The Odd Green Crony Capitalist Coalition Behind Banning Bulbs

January 7 article by Shawn Regan, from Reason.Com
Good on the industrial policy behind the ban

Lights Out For America’s Favorite Light Bulb
Happy New Year, America! Your favorite light bulb is now illegal.

Well, sort of. As of January 1, U.S. businesses can no longer manufacture or import “general service” incandescent bulbs—the most popular light bulbs in America. Consumers can still buy and use them while supplies last, but the remaining inventory won’t be around for long. Home Depot says it will be out of the bulbs within six months. Some consumers have started to stockpile.

It’s all part of the energy efficiency standards mandated by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. The law already killed off the 100-watt incandescent bulb in 2012, followed by the 75-watt bulb in 2013. Now, in the final step of the phaseout, the minimum efficiency standards have effectively banned the ubiquitous 40- and 60- watt light bulbs.

When industry and environmental groups claim that a regulation will solve all problems, consumers beware. It’s probably green cronyism in disguise.

The ban is crony capitalism in its most seductive form — when it’s disguised as green.

Major light bulb manufacturers supported the ban from the outset.
The profit margin on old-style bulbs was pitifully low, and consumers just weren’t buying the higher-margin efficiency bulbs. New standards were needed, a lobbyist for the National Electrical Manufacturing Association told Congress in 2007, “in order to further educate consumers on the benefits of energy-efficient products.”

So Philips Electronics and other manufacturers joined with environmental groups to push for tighter lighting standards.
As the New York Times Magazine explained in 2011, “Philips told its environmental allies it was well positioned to capitalize on the transition to new technologies and wanted to get ahead of an efficiency movement that was gaining momentum abroad and in states like California.” After much negotiation, a classic “bootleggers-and-Baptists” coalition was born. Industry and environmental groups agreed to endorse legislation to increase lighting efficiency by 25 to 30 percent.

Incandescent light bulbs, we’re told, are vastly inferior to the newfangled alternatives available today.
The compact fluorescents lamps (CFLs), LEDs, and halogen bulbs are an apparent no-brainer: They last longer and convert much more of their energy into light rather than heat, all while cutting back on your energy bill. (So, of course, the government must stop you from ever making the mistake of choosing the traditional bulbs.)

Except many consumers aren’t buying it.
The EPA estimates that, of the four billion light-bulb sockets in United States, more than three billion still hold incandescent bulbs. “By 2014, the traditional incandescent light bulbs… will be virtually obsolete,” claimed a 2007 press release from former Sen. Jeff Bingaman, the ban’s original sponsor. But according to the latest industry data, incandescents still make up nearly 65 percent of all U.S. light-bulb shipments.

Many consumers are turned off by the higher upfront costs of the alternatives.
A single 40-watt LED bulb costs $7.50 or more, while a traditional incandescent bulb goes for around 40 cents. Some are finding that the CFLs don’t last nearly as long as their supporters claim—especially if they are switched on and off frequently, or if they are attached to a dimmer switch.

The list of complaints about the “efficient” bulbs goes on:
They are often slow to respond, sensitive to high temperatures, and can cast a harsh and unattractive tone. CFLs also contain a small amount of mercury, which requires extensive and careful cleanup when a bulb breaks.

And they may not be saving us much energy after all.
The typical U.S. home uses no less energy per capita than it did in the 1970s, despite an onslaught of efficiency standards for everything from refrigerators and televisions to the amount of power consumed when appliances are in “standby mode.” The money saved in the long run by using these appliances is often spent on even more power-sucking gadgets. And if light bulbs cost less to use, why not just leave the lights on longer?

The light-bulb ban is an example of how political coalitions are formed to force regulations on the general public that benefit a few large producers.
A recent survey found that six out of every ten Americans are still in the dark about the latest bulb ban. Meanwhile, the dimwitted light-bulb policy just became the law of the land.
The lesson here is straightforward: When industry and environmental groups claim that a regulation will solve all problems, consumers beware. It’s probably green cronyism in disguise.

Shawn Regan is a research fellow at the Property and Environment Research Center (PERC), a nonprofit research institute in Bozeman, Montana, dedicated to improving environmental quality through property rights and markets.

