South Carolina Congressman Rep. Jeff Duncan has launched a bill seeking to repeal the federal light bulb ban.
As seen on http;//ceolas.net/#bills (updated last year, possibly more since) several bills both federally and in around a dozen individual states have been launched in the past - possibly a few more since the last of those mentioned bills. It should be said that many seem speculative to please a local constituency base, but for all that of course a welcome marker of opinion.
To my knowledge only Texas have actually legalized them under Gov Perry, although Arizona and South Carolina have been close under likewise Republican Parliaments and Governorships (Governors Brewer and Haley). The practical value of state versus federal law is always in question, and depends on sympathetic local Attorney-Generals, as with Arizona gun laws, California (and Colorado) marijuana laws etc, and the willingness and capability of federal oversight.
South Carolina has, or had, independent small incandescent manufacturing, whether or not that played a part in this case.
Rep Jeff Duncan's bill can be seen here, on a Govtrack page
Excerpt, main points
House of Representatives US Congress
January 8, 2014
Mr. Duncan of South Carolina introduced the following bill
H. R. 3818
This Act may be cited as the "Thomas Edison BULB Act".
Lighting energy efficiency
Subtitle B of title III of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (Public Law 110–140) is repealed.
Also some further reaction in Canada...
which, as covered before, is adopting USA law for North American trade reasons.
Apart from the usual "people are stocking up" kind of articles also seen in the USA, some more petitions have been launched against the ban, for example on thepetitionsite.com and on change.org, also as seen Canadians signing here, on moveon.org.
As seen, they seem as much directed against fluorescents as in saving incandescents as such, and understandably has not had as much publicity and reaction as other efforts, notably Ontario Federal MP Cheryl Gallant's campaign as per previous post.
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.
Given the entry into force January 1 of the US ban on most remaining incandescent light bulbs for general service use, a review of the law as it stands and future implications.
Note that the same will apply to Canada, adopting the same regulations as USA in a tighter timeframe: Official link, Canada regulations.
"Beyond 2014, while also allowing LEDs, the new rule for general household lighting of 45 lumens per Watt happens to be exactly that of fluorescent 'energy saving' bulbs..."
Edited and somewhat updated sections of the accompanying website, http://ceolas.net/#li01inx "What is Banned and When"
Lumens
old Watts
new Watts
Min Life
min CRI
Date Start
1490-2600
100
72
1,000 hrs
80
1/1/2012
1050-1489
75
53
1,000 hrs
80
1/1/2013
750-1049
60
43
1,000 hrs
80
1/1/2014
310-749
40
29
1,000 hrs
80
1/1/2014
CANADA: Same rules, 100 + 75W start 1 Jan 2014, 60 + 40W bulbs 31 Dec 2014.
January 1 2015 therefore sees Canada "in phase" with US regulations.
From the legislation, starting 2012 for General Service Incandescent Light Bulbs:
A phase-out based on the lumen (brightness) rating of the bulbs, rather than their wattage.
Standard bright 100 Watt equivalent household light bulbs can therefore be at most 72 Watts equivalent from January 2012, and so on with increasing stringency.
There are also lifespan and CRI (color rendering index) provisions. The coloring rendering index measures how accurately colors are shown.
Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007/Title III/Subtitle B/Section 321 "The Secretary of Energy shall report to Congress on the time frame for commercialization of lighting to replace incandescent and halogen incandescent lamp technology"
2 tiers, based on 2012-2014 and 2014-2017, backstop rule extending to 2020.
A third tier is planned, provisionally set for 2020: "DOE [the Department of Energy] is also required under the EISA 2007 to initiate a rulemaking in 2020 to determine whether the standards in effect for general service incandescent lamps should be increased" as per the DOE fact sheet linked below. The understanding since then is that this will likely be brought forward.
Aim: to reduce the allowed wattage for incandescent bulbs by 28 percent starting in 2012, becoming a 67 percent reduction by 2020 at the latest, in accordance with the defined annual review procedures.
Should the review procedures not have produced a minimum efficacy standard of 45 lumens per watt by January 1, 2017, that sees a backstop final rule come into force:
Effective January 1, 2020, the Secretary shall prohibit the sale of such general service lamps that do not by then meet a minimum efficacy standard of 45 lumens per watt.
`(i) The term 'general service incandescent lamp' means a standard incandescent or halogen type lamp that—
`(I) is intended for general service applications;
`(II) has a medium screw base;
`(III) has a lumen range of not less than 310 lumens and not more than 2,600 lumens; and
`(IV) is capable of being operated at a voltage range at least partially within 110 and 130 volts.
Prohibited act... for any manufacturer, distributor, retailer, or private labeler to distribute in commerce an adapter that—
`(A) is designed to allow an incandescent lamp that does not have a medium screw base to be installed into a fixture or lampholder with a medium screw base socket; and
`(B) is capable of being operated at a voltage range at least partially within 110 and 130 volts.'
[In short, to stop people from getting what they want, manufacturers and sellers are not allowed to provide adapters that allow other incandescent lamps to use medium screw base 110-130 volt sockets]
List of exceptions: Appliance lamps, Black light lamps, Bug lamps, Colored lamps, Infrared lamps, Left-hand thread lamps, Marine lamps, Marine’s signal service lamps, Mine service lamps, Plant light lamps, Reflector lamps, Rough service lamps, Shatter-resistant lamps (including shatter-proof and shatter-protected), Sign service lamps, Silver bowl lamps, Showcase lamps, 3-way incandescent lamps, Traffic signal lamps, Vibration service lamps, G shape lamps with a diameter of 5” or more, T shape lamps that use no more than 40W or are longer than 10”, and all B, BA, CA, F, G16-1/2, G-25, G-30, M-14, or S lamps of 40W or less.
Sales will be monitored to avoid substitution effects - see below.
These will also be reduced on mentioned planned tier 3 regulation by 2020.
Lighting section 321 of Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (pdf)
Application: DOE appliance standards homepage, details (pdf), details with list of exceptions.
