Bright Burgess Bulb Bill Block... part 2

 
From The Hill news site, 7th May article, by Andrew Restuccia - summary of main points
 

Republican to revive lightbulb war
A House Republican is planning in the coming weeks to revive the GOP offensive against federal lightbulb efficiency standards.

Rep. Michael Burgess (R-Texas) will offer an amendment to Energy Department spending legislation that would block funding for implementation of standards, the lawmaker's office told The Hill.
The standards have come under fire from conservatives in recent years.

Republicans won the inclusion of a similar provision in an omnibus spending compromise that House and Senate lawmakers agreed to in December. The provision blocked funding for implementation of the law for fiscal year 2012. Burgess’ amendment would apply to fiscal year 2013.
The House Appropriations committee approved the Energy Department’s fiscal 2013 spending bill late last month. The legislation is expected to come up for a floor vote in the coming weeks.

The previous similar amendment was covered here in an earlier July 2011 post, extract:

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.

Bill content and progress (Govtrack link)

Comment

There are a number of predictable online responses to this announcement,
as indeed towards any other politician opposing the light bulb regulations.


I'll take the first one pretty well as on the newly updated "Deception" page rundown


"Hey, the Economy is still in deep trouble, and Republicans worry about Light Bulbs?!"

Oddly, a lot of such critics supported the regulations in the first place - why, if the bulbs are irrelevant as an issue? ;-)

In any case, since people spend half their lives under artifical lights, one could say that such regulation affects them more than most other regulations, also given the psychological and well-being effects of lighting.

But there is also the deeper issue of regulating well known safe to use products, however good the motive. Light bulbs are in the vanguard of a new wave of worldwide product regulations, whether based on energy usage or otherwise.

It also throws up the bigger question, as covered on the Ceolas.net site, about relevant resource management and about questionable "feelgood" sacrifices to "save the planet", rather than to actually deal with any underlying problems.

Finally - and ironically - those (generally on the left) who make such criticism and keep saying the economy matters more, are the very ones ignoring that with bans they get nothing, whereas with a tax on around 2 Billion annual sold relevant bulbs (in the US, as in pre-ban EU), they get plenty for their public spending, which in price-lowering subsidies on alternative lighting would not "just hit people with taxes" either - albeit that market competition is a better policy.



"Typical of Un-Progressive Republicans to want to hang on to Horse and Buggy technology, rather than to support Innovation!"

....or strange of "liberal" politicians to uncritically support capitalists pushing more profitable expensive questionably safe bulbs on Joe Public for marginal if any society savings, light bulbs he would not voluntarily buy, or the ban, and/or the big bulb subsidies, would not be "necessary"...

As said before, unfortunately and unnecessarily this is a partisan issue in the USA,
since the regulations are irrelevant whatever the background ideology one chooses to apply.
Still, going with the typical comments that are around, like this "un-progressive" taunt...

The arguments are again covered on the "Deception" page, albeit split up into separate "obsolescence" and "innovation" sections.

None of "Horse and Buggy", or Model T cars, or Wright brother airplanes, or typewriters, or vacuum tubes, or candles or any other(!) examples that keep being offered online, had to be banned to serve progress.

Better, or more popular, alternatives came about through the presence - not the absence - of their competing presence (and in some cases, they still have useful niche roles).

Increased, not decreased, competition is what spurs innovation that people actually want to see: Rather than a bunch of bureaucrats deciding "what is best".

And there is No Free Lunch.
Not even for the Washington Bureaucrats!
Restricting energy usage on buildings, cars, washing machines, TV sets or light bulbs always alters their characteristics: in construction, appearance, usability and/or performance as well as price, http://ceolas.net/#cc21x

That is not all.
The standards must be set so that such products already exist.
Otherwise, with light bulbs, people might literally be left in the dark.
Halogens, CFLs, LEDs - all invented before any ban.