This complements a January 1 article by Tim Carney at the Washington Examiner.
Tim Carney has for several years covered the industrial policy behind the USA ban.

Industry, not environmentalists, killed traditional bulbs
Say goodbye to the regular light bulb this New Year.

For more than a century, the traditional incandescent bulb was the symbol of American innovation. Starting Jan. 1, the famous bulb is illegal to manufacture in the U.S., and it has become a fitting symbol for the collusion of big business and big government.

The 2007 Energy Bill, a stew of regulations and subsidies, set mandatory efficiency standards for most light bulbs. Any bulbs that couldn't produce a given brightness at the specified energy input would be illegal. That meant the 25-cent bulbs most Americans used in nearly every socket of their home would be outlawed.

People often assume green regulations like this represent the triumph of environmental activists trying to save the planet. That’s rarely the case, and it wasn't here. Light bulb manufacturers whole-heartedly supported the efficiency standards. General Electric, Sylvania and Philips — the three companies that dominated the bulb industry — all backed the 2007 rule, while opposing proposals to explicitly outlaw incandescent technology (thus leaving the door open for high-efficiency incandescents).

This wasn't a case of an industry getting on board with an inevitable regulation in order to tweak it. The lighting industry was the main reason the legislation was moving. As the New York Times reported in 2011, “Philips formed a coalition with environmental groups including the Natural Resources Defense Council to push for higher standards.”

Industry support for the regulations struck lawmakers and journalists as a ringing endorsement of the regulations. Republican Congressmen Fred Upton, who has since flip-flopped and attacked the regulations, cosponsored the light bulb provision in 2007. His excuse, according to conservatives I spoke to: It couldn't be that bad if the industry supported it.

Liberals used this very argument to ridicule Republicans' 2011 efforts to repeal the law. Democratic congressman Steny Hoyer defended the rule by saying, “The standards are supported by the lightbulb industry.”

Joe Romm at the Center for American Progress pinned repeal efforts on the “extremist Tea Party wing of the party, which opposes all government standards, even ones that the lightbulb industry itself wants.”
That “even” signifies that the industry’s support indicates consensus. Instead, it signifies how consumers lose.

Competitive markets with low costs of entry have a characteristic that consumers love and businesses lament: very low profit margins. GE, Philips and Sylvania dominated the U.S. market in incandescents, but they couldn’t convert that dominance into price hikes. Because of light bulb’s low material and manufacturing costs, any big climb in prices would have invited new competitors to undercut the giants — and that new competitor would probably have won a distribution deal with Wal-Mart.

So, simply the threat of competition kept profit margins low on the traditional light bulb — that's the magic of capitalism. GE and Sylvania searched for higher profits by improving the bulb — think of the GE Soft White bulb. These companies, with their giant research budgets, made advances with halogen, LED and fluorescent technologies, and even high-efficiency incandescents. They sold these bulbs at a much higher prices — but they couldn’t get many customers to buy them for those high prices. That's the hard part about capitalism — consumers, not manufacturers, get to demand what something is worth.

Capitalism ruining their party, the bulb-makers turned to government. Philips teamed up with NRDC. GE leaned on its huge lobbying army — the largest in the nation — and soon they were able to ban the low-profit-margin bulbs.

The high-tech, high-cost, high-margin bulbs have advantages: They live longer and use much less electricity. In the long run, this can save people money. But depending on your circumstances, these gains might be mitigated or eradicated.

The current replacement for traditional bulbs are compact fluorescents (those curly bulbs). They give off UV rays, contain mercury gas, take a while to get bright and don’t last any longer than regular bulbs if you flip them on and off a lot.

Newer technologies, like LED bulbs, are better than CFLs, and they supposedly last 20 years. But they cost even more. In your office building, they probably make sense. In your house? Well they won't last two decades in a house full of kids who wrestle with the dog and throw footballs around the living room (maybe Congress should ban domestic wrestling and passing).

There is a middle ground between everyone using traditional bulbs and traditional bulbs being illegal. It's called free choice: Let people choose if they want more efficient and expensive bulbs. Maybe they'll chose LEDs for some purposes and cheap bulbs for others.

