generally desired also by the Senate Democrats it might be passed, albeit that it would take some time, given the range of additional amendments that have just been added, on November 15.

Other possible ways for American consumers to still be able buy the bulbs in future,
are the individual state repeal bills (already legislated in Texas, still progressing in Pennsylvania, Michigan and some other states: http://ceolas.net/#li01inx),
and the likely delay of the Canada 2012 ban to 2014 (CBC article),
although Mexico also seems set to implement regulations in 2012.
 

Bright Burgess Bulb Coup

 

On the 15th of July, the amendment AO75 (H.Amdt. 678) by Rep. Michael Burgess to Energy Bill H.R.2354 of July 14 2011, was successfully passed in a vote on the floor of the House.

The amendment cuts the funds needed next year to implement and monitor American federal light bulb regulation starting January 2012, which would have seen regular 100 Watt bulbs removed from sale. It is therefore temporary in nature, and does not permanently set back the lighting regulations.

The Energy Bill now passes to the Senate:
Bill content and progress (Govtrack link)



Comment
Following the earlier reported failure to achieve a 2/3 majority in the House,
and rather than seek a simple majority to pass a bill to the Senate unlikely to get sufficient backing (or to be signed by President Obama):
Rep. Michael Burgess, who had earlier introduced his own specific bill regarding mercury-containing lamps and also collaborated with Rep. Burton on the repeal bill, took the interesting step of seeking to amend the H.R.2354 2012 Water and Energy Appropriations Bill instead. This bill finances subsidies wanted also by Democrats, albeit with cuts in these Budget-conscious times, so that such a bill is more likely to pass in the Senate.

Moreover, if the Senate starts tinkering with the small part relating to light bulbs, it lays them open to the same criticism previously levelled at those looking for a repeal of the ban, namely of petty politics in the face of Bigger National Issues
(in context, one might say that it was the original decision to ban some light bulbs which was the petty decision, firstly because of the much more relevant alternative ways to save energy, if required, and secondly in the sense that most people spend at least half of their lives under artificial lighting, and might be allowed a say in the matter)

Taking a wider context,
in light of the current Budget difficulties in the USA, California, and other entities worldwide, their cash-strapped governments that ban Cars, Buildings and Electrical Products based on energy use should seriously consider the taxation alternative:
This would give a large direct Government income that also could help finance cheaper energy saving alternatives, so that consumers both keep choice and are not just hit by taxes.
As seen on the New Electric Politics companion site the need to target products based on energy use can seriously be questioned, and if so should first consider stimulated market competition, but taxation is still preferable to regulations - also for Governments who favor them today.

The issue is covered on that website, and will also be covered here in a following post.
 

New Congress Light Bulb Bill

Update: The attempt to fast-track the bill failed July 12:
"This bill is provisionally dead due to a failed vote on July 12, 2011 under a fast-track procedure called "suspension." It may or may not get another vote." (govtrack.us info).
A few days later, July 15 2011, the alternative route of blocking funding for overseeing the ban was succesfully passed in the House, see the relevant blog post.

Texas Representative, and House Energy Committee ex-Chairman Joe Barton has introduced a new light bulb bill in the House of Representatives, with the aim of having a vote on it on the floor of the House during next week.

The BULB Better Use of Light Bulbs proposal H.R. 2417
effectively replaces his earlier 2011 bill H.R.91.

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘Better Use of Light Bulbs Act’.

SEC. 2. LIGHTING ENERGY EFFICIENCY.

(a) In General- Sections 321 and 322 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-140) are repealed.

(b) Application- The Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6201 et seq.) shall be applied and administered as if sections 321 and 322 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (and the amendments made by those sections) had not been enacted.

SEC. 3. MERCURY-CONTAINING LIGHTING.

No Federal, State, or local requirement or standard regarding energy efficient lighting shall be effective to the extent that the requirement or standard can be satisfied only by installing or using lamps containing mercury.

SEC. 4. STATE REGULATION.

No State or local regulation, or revision thereof, concerning the energy efficiency or energy use of medium screw base general service incandescent lamps shall be effective.

SEC. 5. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act, the terms ‘general service incandescent lamp’, ‘lamp’, and ‘medium screw base’ have the meanings given those terms pursuant to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6201 et seq.), as applied and administered pursuant to section 2.