Industry info page: This also includes more information on the law for "modified spectrum" lamp types (less energy efficient ordinary bulbs that have tinting to make the light more white in color).
For extensive information 2012-2014 including reflector lamps etc, with illustrations:
0sram-Sylvania document (pdf)
Greenwashing Lamps good post about the US ban
Also the past posts on the specifications here, with a 2012-2014 update here.
Points regarding the Legislation
General
The manufacture and import - but not the sale itself - of general service incandescent lighting is progressively restricted, beginning with ordinary 100 W bulbs.
So the sale of existing stock of the targeted bulbs will still be allowed.
Bulbs equivalent to 25W and below, of 150-200W, and of higher wattages, are also not affected, subject to sales monitoring as with specialist bulbs.
Packaging
Additionally, the January 1 2012 packaging requirement changed the way light bulbs are referred to.
Instead of buying a "72 watt light bulb," one might purchase a "1500 lumens" light bulb.
See the blog post on packaging and labeling in the USA and the EU.
Halogen Replacements
The Halogen etc incandescent general service mains voltage replacements, which the initial ban was geared to allow via the typical "72 Watt" replacements for 100 W bulbs (etc) found in stores,
will therefore also be banned sometime after 2014. They are typically 20-25 lumen per Watt, way below 45 lumen per Watt equating to fluorescent bulbs. LEDs also pass the standard.
If the review process beginning in 2014 does not ban Halogen replacements by 2017, the backstop final rule that kicks in will ensure a ban by 2020.
Of course, legislation can be overturned.
But any legal change has to pass both Houses of Congress and get the President's signature. Hardly anytime soon.
Rather, the Obama administration with Senate Democrat cooperation has sought to tighten rather than relax energy efficiency regulations, including on lighting.
Besides, Halogens are themselves still different and more complex than ordinary simple incandescents, and much more expensive for marginal savings, so not popular either with politicians (no halogen switchover programs!) or with consumers in a free choice.
Halogen or other incandescent development has moreover been ruled out by major manufacturers, as per meeting with the EU (European) Commission November 25 last.
CRI
About the color rendering index (CRI):
This, more precisely is "the ability of a light source to reproduce the colors of various objects faithfully in comparison with an ideal or natural light source".
According to the legislation, CFL, LED, or incandescent light sources "used to satisfy lighting applications traditionally served by general service incandescent lamps" must as seen have a minimum CRI rating of 80.
Incandescents, in performing as "black body radiators" typically have a perfect or near perfect 100 rating (unlike CFLs or LEDs), so the lesser 80 requirement, if followed by manufacturers, degrades current performance. In other words, yet another issue when it comes to targeting this technology.
Light sources with a high CRI are also desirable in color-critical applications such as photography and cinematography, and even when fluorescent lamps or LEDs have high CRI ratings, their spiky emission spectra do not correlate well with color rendering quality in practice, so that the photography and movie-making issues remain.
Ban Anomaly
It's a funny world and a funny US Congress.
Notice the anomaly that 75 W "dim" bulbs are allowed, but a 75 W "bright" bulb is effectively banned!
In other words, as the official sources confirm, incandescent bulbs are being banned on the basis of their "lumen" brightness - not on their energy use, bright bulbs being banned first.
So you can still, for a while, buy a 100W incandescent bulb if it's dim enough, which might, at least at first, seem an attractive alternative even to regular incandescents, since dimmer incandescent bulbs of given wattages tend to have have longer lifespans (the trade off).
That's just the start of it....there are specific legal workarounds to that effect, higher energy use but longer life for a bulb of given brightness.
Ban Workarounds
CFLs and LEDs have brightness issues, especially omnidirectionally to light up rooms - and they get dimmer with age.
That may mean using more of them to light up a room, negating savings, along with all the other reasons that savings don't hold up in practice, as covered via the left hand links here, especially the summary page link as also found at the bottom of this post.
But the focus here is on the incandescent bulbs themselves, and how they might continue to be used.
Rough Service
One is the "rough service" bulb route, for example Newcandescent incandescent manufacturer (who conspicuously don't state bulb brightness!) eg 100W 130V 10,000 hrs $2.88 bulb, or Aero-Tech , 100W 120V 20 000hr bulb, 1000 lumen, for $2 [both manufacturers with minimum order conditions]
That makes the Aero-Tech bulb brightness somewhere between 1000 hour standard incandescent 60W bulbs (900 lumen) and 75W bulbs (1200 lumen), regular 110-120V 100W bulbs being around 1700 lumen.
While such "rough service" classed sturdier bulbs are allowed subject to sales monitoring as a workaround to get incandescents, and it's welcome that manufacturers are supplying them to meet such consumer demand, the bulbs would therefore otherwise be more of a convenience measure for difficult to reach locations - rather than to save energy or money for required brightness.
Raised Voltage
As also with the Newcandescent bulb, many other currently legal bulbs eg "long life halogen" type replacements are marketed on a longer lifespan basis, this time from raising the voltage usually to 130V - but again, on a "dimmer bulb" 1000 lumen or so for 100W rating.
[As an aside, European and other 220V bulbs are noticeably dimmer than American ones, 100W only c.1300 lumen but rated 1000 hrs lifespan versus 750 hrs on US standard requirement]
AC to DC
A third way also marketed as a workaround is via solutions like Powerdisc.com:
Quote: "By converting the electricity power used by the bulb from AC to DC, the Envirolite PowerDisc significantly reduces energy consumption up to 42% and also extends the bulb life up to 100 times therefore reducing bulb replacement costs." The website quotes around 30% lumen reduction along the lines of 130 Volt lamps, but that this brightness will be better maintained through the bulb life.
It is also more flexibly applicable to any incandescent bulb, just by putting a small disc on the bottom of it. While it does not stop the bulbs being banned, it therefore again extends their life. Good American inventive, and combative. spirit!