But consumer choice is no good either for nanny-staters or companies seeking high profit margins.

Technologies often run the course from breakthrough innovation to obsolete. Think of the 8-track, the Model T or Kodachrome film. But the market didn’t kill the traditional light bulb. Government did it, at the request of big business.

Timothy P. Carney, The Washington Examiner's senior political columnist, can be contacted at tcarney@washingtonexaminer.com His column appears Sunday and Wednesday on washingtonexaminer.com.

Comment

A lot more on the industrial policy behind the banning of light bulbs in the USA, Europe and elsewhere: http://ceolas.net/#li1ax
Specifically in an American context, also the "I Light Bulb" eBook by M.P. Leahy and Howard Brandston.
Howard Brandston, a well known New York lighting designer, was involved from the start in recurrent Senate hearings, and has covered the strange workings of the NEMA sub-committee (Philips, GE, Osram/Sylvania) in seeking the USA 2007 ban and indeed in their seeking to uphold it through 2011 (and no doubt 2014) reviews and bill attempts at tightening legislation further. His specific webpage and campaign against the regulations: http://www.concerninglight.com/commentary.html

The major manufacturers not unnaturally want to sell more profitable patented expensive alternative bulbs, and feel that any obstruction would be reneging on "promises" by politicians to smooth the way for them through initial consultation and legislation as per 2007 US law, 2008 Canada law, or 2009 Australia and EU laws.
Philips, GE, Osram/Sylvania cooperated to ensure incandescents did not have more than 1000 hour lifespan (the Phoebus cartel) and then cooperated to get rid of them altogether. Slam-Dunk.



Paul Wheaton

Note the irony:
Any outsider would of course consider it unusual that manufacturers would voluntarily seek to legally limit what they are allowed to make, and to welcome such laws once they are made.
The manufacturers are therefore repeatedly lauded by perennially clueless journalists for their "great green conscience", and of course happily strengthen such an image in their press releases.

Somewhat more perceptive observers remark that the manufacturers could have voluntarily stopped making the bulbs, just like they stop making much else in the name of progress - but that would therefore have allowed small and new and local manufacturers to happily and profitably make the patent expired generic cheap bulbs, without global distributive overheads or commitments to expensive alternatives.

In turn misunderstanding the process, "progressive green" people claim that legislation was necessary or the manufacturers would "never" have stopped making the old bulbs.
Apart from ignoring that incandescent lighting might have light quality and other advantages beyond crass economic or energy use reasoning (and the supposed savings not being there anyway as per other argumentation), this ignores what "progress" is: and it is hardly expensively imitative replacement clones of incandescent bulbs.
Increased - not reduced - competition drives progress, and it is conveniently forgotten that CFLs and LED bulbs were invented in the presence - not the absence - of incandescent competition, moreover that new inventions can always be helped to market albeit without continuing subsidies, allowing the best alternatives to flourish, with "expensive to buy but cheap in the long run" advantages highlighted by imaginative advertising, as is done for other products.

Overall it is of course odd to ban popular safe products just to reduce electricity consumption.
There are plenty of ways to reduce say coal use or emission or electricity, whether by legislation or taxation, and plenty of informative possibilities to say encourage lighting to be switched off rather than to ban a particular choice of it.

There is nothing but idiocy behind this banning of light bulbs.


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.
 

Canada to adopt more US Laws beginning with Light Bulbs: Losing Industry, Jobs and Choice, with Hardly any Savings

Last updated December 23
Update info: Campaign against the ban by Federal MP (Government Conservative party) Cheryl Gallant of Ontario, blog post about it (December 23).
Also Section 1 of the Document revised, consequent (P7 version) updates also done to Doc and PDF links below.


The below constitutes a reply to the Canadian Natural Resources Government Ministry, Office of Energy Efficiency, concerning the Canada Gazette Vol. 147, No. 40 — October 5, 2013 published proposal on Light Bulb Regulations to be effective as from Jan 1 2014,
and the invitation to comment

Email: equipment@nrcan.gc.ca Telephone: 613-996-4359
John Cockburn, Director Equipment Division Office of Energy Efficiency Natural Resources Canada CEF, Building 3, Observatory Crescent, 1st Floor
Ottawa, Ontario Fax: 613-947-5286
But best to also contact local media etc. Media very quiet on this.