New inventions - energy saving or with other advantages - can always be helped to the market, though not continually supported.
On the contrary, the innovations are proven as desirable, in direct comparison and direct competition on the market place.

Stimulation of free market competition happens to be the best option also to lower energy consumption all the way along the energy usage chain, for reasons described.



"How many Times do we have to Keep Saying that this is not a Ban!"

... and how many times does one have to ask the naysayers to read the Act? ;-)
See the previous post: "Yes it is a ban"

So:
It is not just a ban because obviously something "not allowed" or "phased out" is also "banned"... but it is also a ban on incandescents for ordinary use, that is, including the continually mentioned halogen type replacements (which incidentally also have differences to regular incandescents).

The 2007 EISA law phase 2 beginning after 2014 has 45 lumen per Watt end regulation which therefore also bans the touted 2012 72W halogen and other replacements (typically 20-22 lumen per Watt).

Relevant links, passages, and updates on Congress and local state repeal ban bills to date: http://ceolas.net/#li01inx
 

Let there be (less) Light

 


click on image for big version     image: Nasa Earth Observatory     alternative downloaded image
(Update 2013 autumn: The above image not loading due to current Government/Congress funding shutdown dispute, if not reappear it was one of the usual space ones showing lit up earth continent city clusters, from lighting going skywards)

Publicly owned building and street light choices, locations, directionality, and on-off usage, might be better political policy priorities than worrying about what light bulb Johnny is using in his living room...


Not only are actual overall savings marginal, from targeting personal light bulb choices:
It is arguably ideologically wrong in the first place, based on the concept of what a "waste" of energy actually is:
Excessive lighting use, a waste of energy... personal choice, not a waste of energy.

As with water restriction, electricity restriction is justified if/when shortages occur.
But that still does not justify telling people how they use their electricity, within any such rationing policy.

Any general desire to cut down energy used for electricity,
should focus on electricity generation and grid distribution, in source choice and efficiency, rather than on the odd percent of lighting switchovers.

That does not mean that people can't make good fluorescent (eg kitchen) or LED (spotlight) choices since all lighting types have useful advantages, including simple cheap incandescents over temporarily allowed halogen incandescent alternatives, for general omnidirectional bright
lighting.

But, of course, waving light bulbs around to show "you are doing something" to save the planet, is a grateful political ploy and a feel-good sacrifice indoctrination at society level, not least towards schoolchildren!
 

The Dim World of Light Bulb Politics

 

image  Off Center Views



From the Huffington Post today May 7, article by David Jenkins

The Dim World of Light Bulb Politics
In 2007, major lighting manufacturers worked with Congress to craft new energy efficiency standards for light bulbs.
They were worried that states would adopt 50 separate standards and they knew that a 40-year old technology existed to make better incandescent light bulbs -- ones that were 28 percent more efficient and emitted less waste heat.

Why didn't these manufacturers use this technology before? In their minds, there was no financially compelling reason to switch. Consumers were buying bulbs with the old technology.

When widespread concern about energy waste caused states to start passing light bulb efficiency standards, the manufacturers sought a uniform national standard and got it. The provision was not controversial. It passed with an overwhelming bi-partisan majority and was promptly signed into law by President George W. Bush.

The manufacturers then spent millions of dollars retooling their operations to produce the new, improved incandescent bulbs, which produce exactly the same lighting qualities as the old bulbs, look the same, dim the same, last longer, save energy, and provide a better value for consumers.

Sounds pretty good, huh? Thomas Edison would have been pleased.

It was viewed in a different light by those living in the alternate universe of libertarian radicalism, however. Last year, in advance of the January 2012 start date for standards to take effect, they spread the false rumor that the 100-watt incandescent bulb was being banned and that people would be forced to switch to compact fluorescent bulbs. They even snookered some reputable media outlets.