Texas Hold 'Em
While some states like California and Nevada and the Canadian British Columbia province have sought to precede federal regulations, others have sought to stop them. Most notably, Gov Perry signed into law incandescents as being legal in Texas June 2011 (Texas Allows Regular Incandescent Bulbs). The practical implications are less clear, supposedly that is only for local manufacture and sale, and it comes under similar federal-defying local laws like Arizona gun law or California /Colorado marijuana laws.
Still, Gov Perry got help from Republican colleagues Joe Barton and Michael Burgess in Congress, House Energy Committee, in attempts at thwarting federal regulations, including achieving the specific albeit temporary block of funding for federal oversight of regulations in Texas and elsewhere.
South Carolina Gov Nikki Haley may sign similar bill albeit stuck at end of senate stage there, having local small independent manufacturing, apparently awaiting federal and Texas repeal efforts - in fact around a dozen state repeal bills have been launched, most though likely speculative for a local constituency base without hope of success (similar MP campaign effort seen in Canada, as in a recent post here).
Uncle Sam Strikes Back: Sales Monitoring
Joining hands with Uncle Maple Leaf...
Exemption reversal condition: The Act includes a provision whereby, in cooperation with NEMA, sales of certain exempted lamps will be monitored, specifically:
• rough service
• vibration service
• 2601-3300 lumen general service (150-200W)
• 3-way
• shatter-resistant lamps
For each of these lamp types, if sales double above the increase modeled for a given year — signaling that consumers are shifting from standard incandescents to these incandescents and thereby supposedly not saving energy — the lamp type will lose the exemption.
Consequence: A requirement that any such popular lamp type can then only be sold "in a package containing 1 lamp", and with a maximum 40 watt rating in most cases (95-watt for 2601-3300 lumen ie 150-200W lamps, variably reduced for 3-way lamps).
In other words, if sales go up, further restrictions arise, and only 1 lamp packages may be sold:
Buy several packages, or walk out the shop and back in again to buy another one.
Note that tier 3 regulations by 2020 is planned to cut down on allowed exemptions anyway.
EU too
Too much to go into here, the EU is not behind in elaborate checks and monitoring.
See previous posts under the EU tag. It includes Commission proposals to ban fittings for special bulbs which are modified to take regular bulbs, and the German Energy Commissioner seeking to extend the 50 German store inspectors he apparently got to inspect "rough service" sales in ordinary stores in that country, to EU-wide inspections.
An earlier Irish Government proposal has sought to fine the distribution of illegal (imported) incandescent bulbs by individual citizens eg to neighbors with a 5000 euro first offence fine, and a 50 000 euro fine alternatively 6 months prison for repeat offence. Such would of course be on top of any customs etc fines for illegal imports generally.
The crass idiocy of a bureaucrat ruled world:
Do whatever it takes, to stop people from buying what they want, who in turn obviously do what they can, to satisfy their desires.
Above all, do not make any rational decisions, to actually deal with energy or emission issues, as per other posts here and the ceolas.net site.
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.
While it nearly happened in Arizona under Governor Brewer, and a South Carolina bill
is now almost due to go to Governor Haley, Texas became the first state to legalize local manufacture and sale of federally banned incandescent bulbs, from a bill brought by George Lavender, Marva Beck, Cindy Burkett and Bryan Hughes in the spring of 2011, as seen passing relatively rapidly through the legislature, to be signed into law by Governor Perry in June (more on state as well as federal light bulb bills, http://ceolas.net/#bills).
Local legislation of American states (immigration, health care, guns, marijuana...) are constantly subject to challenge federally, but there is also the morality involved, so that in this case, if California can apply their own light bulb laws, other states should be able to do the same.
Of course, a common (federal) legislative view on the federal v local issue (as also applied in the European Union) is that local laws may be stricter though not more lenient than federal laws - but that still does not take away the morality involved:
If local laws are allowed in the first place, then they should take precedence, more lenient or not - while if local laws are deemed unsuitable, then obviously Americans should all be subject to the same law, Californian citizens just like Texans.
A wider issue in such "subsidiarity" debate is of course who decides whether laws should be made federally or not: In the USA as in the EU, and for that matter Canada, Australia and similar legislatures with strong regional governance, it is unsurprisingly resented that it should be decided federally if federal laws apply, rather than locally (devolvement upwards rather than downwards of legislative rights). Federal cohesion versus local democracy....
Returning to the light bulb issue,
the arguments in this blog are of course that regulation laws are wrong in the first place, federally or not, and it is perhaps not by chance in the USA that not only has Texas led the way in local legislation, but that Texan representatives in Washington have tended to lead the way and act in support: Joe Barton, Michael Burgess, Ron Paul, Ted Poe, Bill Flores, Blake Farenthold, Randy Neugebauer, Louis Gohmert, Pete Olson, and in the Senate John Cornyn and Kay Bailey Hutchison.
It "even" included the support of local Democrat Congress representative Eddie Johnson for a while, until persuaded otherwise on a particularly hot partisan regulatory issue, that former Democrat speaker Nancy Pelosi from California and allies are equally keen to uphold and indeed make stricter, as seen from their efforts to pass stricter federal bills as well as from the stricter local regulations legislated for California (all of which incidentally continually gets ignored in the media, in their ranting about "only right wing politicians caring about light bulbs").
Ironically - as also covered in a comment to the below article - regulations are as wrong on left wing as on right wing ideology, in particlar for a bankrupt state like California, that could gain massive income from taxing certain energy using buildings, cars, TV sets, washing machines, light bulbs and all other products they now simply ban on energy usage consideration - and they could liberally defend that taxation on the basis that it would help pay for price lowering subsidies on energy saving alternatives - so "people are not just hit by taxes".
Market competition is better still, also to save energy, as considered on the Ceolas site (http://ceolas.net#li23x) and returned to below, but the point is how regulations are a bad choice regardless of ideology.
What then of the current federal situation?
The good efforts of Texan Congressman Michael Burgess and allies to amend the 2007 EISA light bulb legislation by blocking the oversight funding of it, has been covered in previous posts. The currrent amendment runs out September 30. A new amendment is therefore under way, as mentioned in the post: "Bright Burgess Bulb Bill Block... part 2".