What Canadians are not being told about January 1 2014 Light Bulb Regulations

Enforcing US Law:
Losing Independence, Industry, Jobs and Choice,
with Hardly any Savings and Hardly any Halogens.


In a seemingly hastily written October proposal, just in time to invite standard 75 day comment by December 19
(leaving little time for any subsequent serious analysis, should perchance the Cabinet be interested in doing so),
Canadians are told that by aligning to USA standards Halogen bulbs, similar to regular incandescent bulbs, will not be banned.

They will.
And that's just the start.


1. Why Alignment to USA will also ban Halogens
The supposedly allowed Halogens banned on USA EISA tier 2 2014-2017 backstop final rule equating to CFL standard. Following Washington means following any other change they make. Proposal already envisages further restrictions.
2. What is good for Canadian Industry, Jobs and Consumers?
Light bulbs stated as the first of more US laws in manufacture and service to harmonise NAFTA standards. Allowing US based corporate access does not mean having to legislate against local production to local desire.
3. How Incandescents have particular Advantages for Canadians
Beyond heat, also brightness, and situational advantages in large homes where much time spent
4. Simple Incandescent Advantages versus Halogens
Halogens more complex and expensive for little savings advantage, hence unpopular in free choice either with consumers or politicians.
5. On Energy saving for the Nation
Fractional overall and on comparative policies, and a main off-peak time use avails of surplus production capacity anyway.
6. On Emission saving for the Planet
Ditto, with the addition that Canada has 86% emission-free electricity and that emissions may increase on heat replacement effect
7. On Money saving for the People
Ditto, with the addition that free choice is not always about money saving, that many bulbs are not often used, and that subsidies plus utility compensation may mean higher bulb and electricity payments anyway via tax or electricity bills.
8. Worldwide Policy and Major Manufacturers
Cooperation to enforce low lifespan on incandescent bulbs followed by cooperation to altogether ban such now patent-expired generic cheap competition. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
9. Alternative Policies targeting Light Bulbs
Information, taxation/subsidy and market competitive alternatives could and should be considered before bans.
10. Incandescents - the Real Green Bulbs?
Efficient, earth saving, long lasting and sustainable.
The simplest way to produce bright light from electricity banned for being too popular, by the stupidity that passes for global governance.

Full version:  As Doc    As PDF
Parts 1-3 reproduced below



1. Why Alignment to USA will also ban Halogens

USA Energy Independence and Security Act 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"

A backstop final rule relates to a cycle of rulemaking that will start in 2014.

" BACKSTOP REQUIREMENT— if the final rule [not later than January 1, 2017] does not produce savings that are greater than or equal to the savings from a minimum efficacy standard of 45 lumens per watt, effective beginning January 1, 2020, the Secretary shall prohibit the sale of any general service lamp that does not meet a minimum efficacy standard of 45 lumens per watt"

As the Energy Information Administration at the Department of Energy puts it, the second tier of energy efficiency improvements “at the latest becomes effective by 2020, essentially requiring general service bulbs to be as efficient as today's CFLs"


The stated main purpose of the current light bulb proposal is to align with US legislation.
Comparatively, the original MEPS legislation can be seen at SOR/94-651 part 1 Items 136-139 with luminous flux based definitions (unfortunately not shown or linked in the proposal). The US wattage based regulations were previously deliberately avoided, citing several disadvantages with the US system including less bright bulbs being allowed in place of brighter ones, usage of higher wattage class defeating the purpose etc. This is not mentioned now in changing standards.