As seen, and as in the earlier bill, it proposes to remove from the original 2007 Energy Act (H.R.6) (pdf)
Title III - Energy Savings Through Improved Standards for Appliance and Lighting Subtitle B - Lighting Energy Efficiency, the Sections 321 and 322.

The full and long text of the most relevant section 321 can be seen here.
Reproduced here is a Govtrack summary of those sections (my highlighting):

Summary
Title III - Energy Savings Through Improved Standards for Appliance and Lighting
Subtitle B - Lighting Energy Efficiency
Section 321 and Section 322

Section 321 -
Amends EPCA to prescribe energy efficiency standards for general service incandescent lamps, rough service lamps, and other designated lamps.

Directs the Secretary of Energy to: (1) conduct and report to the FTC on an annual assessment of the market for general service lamps and compact fluorescent lamps; and (2) carry out a proactive national program of consumer awareness, information, and education about lamp labels and energy-efficient lighting choices. Authorizes appropriations for FY2009-FY2012.

Prohibits a manufacturer, distributor, retailer, or private labeler from distributing in commerce specified adapters for incandescent lamps. Authorizes the Secretary to carry out a lighting technology research and development program. Authorizes appropriations for FY2008-FY2013.

Instructs the Secretary of Energy to report to Congress on: (1) federal measures to reduce or prevent release of mercury during the manufacture, transportation, storage, or disposal of light bulbs; (2) whether specified rulemaking deadlines will be met; (3) an NAS review of advanced solid state lighting R&D and the impact upon the types of lighting available to consumers of an energy conservation standard requiring a minimum of 45 lumens per watt for general service lighting;
and (4) the time frame for commercialization of lighting to replace incandescent and halogen incandescent lamp technology.

Section 322 -
Sets forth minimum energy efficiency standards for incandescent reflector lamps.

Comment

Regarding the federal regulations that the bill seeks to replace, it is often said that
"the federal regulations do not ban incandescent technology"

Wrong.
That is the clear intention.
It's strange how some lawmakers don't seem to read on what they agree on.
Notice: "the time frame for commercialization of lighting to replace incandescent and halogen incandescent lamp technology".
Notice: "the standard requiring a minimum of 45 lumens per watt for general service lighting" - before, at the latest, 1 January 2020 in the full text.
A standard that no known incandescent - Halogen or otherwise - can meet, and even if they could, they would hardly be made, as incandescent technology is admitted to be unprofitable for the major manufacturers (the industrial politics is covered here).
The "not a ban" issue will be returned to later.

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

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

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


Returning to Joe Barton's bill, and why it should be supported:

A. Bill Specification

Unlike H.R.91 it allows Section 323 and 324 to stand
These relate to lighting use in public buildings, and regulatory oversight issues.

Added on is a section 3, seeking to reduce the use of mercury-containing lamps (ie fluorescent lighting),
which replaces bill HR 739 by co-sponsor Michael Burgess of Feb 16 2011 seeking to reduce such use in public buildings.

Also added on is a section 4, that seeks to reduce local state power to modify lighting laws.
Section 4 is interesting in carrying a tacit implication that local laws
might otherwise have precedence, given the increasing number of local attempts to repeal the federal ban, a ban likely to take effect anyway in 2012 under current administration.



B. General

Some may see all this as meaningless:
Although it may pass the Republican controlled House,
that is hardly the case with the Senate,
a similar bill stalled in the Senate Energy Committee,
which conversely supported strengthening appliance energy efficiency measures in a rival bill S.398 that was considered in the same initial Hearing.
Of course, President Obama would likely veto anyway a repeal bill that came through.
The argument then is that such "hopeless" bills are just a way of
politicians profiling themselves before their core electorate.

But there are general valid reasons to pursue such bills, as exemplified here:
Firstly, it may bring out unexpected arguments both for and against,
which may be of value on any future revisit of the issue.
Secondly, depending on how far a bill goes, it may also be easier to
pass it subsequently, under different assemblies and administrations, also because the issues are clearer.
Clearly in the case here I feel there is much regurgitation of "accepted truths" about energy savings and other matters, which do not hold:
Once a ban is in place - and the actual savings are monitored -
then if they do not meet expectation, or safety issues arise, a decision should of course be re-visited.

Unfortunately, in politics - unlike in science and medicine - there seems little attention to follow up studies, little attention to whether decisions made were actually seen to be justified in terms of the reasons given for them.