Dr. Burgess was interviewed about his stance on May 31 by Minjae Park of The Texas Tribune. Relevant sections:
Many issues energize both sides in Congress, especially those that touch on the role of government. One issue that particularly riles some Republicans: lightbulbs.
Specifically, efficiency standards for lightbulbs set by a 2007 law that ended the sale of the common 100-watt incandescent bulb.
When the House takes up spending bills in the coming weeks to keep the federal government running in the next fiscal year, U.S. Rep. Michael Burgess, R-Lewisville, will offer an amendment to block funding to the Department of Energy for the implementation of the higher lightbulb efficiency standards, he told the Tribune.
The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, signed into law by then-President George W. Bush, does not ban the sale or use of incandescent lightbulbs but requires that manufacturers make them 25 percent more efficient. Higher efficiency standards that went into effect Jan. 1 ended the import and manufacture of 100-watt incandescent bulbs. (Stores are allowed to sell remaining inventory.)
Burgess has a history of fighting the 2007 law, along with fellow Texas Congressman Joe Barton, R-Ennis. In 2010, both lawmakers, with Rep. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, introduced a bill to repeal the section in the law that creates the efficiency standards. That bill died in committee. Barton tried to advance a similar bill last July but couldn’t garner enough votes.
Burgess then introduced a narrower measure last July that passed: an amendment to the energy and water spending bill to block the Department of Energy from spending money toward implementing the efficiency standards.
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor placed the energy and water spending bill on his calendar for Thursday and Friday under “possible consideration.” Once the bill comes to the House floor, Burgess will introduce his amendment.
Burgess explained his opposition to the 2007 law in an interview with the Tribune. The following is an edited version of the transcript.
TT: Last year, you introduced an amendment to the appropriations bill. Do you have something planned this year?
Burgess: Yes.
TT: Exactly the same thing?
Burgess: Correct. It’s the Energy and Water Appropriations bill. And it’s to prevent the Department of Energy from spending any funds for the enforcement of the ban on the 100-watt incandescent bulb.
TT: Why is this an issue you care about?
Burgess: For one thing, it’s the government exercising power nobody ever intended to give them in the first place. We can all be okay with increasing the efficiency of our lightbulbs. That’s ultimately a good thing. But the mandatory or compulsory purchase of those by excluding the availability of the older and cheaper technology was really a step too far, and it also was compounded by the fact that there was no bridging mechanism.
In 2007, perhaps people thought that in five years, the newer technologies would be available at a price point that made them competitive but the fact of the matter is they aren’t. Lacking any type of flexibility in the legislation, it seems unreasonable to make people pay the kind of price differential that they will have to shell out in order to get a comparable lumens from the newer technology bulb.
TT: So it’s not that you have anything against fluorescent bulbs, except for the prices.
Burgess: This is not so much about pro- or anti-fluorescent. Now, there are some people that are concerned with mercury in the compact fluorescent bulb. There is newer technology coming along with other things that will allow lightbulbs to meet the energy standards without the reliance on the compact fluorescent design. But there, again, the biggest obstacle is the cost of these newer technology incandescents that are able to meet the government’s requirement for number of watts burned per lumen produced, but the cost is about a hundred times what it was for the older incandescent bulbs.
TT: And those costs aren’t covered by the eventual savings?
Burgess: One of these new Philips bulbs that burns 72 watts for the same lumens as a 100 watt (incandescent) bulb — that costs $60 apiece. I don’t think I’d live long enough to recoup the savings.
TT: Sen. Jeff Bingaman (the New Mexico Democrat who chairs the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee) says that cutting off funding will have little effect because lightbulb manufacturers have been working toward these standards for many years.
Burgess: Fine, that’s just great. But to the extent that they have existing stock in the warehouses and want to be able to sell them at your local hardware store, they will be able to do so without running afoul of the enforcement people at the Department of Energy. That’s all my little amendment does. It keeps them safe while they sell these stores of existing technology.
TT: What is it that you’re hoping to achieve on this issue?
Burgess: What got people so upset about this was the government wading into an area where it didn’t have any business in the first place. Let me make my own decisions about how much energy I purchase and how I use that energy. It’s not that I have anything against energy efficiency as a concept or as a practice. I drive a hybrid car. When my wife and I built our house in 2005, we put dimmer switches on every light in the house because we wanted to be able to control the amount of light that we used in a given room at a given time. Now I’m being told that it’s not good enough for me to have that freedom and that ability to control. The government wants to do it for me. Well, that’s what drives people over the edge. There’s no reason for that. Let me make my decisions about how many kilowatt hours I consume and I’ll be a better arbiter about that than Dr. Chu and his folks at the Department of Energy.
TT: You mentioned some of the things you’ve been doing personally, and I’m curious, what kind of lightbulbs do you use? Were you one of the people who stocked up on incandescent bulbs at the end of last year before the law went into effect this Jan. 1?
Burgess: That would be my son, and he will sell you a bunch of those at a hefty markup. I have compact fluorescent bulbs that I use in my home. I have LEDs that I use. But let’s be honest, in order to get the output form current technology LED bulbs, you’ve got to spend a significant amount of money for that bulb. The two LED bulbs I put outside my backdoor several years ago are little better than Christmas lights out there. They perform perhaps a decorative service, but they’re not really doing much as far as illuminating the path of the staircase or even keeping my home burglar-free. The output is simply inconsistent with anything that I had before when I had incandescent bulbs out there. There’s another area where I did purchase a more expensive LED that I leave burning overnight to shine on the flag and I thought that was a nice patriotic decision. That’s not the government telling me how to do or what to do with that.
TT: Is this an issue you’ve heard from your constituents about?
Burgess: You bet. First and foremost, they’re upset about the federal government taking power that didn’t belong to it in the first place. But I’ve got people who are entrepreneurs, who sell fashion lighting and designer lighting and their place in the market has just about been eliminated because these very expensive bulbs that are coming online, the market’s dried up, their ability to mark up a product and combine it with a decorative, fashion-conscious lamp is, I mean, it’s just gone away.