Four months after the deadline has come and gone, and the new incandescent bulbs are on the shelves at their local Home Depot, these light bulb cranks continue to spread lies about a supposed bulb ban. Some in Congress do so, even after manufacturers have shown them that the new incandescent bulbs are identical in form and function to the old bulbs. No squiggly tubes, no weird color hues, no dim start-up, no dimming problems, no mercury, same amount and quality of light, but using just 72 watts of electricity instead of 100.

These radicals have latched onto light bulb and appliance efficiency standards as a symbol of government overreach. They claim such standards limit consumer choice.

Really, this is the best example they can come up with? The light bulb standards are the same type of common-sense efficiency benchmarks President Ronald Reagan signed into law for refrigerators, fluorescent lighting ballasts, and other appliances in the 1980s. How many people are wandering around their local appliance dealer pining for inefficient, Jimmy Carter-era refrigerators?

Still, even as you read this, we have lawmakers like Congressman Michael Burgess (R-TX) and Senator Mike Enzi (R-WY) working to prohibit enforcing the law that established these lighting standards. They plan to offer amendments to upcoming appropriations bills that would do just that.

Apparently, Burgess, Enzi and others on this crusade are not concerned about the investments lighting manufacturers made in good faith over the past five years.

Does it matter to them that shady foreign manufacturers would exploit the loophole to flood the market with cheaply made, unreliable, energy-wasting bulbs?

Does it matter to them that doing favors for foreign fly-by-nights could result in fewer jobs for Americans who make components for the new bulbs?

Does it matter to them that shoddy foreign bulbs, which might cost 50 cents less than the high-quality American bulbs, would cost Americans more because of higher energy bills and shorter bulb life?

Perhaps their whacky Ayn Rand idolatry is more important to them than jobs, investments, and energy savings. In the name of libertarian dogma, they seek to chain Americans to inferior products and retard technological progress.

The real advance for freedom, prosperity, and consumer choice can be found in the innovative, solution-oriented actions of the major lighting manufacturers in 2007. By helping craft these new standards and getting better technology to the market, Americans can light their world for less money, improve our nation's energy position, and be better stewards of our precious natural resources.

We should dub the new, improved incandescent light bulbs "Freedom Bulbs" in honor of the entrepreneurial spirit and foresight that led to their development.

Yet the lighting manufacturers are not resting on their laurels. In a few years, the energy sipping, but costly, LED bulbs that are showing up on store shelves in increasing numbers will become much more affordable. These lights produce the same quality and amount of light as the old 100-watt bulbs but use less than 20 watts of electricity.

That is some serious, no-compromise, insurance against rising electricity costs.

It's practical conservatism at its best. As the great conservative author and theorist Russell Kirk once wrote: "There is nothing more conservative than conservation."

He was right. Conservation is smart, prudent and responsible. It safeguards the future of our children and grandchildren.

Kirk, whom Reagan referred to as "the prophet of American conservatism," also wisely pointed out that with freedom comes responsibility. Kirk said:

"Every right is married to a duty, every freedom owes a corresponding responsibility."

A radicalism that peddles freedom without responsibility and revels in the political promotion of carefree wastefulness is most certainly not conservative.

Of course, our government needs to be efficiently effective and we must prevent excessive bureaucracy and government overreach. Neither of those concerns is relevant, however, to common-sense energy efficiency standards, which drive necessary progress using the power of free markets.

Now that everyone can see that rumors of the incandescent bulb's demise were greatly exaggerated, it is time to let our elected officials know that dim-witted efforts to roll back or impede enforcement of the new lighting standards will carry a political price.

If our elected officials are willing to mislead the public and turn their backs on such easy energy savings, they are probably not capable of leading us to a brighter future.

Comment

Well he got the title right..
"The Dim World of Light Bulb Politics"!