C. Why the bill should be supported

A complete rundown of why light bulb regulations are wrong can be seen from
http://ceolas.net/#li1x onwards

How consumers are being deceived by pro-regulation arguments
http://freedomlightbulb.blogspot.com/2011/06/big-deception.html
Note in particular how consumers hardly save money regardless of energy savings, for example in that utility companies are compensated for supposed reduced sales, through taxpayer subsidies or electricity bill increases (more on http://ceolas.net/#li1ax)


Some points worth noting

1. American Sales and American Jobs

Light bulbs are banned in order to stop people buying what they want:
After all, if "markets did not fail" (sic) then people would voluntarily buy the wonderful new lighting, just like they voluntarily buy other expensive alternatives, if they are good enough.

Unfortunately, stupid citizens do not always do what their intelligent masters want:
A Canada delay to 2014 is therefore likely to give a big rise in cross-border trade,
1.5 to 2 billion (depending on source) of the simple incandescents being sold annually in the USA.
American retail sales losses may even be greater, in the sense that visiting Americans might bulk buy other lighting and other goods too, once they are in the Canadian shops.
Even with customs checks, small light bulbs are easily smuggled
(light bulbs equated to cocaine - Edison must love this, in his grave).

This could partially be modified by local US state repeals of the law
(see progress track here: http://ceolas.net/#li01inx),
but of course that in turn might require people to show proof of residence or such, in buying the bulbs.

Manufacturing jobs would likewise more easily be kept in America:
It is much easier to establish the manufacture and sale of simple cheap bulbs than of the complex expensive alternatives (which of course again "justifies" the ban).




2. Federal Energy Act 2007 Regulation Issues
Expanding on points mentioned above, and adding further points of note...

Firstly,
that it is a "ban":
the federal regulations, contrary to what is often said, will as said ban all of today's incandescent light bulbs, including Halogen types, by 2020 at the latest, as they do not meet the ever more stringent standards set.
Besides, energy efficient (Halogen etc) replacement incandescents still have differences and are more expensive for marginal savings, which is why they are unpopular with both consumers and politicians (and are hardly available anyway, and then only in smaller ranges, in post-ban EU and Australia stores).
More on regulations, with official links: http://ceolas.net/#li01inx


Secondly,
so-called "old obsolescen­t" incandesce­nt technology is also cheap safe and known lighting technology­,
compared with new complex and questionab­ly safe lighting
(CFLs with fire, mercury and radiation risks, LEDs with lead and arsenic risks, http://ceolas.net/#l­i18eax onwards with references).
Yes, we should welcome the new: it does not mean having to ban the old.


Thirdly,
If new bulbs are as good as people say, they will buy them voluntarily - without regulatory enforcement,
just like people already buy properly marketed expensive alternative batteries, washing up liquids that "cost more to buy but save money in the long run".
Unfortunately, light bulb manufacturers prefer to push for the easier regulatory route, to gain bigger profits from more expensive bulbs, as they indeed admit http://ceolas.net/#li1ax
(indeed, why else would they - surprisingly - seek and welcome a freedom-restricting ban on what they are allowed to make and sell? )


Fourthly,
less than 1% of US energy is saved by the lighting standards ,
according to US Dept of Energy and other official statistics (http://ceolas.net/#l­i171x)
Light bulbs don't burn coal, and they don't give out CO2 gas:
As described on the Ceolas website,
there are many more relevant ways of dealing with electricit­y generation­, distributi­on and consumptio­n.


Fifthly,
Consumers will hardly save money anyway - regardless of what the energy savings are.
That is not just in having to pay more for the light bulbs as an initial cost, but also because electricity companies are being subsidised or allowed to raise rates to compensate for any reduced electricity use, as already seen both federally and in California, Ohio etc
(more on this and other CFL/LED programs and subsidies on http://ceolas.net/#li12ax)


Sixthly,
Heavy government upfront costs and regulations to "save energy in the long run" is a very questionable policy given all the rebound effects as described and referenced on the ceolas website.
But even if this was justified, then taxation is still better than regulations, not least in today's cash-strapped Budget times.
Easily taxable cheap bulbs give a big federal/state income (given the current billion figure sales of relevant bulbs in USA)
- which in turn can help pay for CFL programs or lower LED/CFL prices, equilibrating the market, keeping consumer choice,
and "not just hitting the consumer with taxes", with a cheaper-than-before alternative lighting choice available.