So the market’s disappeared and it’s disappeared because of action that Congress took in 2007. Was it really necessary in the grand scheme of things? I’ll submit to you that no, it was not. This was a solution in search of a problem, and as a consequence, we’ve hurt real people on the ground.
TT: The particular amendment that you would offer, that would just be on the funding side of it. It wouldn’t be about repealing the law that passed in 2007, right?
Burgess: There were other attempts to do that. They failed. My last ditch attempt was, “oh for heaven’s sake, let’s not punish anybody if they sell 100-watt incandescent bulbs in their hardware store.” And that’s what my amendment did. Now, like anything else, think about the ban on offshore drilling that was essentially an amendment that had to be renewed every year. The Hyde Amendment, banning the use of federal funds for the termination of pregnancy, had to be renewed every year. So there’s plenty of precedent in Congress for doing something on an appropriations bill every year to keep a practice going or to prevent a practice you don’t want to see happen. So this is no different from some of those other things.
TT: Your goal ultimately would be to get a repeal of the law.
Burgess: That’s not possible with the current makeup of the Senate. That’s not possible with the current occupant in the White House. But, yes, should some of those things change, then you bet I could go to work on that again in a heartbeat.
Comment
While the regulation and amendment has been extensively covered already here
(as can be searched on the left), it needs repeating in the sectarian US political climate that regulations are a bad idea whether from right wing or left wing political perspective.
That is, energy usage regulations on buildings, cars, washing machines etc as well as light bulbs. Energy usage mandates affect characteristics on all these products, as described (http://ceolas.net/#cc21x and onwards):
There is No Free Lunch, not even for Washington Bureaucrats!
Whether market competition or taxation, both policies are better (from the "liberal" tax perspective, the latter also helps pay for lower prices on alternatives and other energy subsidies and spending that such politicians favor).
Both policies keep choice, both policies save more energy overall: http://freedomlightbulb.blogspot.com/p/deception-behind-banning-light-bulbs.html#policies
The Missouri light bulb bill was favorably passed in the House Small Business Committee on April 4th.
It now moves on to the Joint House and Senate Rules Committee, then hopefully to the House floor.
Many thanks to Committee Vice Chairman Noel Torpey for this information.
(f)Review of Bills Reported from Regular or Special Standing Committees
1. Whenever a committee reports a bill with a recommendation that it "Do Pass" or "Without Recommendation" , the bill shall stand automatically referred to the Committee on Rules. The Committee on Rules is hereby authorized to:
a. Report the bill "Do Pass" to the House without a limitation on time of debate on the bill or amendments.
b. Report the bill "Do Pass" to the House with a limitation on the time of debate.
c. Send the bill back to the originating committee.
When the Committee on Rules sends the bill back to the originating committee, that committee may amend the bill and report the bill again without the need to reconsider the initial vote by which the committee voted the bill "Do Pass".
Also, there is a big 2 to 1 Republican majority from the last 2010 elections (as it now stands, with 106 Republicans, 56 Democrats, 1 Independent). Next elections for all seats November 2012.
So presumably any House vote would be favourable to the bill, also given the proximity of elections, which might sharpen attitudes.
[As an aside curiosa, according to Wikipedia,
"Missouri's house (with 163 members), is the fourth largest in the United States although the state ranks 18th in population. Legislation was introduced in 2011 to cut its size to 103 in 2020. Bigger legislatures in the United States are New Hampshire (400), Pennsylvania (203) and Georgia (180)...
In 1992 Missouri approved a constitutional amendment providing term limits (previously there were no limits). No Representative may serve more than eight years in the House"]
American light bulb freedom bills from 10 states, updates (legislated Texas, June 2011): http://ceolas.net/#bills
# # # # #
Previous post 13 February 2012 announced the first committee meeting.
The initial post 24 January copied below.
# # # # #
Just learned that Missouri local state Rep. Chuck Gatschenberger and Bart Korman have also, January 4, launched a bill 1146, that "Specifies that the intrastate manufacturing of certain incandescent lightbulbs is not subject to federal law or regulation".
The bill has on January 19 been referred to the House Small Business Committee.
Missouri also had an earlier bill (2468) in 2010 with Cynthia Davis as chief sponsor, that stalled.
Another post on this the next day, Wednesday April 11th, with more information.
The Missouri bill was favorably passed out of the House Small Business Committee on April 4th.
It now moves on to House Rules, and then hopefully the House floor.
Many thanks to Committee Vice Chairman Noel Torpey for this information.
10 American local state light bulb freedom bills, updates (legislated Texas, June 2011): http://ceolas.net/#bills
# # # # #
Previous post 13 February 2012 announced the first committee meeting.
The initial post 24 January copied below.
# # # # #
Just learned that Missouri local state Rep. Chuck Gatschenberger and Bart Korman have also, January 4, launched a bill 1146, that "Specifies that the intrastate manufacturing of certain incandescent lightbulbs is not subject to federal law or regulation".
The bill has on January 19 been referred to the House Small Business Committee.
Missouri also had an earlier bill (2468) in 2010 with Cynthia Davis as chief sponsor, that stalled.
H. 3735
Introduced by Reps. Loftis, Chumley, Neilson, Hamilton, Sandifer, J.R. Smith, Whitmire, Thayer, Corbin, Clemmons, G.M. Smith, Hardwick, Hearn, Barfield, White and Viers
THE COMMITTEE ON LABOR, COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY
To whom was referred a Bill (H. 3735) to amend the Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1976, by adding Chapter 12 to Title 39 to enact the "South Carolina Incandescent Light Bulb Freedom Act" so as to provide, etc., respectfully REPORT:
That they have duly and carefully considered the same and recommend that the same do pass:
W. GREG RYBERG for Committee.
Unreported even in the local media, was the favorable passing of the South Carolina H.3735 light bulb freedom bill in the Senate Labor Commerce and Industry Committee where it had been sitting since April 2011 (bill summary).
It now passes to the Senate chamber for a final vote.