This article is interesting in how it runs through the supposed advantages of regulations, and how manufacturers might "need them" compared to free market alternatives.
While the arguments are answered in the "Deception" rundown on this blog, an appropriate reply here:


1. About manufacturers:

Why did they welcome the regulations on simple incandescent bulbs?
Why would anyone welcome regulations on what they can or cannot make? ;-)
Of course, it's because of Big Profits from the ban of anyone else making the popular cheap patent-expired light bulbs, and the enforced replacement with their more profitable alternative offerings.

This is well documented by Michael Leahy and Howard Brandston in their 2011 e-book "I Light Bulb". Congress lighting consultant Brandston was there personally, in political meetings leading up to the 2007 legislation
(edited excerpts):

"The NEMA Lamp Subcommittee was composed of General Electric, Osram Sylvania, and Philips, the same industrial giants who formed the old Phoebus Cartel (limiting lightbulb lifespans) back in 1924....conducting its own research and internal hearings that culminated in a recommendation to ban the incandescent light bulb... When I asked NEMA for help in fighting the incandescent light ban, I was politely told that they could not be involved in any research program like that"

2. The supposition that manufacturers "won't make energy saving bulbs unless forced by regulation".

First of all, energy saving is only one aspect of what makes a "good" light bulb.
There are many others, and forcing energy saving mandates on a given product changes it's characteristics, whether Buildings, Cars, Washing Machines or Light Bulbs.

The touted 2012 Halogen type replacement incandescents are still different in running whiter and hotter, and are not popular either with politicians or consumers, in costing much more for marginal savings (no "Halogen" replacement programs, like with CFLs in California, Ohio, Washington etc).
Contrary to what the the article author says, those replacements, typicaly 20-22 lumen per Watt, will also be banned anyway in phase 2 of EISA after 2014, on the 45 lumen per Watt end regulation: http://ceolas.net/#li01inx
So yes it is a "ban", and effectively on incandescent technology for ordinary usage.
The major manufacturers who sought and welcomed the ban would be unlikely to improve incandescents anyway, given the more profitable alternatives.

CFLs, LEDs etc were invented in the presence - not the absence - of cheap incandescent competition.
Energy saving products that people want have always been made and sold - since energy saving is indeed a desirable quality.

"Expensive to buy but cheap in the long run?"
Long lasting expensive woollen coats, batteries (Energizer bunnies!), washing up liquids etc are all made, sold, and properly marketed, without the makers lobbying regulators for easier bans on cheap alternatives.

Besides, if bulbs really had to be targeted - they obviously don't - then helping new inventions to the market to increase competition (firstly),
or taxation-subsidies that taxed incandescents and helped lower the price on CFLs LEDs (secondly),
would equilibrate the market and keep choice - again without regulatory bans.



3. The overall issue is to Save Energy:

No-one welcomes the waste of energy.
However, the personal choice of a product to use is hardly a "waste" of energy (or electricity), compared to unncessarily leaving it on.

Light bulbs don't burn coal, and they don't realease any CO2 gas.
Power plants might - and might not.
Where there is a problem - Deal with the problem.
As for coal plants, they anyway effectively burn the same coal whether your bulb is on or off, given how slow base-loading coal plants that are calibrated for higher day use are hardly turned down at night.

As the referenced Dept of Energy's own stats and surveys show, only around 1% of grid electricity is saved from a switchover, and that is still not taking into account the higher lifecycle (manufacture, transport, recycling) energy use of CFLs and LEDs.


Yes, individual consumers can make savings in replacing some bulbs - and why not - that is a freedom of choice in terms of the different advantages that different bulbs have for different uses.

But society laws, even when seen necessary to save energy, should be based on society energy savings.
And for society, there are greater, more relevant, and more justifiable electricity savings from electricity generation, grid distribution, and alternative consumption based measures - than from worrying about what light bulb Johnny is using in his living room at home!
 

Power to the Bulb!

 
Updated the recent post "Coal is Cheapest Way to Power a Light Bulb", also with this image, from a "Good.is" site (a site that has no further information).


Click on image to see the bigger original version...
(and click on that in turn to enlarge it):