That said, free market solutions are a better way also to lower energy use,
through competition between utilities, and between manufacturers, that keep down their costs including energy costs,
and seek to satisfy consumers with energy saving products they actually want to buy,
as described in the closing essay on http://ceolas.net/#li23x
comparing light bulb market and taxation policies to regulations.

House Energy Committee to Vote on Allowing Regular Light Bulbs

 
Myron Ebell, Director of the Free Our Light campaign (Facebook) reports...
"The Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Representative Fred Upton (R-Michigan), has agreed to support a bill to repeal the ban outright. And the plan is to have a vote on a new version of the Better Use of Light Bulbs Act (H. R. 91) in July."

Refers also to article, June 22 2011, The Detroit News (extracts:)

Upton: The House will vote to bring back the bulb
by Henry Payne (TheMichiganView.com)

The bulb is back.

House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton, R-Mich., has finally agreed to support a bill this summer that means lights out on the looming 2012 ban on the common light bulb. Upton himself co-sponsored 2007 legislation making light bulbs illegal, a ban that has become a symbol of bipartisan Big Government run amok.

Upton has come under increased pressure in recent weeks, sources say, after failing to follow up on a promise he made after assuming the committee chairmanship that he would hold hearings on reversing the ban. After months of paralysis - and with the ban just six months from going into effect on January 1 - outrage was building among his own Republican committee colleagues and conservative activists, including a national petition campaign, FreeOurLight.org, sponsored by the influential Competitive Enterprise Institute.

"Freedom Action's Free Our Light campaign has demonstrated that there is widespread public opposition to the light bulb ban," says Myron Ebell, Director of Freedom Action at CEI. "We're pleased that Chairman Upton has seen the light and congratulate him on his decision. We look forward to the House passing the bill to repeal the ban and its eventual enactment later this year."

After Upton scheduled hearings this week featuring rent-seeking corporate fat cats that stood to benefit from the ban, anger boiled over and the chairman agreed not only to cancel the hearings but to bring up a bill repealing the ban. The View's source says that the bill will likely be brought up under "suspension," which means no amendments will be allowed and passage requires a two-thirds majority.

E&E News reporter Katie Howell is also reporting that Upton "he is working with Texas Republicans Joe Barton and Mike Burgess on language repealing the light bulb standards." (Link from here, subscription required.)

"We're very close to seeing an agreement emerge and happen," Upton told reporters at a conservative blogger briefing hosted by the Heritage Foundation.

The ban has been mostly covered up by the green mainstream media, and consumers were only just learning of the ban as bulbs have begun disappearing from shelves. In the meantime, bulb manufacturers had already eliminated hundreds of incandescent plants in the United States (the last plant closed in Winchester, Va. last year) in preparation for the ban - off-shoring the jobs to China where the more expensive, replacement compact fluorescent bulbs (CFLs) could be manufactured.

So much for green creating American jobs.

Republicans - led by Texas Rep. Joe Barton together with fellow Texan Michael Burgess and Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn. - introduced bulb restoration legislation immediately upon the GOP taking over the House this year. Republicans overwhelmingly support bringing back the bulb, while global-warming-obsessed Democrats say making bulbs illegal is crucial to saving the planet. Ironically, saving the earth has meant destroying union plant jobs.

In contrast, the ban had been supported by big corporations like General Electric and Philips who saw a an opportunity to use government to monopolize a new, more expensive market while transferring jobs to China to earn higher margins.

Comment:
A similar Bill in the Senate (Mike Enzi, S.395) also stalled in the Energy Committee earlier this year, without going to a vote as the support was not there, and again the leading Republican on the Senate Committee, Vice Chair (Ranking Member) Lisa Murkowski is for the ban, backing the outspoken pro-regulation Chairman Jeff Bingaman on the issue.
As mentioned in the last blog post, Texas state has enacted a repeal bill,
and a couple of other state bills are in progress, though none are likely to reach a governor signature in this session (before summer recess).



Links:
Progress of House Repeal Bill (Joe Barton H.R.91 of 1/5/2011)
Progress of Senate Repeal Bill (Mike Enzi S.395 of 2/17/2011)
Progress of Michele Bachmann House Bill (H.R.849 of 3/1/2011)
Information updates on individual US states repeal bans   http://ceolas.net/#li01inx