As covered in the recent extensive post about the bill, it is perhaps the most interesting of the outstanding local state bills.
Firstly,
because the bill is far advanced, and since Republicans have a majority (27 of 46 seats) in the Senate it seems certain to go through to the Governor:
It easily passed 76-20 in the House that has a 76-48 balance to the Republicans - and it is a divisive issue in a year with sees (in November) elections to both House and Senate.
Secondly,
because SC has the bulb manufacturing, and it's a small independent outfit, less subject to major manufacturer and federal pressures.
The American Light Bulb Company in Mullins SC made the simple incandescents right up to 2012 and are "fired up" against the ban, as also covered in the previous post.
At the time the bill was launched it was remarked in local media how silent her office was on the issue. Her campaign issues have nothing on energy or environment.
She is said to be a "staunch conservative republican", but the same is said of Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, who did not sign their bill, while of course another one, Rick Perry of Texas, did.
Updates on the 10 US state freedom light bulb bills (legislated Texas) can be seen on http://ceolas.net/#bills
Loretta Grice and Jessie Williams were among 14 employees producing more than 9,000 incandescent bulbs a day during 2011 at the American Light Bulb Manufacturing Co, Mullins SC.
It is, or was, one of two manufacturer of incandescent light bulbs in the United States, and local state legislators are pressing forward with a bill to maintain production of the bulbs to be phased out under federal law. [Adapted from SC Now, see below]
As mentioned earlier, apart from the Missouri meeting there was also a South Carolina meeting today on the H.3735 bill (bill summary).
It was a sub-committee meeting, and a full Senate committee meeting is due to follow after being held over from last year, having awaited the result of the Congress deliberations on the federal ban, as well covered on this blog.
The South Carolina (SC) bill is perhaps the most interesting of the outstanding local state bills.
Firstly, because the bill is far advanced, passed in House 76-20, now in Senate where Republicans have a majority (27 of 46 seats), so if it passes committee would probably go through to the Governor for signing.
Secondly, because SC has the bulb manufacturing, and it's a small independent outfit, less subject to major manufacturer and federal pressures.
The American Light Bulb Co in Mullins SC made the simple incandescents right up to 2012 and are "fired up" against the ban, as also covered in a previous post on American incandescent light bulb manufacturing.
A lot of SC media covering it today Wednesday 15th February, as an Associated Press syndicate story, for example WBTV
While I have not confirmed the details, there is a certain irony of a special hearing sought by an environmental group seemingly waking up the Committee to perhaps go ahead and pass the slumbering bill!
SC senators consider 'light bulb freedom' bill
An environmental group wants South Carolina senators to reject a bill meant to trump federal energy standards for light bulbs.
The proposal passed by the House last year would allow South Carolina manufacturers to make and sell traditional incandescent bulbs only in the state. It's in response to a federal law requiring 100-watt bulbs to be more energy efficient.
Ryan Black of the Coastal Conservation League told a Senate panel on Wednesday that the bill circumvents federal efforts to promote innovation and save electricity. He says some new incandescent bulbs meet the efficiency standard.
Sen. Kevin Bryant says the government shouldn't tell residents what kind of light bulb they can buy.
No action was taken. Bryant's subcommittee advanced the bill last year. It is awaiting debate in full committee.
Naeem McFadden's May 2011 SC Now article, extracts
Mullins light bulb factory fired up about light law
The Incandescent Light Bulb Freedom Act passed by members of the S.C. House of Representatives on April 14 not only takes a stand against a forced phasing-in of compact florescent bulbs, but also instills confidence in a Mullins manufacturer fighting to stay in business.
American Light Bulb Manufacturing Co. owner Ray Schlosser said the company is the only independent incandescent light bulb manufacturer in the state. He said the proposed state law will keep his business competitive.
“I think this is crucial and a very important step,” Schlosser said. “Not many are in the business of producing incandescent light bulbs and there have been several hundred jobs lost as a result.”
The bill passed by the S.C. House would allow American Light Bulb Manufacturing Co. to produce and sell within the state, stamping them “Made in South Carolina.” The Senate has yet to vote on the bill sponsored by Rep. Bill Sandifer.
Sandifer, a Seneca Republican, said states’ rights would prevail in the argument that the federal government only has the power to regulate commerce between states. The stance is in reference to the 10th amendment of the Constitution, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” The bill states the General Assembly finds that if an item manufactured in the state without inclusion of any significant parts imported from another state and the item is offered for sale and sold only for use within the borders, the item is not in the stream of interstate commerce.
American Light Bulb Manufacturing Co. has been operating in Mullins for the past 10 years. With a staff of 14 people, the majority of the workers have vast experience working in an industry that has been in place for more than four decades.
The light bulb manufacturing industry took shape in the form of Marvel Lamp in 1963 followed by Supreme Lighting Co., which was later sold to SLI, Inc. in 1999. The plant later announced a shutdown in November 2000. More than 300 workers lost their jobs as a result.
“A federal ban on incandescent bulbs would be detrimental to the manufacturing business and result in more job losses”, Schlosser said.
Plant manager Carolyn Roberts said the facility experienced layoffs a year ago, but now business appears to be picking up.
“We have a large customer base and we usually produce up to 9,000 bulbs per day,” Roberts said. Workers also package and distribute the bulbs after several rounds of testing, she said.
Raw materials used to make bulbs include glass, brass for the base and tungsten wire. Workers assemble the bulbs operating machines that use multiple flame sources, fixating the filament on a glass stem, fusing it to the bulb. The air is later pumped out of the bulb and sealed by fire before inserted into a brass lamp base and then tested.
Schlosser said he is excited about being the lone manufacturer in the state. Eighty percent of all bulbs are imported from mainly from China, he said, and an American presence in the bulb-making industry should remain.
Schlosser said Sandifer’s bill will level the playing field by sustaining a company in the state despite a large number of imported light bulbs being distributed throughout the country.
Updates on the 10 US state freedom light bulb bills (legislated Texas) can be seen on http://ceolas.net/#bills
Update Wed 15th:
as seen from the committee site, Missouri (HB1146) bill consideration was postponed.
Coincidentally there was a South Carolina meeting today on their H.3735 bill, which has already passed the House and is now in the Senate. It was a sub-commitee meeting, and a full committee meeting will follow. More on this later.
Missouri bill is now up for House Small Business Committee meeting Wednesday 15th at noon, local time.
10 American local state freedom light bulb bills have now been launched (legislated Texas June 2011): Details and progress updates http://ceolas.net/#bills
Just learned that Missouri local state Rep. Chuck Gatschenberger and Bart Korman have also, January 4, launched a bill 1146, that "Specifies that the intrastate manufacturing of certain incandescent lightbulbs is not subject to federal law or regulation".
The bill has on January 19 been referred to the House Small Business Committee.
Missouri also had an earlier bill (2468) in 2010 with Cynthia Davis as chief sponsor, that stalled.
Missouri bill is now up for House Small Business Committee meeting Wednesday 15th at noon, local time.
10 American local state freedom light bulb bills have now been launched (legislated Texas June 2011): Details and progress updates http://ceolas.net/#bills
Just learned that Missouri local state Rep. Chuck Gatschenberger and Bart Korman have also, January 4, launched a bill 1146, that "Specifies that the intrastate manufacturing of certain incandescent lightbulbs is not subject to federal law or regulation".
The bill has on January 19 been referred to the House Small Business Committee.
Missouri also had an earlier bill (2468) in 2010 with Cynthia Davis as chief sponsor, that stalled.
Nebraska legislature site or bills do not seem to be visible outside the USA,
without workarounds like proxy servers - thank you Vienna Peter for the information!
So without using proxies or google cache etc, those outside the country should not expect the below direct links to work (though I notified the webmaster).
The bill is a composite, including child welfare and other issues.
It was referred to the Judiciary Committee on launch January 19.
It seems the light bulb relevant portion was then referred to the Natural Resources Committee, and briefly discussed last Wednesday, as Senator Fulton's office communicated.
The bill will apparently be taken up more fully in a week or two and a decision made.
The light bulb portion is an interesting alternative to other bills.
It seeks simply to stop local implementation of federal regulations - rather than
the more involved pernmission for local manufacture and sale.
However, since it refers to the current federal oversight funding block (which as it stands finishes September 30), it would presumably have to be looked at again should funded federal oversight recommence.
The bill text is not helpful, with no direct reference to light bulbs.
The statement of intent for the judiciary committee does however (logically enough) show the intention.
Linked to downloaded pdf document, so viewable for all:
Introducer's Statement of Intent LB1164
Chairperson: Senator Brad Ashford
Committee: Judiciary
The following constitutes the reasons for this bill and the purposes which are sought to be accomplished thereby:
LB1164 amends the duties of the Attorney General to specifically prohibit the Attorney General from bringing an action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6304. This federal statute provides attorneys general of individual states the option of bringing an action to restrain any person from distributing in commerce a general service incandescent lamp that does not comply with the applicable standard established under the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007.
As the current Congress has delayed funding to the United States Department of Energy to ensure such inefficient light bulbs are no longer placed in the stream of commerce, state attorneys general are the sole remaining means of enforcement. LB1164 is intended to prohibit the potential for such enforcement in Nebraska.
In the Nebraska state legislature, Senator Tony Fulton has launched bill LB1164, as I understand on January 19th (the legislature links have been repeatedly down, end January).
The legislature bill link is here, or try via the legislature home page.
As Kevin O' Hanlon of the local Lincoln Journal Star news site writes (extracts):
A state lawmaker wants to make sure Nebraska's attorney general doesn't get involved with enforcing a federal law aimed at making incandescent light bulbs more efficient and promoting the use of energy-efficient compact fluorescents.
Lincoln Sen. Tony Fulton introduced a bill (LB1164) Thursday that would preclude the attorney general from getting involved in enforcement of the Energy Independence and Security Act, which is allowed under the 2007 law.
Fulton said his training as an engineer makes him interested in the new light bulb technology, but the federal government is overreaching with the law. He takes particular umbrage with language that would allow state attorneys general to enforce it.
"This is about what government should be able to do," Fulton said. "We're saying no. I would like to have said, 'Thou shall not be sending light bulb police into our homes,' but I can't do that. We are state senators. That's a federal law."
As seen, after a lull, several states are now launching repeal ban bills.
I understand, from talking to ban-opposing Federal Congress members from different states,
that several of their states are also planning launches, awaiting the fall of 2012 for 2 reasons: The September expiry of the federal bulb ban oversight funding, and the following Congress and Presidential elections.
I will shortly deal with the 10 state bills as a whole,
the commonality and differences in the bill texts,
and their chances of success (beyond the legislated Texas bill) with respect to the 9th and 10th amendments and added inter-state commerce clause, in the US constitution.
Progress updates and official links to the 10 local state freedom bulb bills can be seen on the website, here: http://ceolas.net/#bills
In the Nebraska state legislature, Senator Tony Fulton has launched bill LB1164, as I understand on January 19th (the legislature links have been repeatedly down, end January).
The legislature bill link is here, or try via the legislature home page.
As Kevin O' Hanlon of the local Lincoln Journal Star news site writes (extracts):
A state lawmaker wants to make sure Nebraska's attorney general doesn't get involved with enforcing a federal law aimed at making incandescent light bulbs more efficient and promoting the use of energy-efficient compact fluorescents.
Lincoln Sen. Tony Fulton introduced a bill (LB1164) Thursday that would preclude the attorney general from getting involved in enforcement of the Energy Independence and Security Act, which is allowed under the 2007 law.
Fulton said his training as an engineer makes him interested in the new light bulb technology, but the federal government is overreaching with the law. He takes particular umbrage with language that would allow state attorneys general to enforce it.
"This is about what government should be able to do," Fulton said. "We're saying no. I would like to have said, 'Thou shall not be sending light bulb police into our homes,' but I can't do that. We are state senators. That's a federal law."
As seen, after a lull, several states are now launching repeal ban bills.
I understand, from talking to ban-opposing Federal Congress members from different states,
that several of their states are also planning launches, awaiting the fall of 2012 for 2 reasons: The September expiry of the federal bulb ban oversight funding, and the following Congress and Presidential elections.
I will shortly deal with the 10 state bills as a whole,
the commonality and differences in the bill texts,
and their chances of success (beyond the legislated Texas bill) with respect to the 9th and 10th amendments and added inter-state commerce clause, in the US constitution.
Progress updates and official links to the 10 local state freedom bulb bills can be seen on the website, here: http://ceolas.net/#bills
Just learned that Missouri local state Rep. Chuck Gatschenberger and Bart Korman have also, January 4, launched a bill 1146, that "Specifies that the intrastate manufacturing of certain incandescent lightbulbs is not subject to federal law or regulation".
The bill has on January 19 been referred to the House Small Business Committee.
Missouri also had an earlier bill (2468) in 2010 with Cynthia Davis as chief sponsor, that stalled.
HB 66 to exempt Virginia manufacturers of incandescent light bulbs from the Federal ban on manufacture and sale of such light bulbs in the Commonwealth of Virginia is scheduled to be heard in the Commerce & Labor Subcommittee #2 on Thursday, January 26, 2012.
The agenda was modified:
"Please Note: HB66 has been removed from todays docket"
So it's been put forward a week, from the 19th to the 26th, hopefully with good reason...
As seen, the bill was assigned to a sub-committee, meeting on Thursdays.
As can also be seen from the listing of other state bills,
what often happens is that these or any other bills are rarely defeated in the preliminary committee stages, that is, in votes undertaken to see if they will be passed on to the plenary sessions (when all members of a legislature vote on it).
Instead, when "the numbers" are judged not to be there, rather than calling for a committee vote, bills are quietly dropped, possibly to be taken up again should circumstances change, either in relation to the bill topic, or with regard to (new) committee members and their outlook.
Like others (for example some of those in the resource links), I consider light bulb legislation as wrong on Democrat as on Republican policy - firstly, on overall energy saving and environmental grounds, but also, if that is disagreed with, on the basis that "liberal" politicians could tax energy demanding products, and use the income to lower the price on energy saving products - or to help finance whatever other state spending they want - though I personally feel the stimulation of competition on free markets is better, also to save energy in overall terms (http://ceolas.net/#li23x, competition and taxation policies as alternative to regulations).
That said, given the seeming necessity for Republicans and Democrats to keep opposing each other on this issue, local state repeal bills have had greater progress in Republican controlled legislatures, so given the Republican control of the Virginia State House, recently also achieved in the local Senate, there is some ground to hope for the progress of this bill.
The bill is about local manufacture and sale, and is as seen in the Committee dealing with Labor:
So a further local factor, which may also influence Democrats, is the acrimony that arose from the closure of GE Winchester incandescent manufacturing plant, as described in the earlier post, with the resulting joblessness among factory workers who have skills in making the incandescent bulbs.
# # #
Second Update January 18:
It has just been put on tomorrow's agenda
# # #
As seen, the bill was assigned to a sub-committee, meeting on Thursdays.
As can also be seen from the listing of other state bills,
what often happens is that these or any other bills are rarely defeated in the preliminary committee stages, that is, in votes undertaken to see if they will be passed on to the plenary sessions (when all members of a legislature vote on it).
Instead, when "the numbers" are judged not to be there, rather than calling for a committee vote, bills are quietly dropped, possibly to be taken up again should circumstances change, either in relation to the bill topic, or with regard to (new) committee members and their outlook.
Like others (for example some of those in the resource links), I consider light bulb legislation as wrong on Democrat as on Republican policy - firstly, on overall energy saving and environmental grounds, but also, if that is disagreed with, on the basis that "liberal" politicians could tax energy demanding products, and use the income to lower the price on energy saving products - or to help finance whatever other state spending they want - though I personally feel the stimulation of competition on free markets is better, also to save energy in overall terms (http://ceolas.net/#li23x, competition and taxation policies as alternative to regulations).
That said, given the seeming necessity for Republicans and Democrats to keep opposing each other on this issue, local state repeal bills have had greater progress in Republican controlled legislatures, so given the Republican control of the Virginia State House, recently also achieved in the local Senate, there is some ground to hope for the progress of this bill.
The bill is about local manufacture and sale, and is as seen in the Committee dealing with Labor:
So a further local factor, which may also influence Democrats, is the acrimony that arose from the closure of GE Winchester incandescent manufacturing plant, as described in the earlier post, with the resulting joblessness among factory workers who have skills in making the incandescent bulbs.
Like others (for example some of those in the resource links), I consider light bulb legislation as wrong on Democrat as on Republican policy - firstly, on overall energy saving and environmental grounds, but also, if that is disagreed with, on the basis that "liberal" politicians could tax energy demanding products, and use the income to lower the price on energy saving products - or to help finance whatever other state spending they want - though I personally feel the stimulation of competition on free markets is better, also to save energy in overall terms (http://ceolas.net/#li23x, competition and taxation policies as alternative to regulations).
That said, given the seeming necessity for Republicans and Democrats to keep opposing each other on this issue, local state repeal bills have had greater progress in Republican controlled legislatures, so given the Republican control of the Virginia State House, recently also achieved in the local Senate, there is some ground to hope for the progress of this bill.
The bill is about local manufacture and sale, and is as seen in the Committee dealing with Labor:
So a further local factor, which may also influence Democrats, is the acrimony that arose from the closure of GE Winchester incandescent manufacturing plant, as described in the earlier post, with the resulting joblessness among factory workers who have skills in making the incandescent bulbs.
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 [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)
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!
Excerpt, main points
Most notably, Gov Perry signed into law incandescents as being legal in Texas June 2011 (
What then of the current federal situation?
The Missouri light bulb bill was favorably passed in the House Small Business Committee on April 4th. 
Just learned that Missouri local state Rep. 
The question is what 
In the Nebraska state legislature, Senator 
At least