The proposed adoption of USA law is justified as facilitating company product development and distribution to a bigger market, now and in the future, and is to be followed by similar adoption of US law for other products for the same reasons.
With light bulbs a further highlighted beneficial effect is said to be that American standards will allow incandescents in the form of Halogens, albeit still with differences to simple incandescents and a lot more expensive.
However, not only would some higher energy efficiency halogen types not have been banned anyway under the originally proposed legislation, but as seen current USA legislation bans all incandescent technology including touted halogen replacements for general service lighting, EISA tier 2 2014-2017 45 lumen per Watt final rule which equates to fluorescent bulb standard. Replacement Halogens at 18 lumen per Watt, 20-22 at best, are way below that.
The notion that manufacturers would improve halogens falls on commercial consideration (as they at length explained in the November 25 EU meeting and documentation), and for example Philips already quietly dropped promised EcoVantage development once the 2009 EU ban had been achieved.

Aligning with US legislation of course means that guarantees about what will or won't be allowed can no longer be given.

To reply that
"Canada will just adopt the first (USA Tier 1) levels and won't ban Halogens even if the USA does",
is not in keeping with proposal's purpose and argumentation of aligning with USA standards in the first place, including the specifically stated supposed advantages of suppliers not having to deal with two standards for products.

Notice also that 45 lumen per watt is a minimum standard and is set to be followed by others (USA background documentation talks of Tier 3 in 2020).
Notice also that these are and would be technology-neutral standards.
So the splitting up of different products for distribution becomes more difficult anyway, and of course all the more so should further USA rules not be to Canadian taste.

45 lumen per watt is as said based on fluorescent lamps that are going out of political favour, and the hitherto mercury-exception of fluorescent lamps may come to be abolished, if they don't disappear from markets beforehand given recent decreases of allowable mercury levels in some jurisdictions like the EU, which make them less commercially viable to sell.
Of course those who criticise bans on incandescent bulbs might be pleased, should the CFL (fluorescent, "energy saving") bulbs disappear. But that would be on top of banning incandescents, and would hardly happen until other replacements have found political (if not popular) replacement favor.

The big noise in the world of lighting regulation is "Ledification", Japan aiming for a total switch by 2020 and the European Commission in current talks with manufacturer representatives in dealing with the timing of banning halogens and pushing a LED switchover.
[LEDs certainly have energy efficiency advantages, but are also very difficult to make as bright omnidirectional incandescent bulb replacements at low prices, along with having a number of health and environmental concerns of their own as covered later. The simple fact is that all lighting types have advantages and disadvantages, and bans of any should surely be approached with caution. The main distinctive technology advantages are of incandescents as bulbs, fluorescents as long tubes and LEDs as sheets - which is also how the latter 2 were first developed]

Notice how all this is applicable to any aligning to allow Washington to dictate what Canadians can or can't buy, and which may or may not be to Canadian taste, not just with light bulbs, and not just with energy efficiency regulations, given the stated ambition to expand such regulatory alignment and favour multinationals in their North American product development and future distribution of products (see section 2 on industry policy below).

Alternatively, the Canada Government knows about and plans a future ban on halogens.
It is after all true to say that "halogens will still be allowed" - for now.
They would also be doing exactly what USA, EU, and Australia ruling officials did before them:
Wave funny bulbs around to visibly show they were "doing something" about global warming, while "assuring" everybody that "lookalike halogens" to traditional bulbs would still be allowed
It would also seem strange if Canadian lawmakers did not know US law before shifting to it.


The proposal finishes, perhaps with admirable openness:

"...over time, it is anticipated that the proposed standards would help to increase the level of acceptability for MEPS [Minimum Energy Performance Standards] for many Canadians, thus facilitating the adoption of further MEPS for these and other products in the future."

Put the frog into boiling water - it jumps out.
Put the frog into cold water and keep heating it - the frog is cooked
"How to Cook our Canadians"

So, Canadian Cabinet...how about the Canadian public not being duped about "what is allowed"?


In this regard, one should also be aware of how regulations are coordinated and arranged to achieve a desired purpose (read, ban completion).
Jurisdictions like Canada, EU, USA and Australia are in close contact as seen from background documentation to legislation and international meetings between energy agency officials and major manufacturer representatives.

Regulations are therefore divided into Tier 1 and Tier 2 processes.
The original 2012 Canada plans also had a Tier 2 2015 phase-out intention.
Staggered implementation is of course understandable in cushioning the effect both for manufacturers and consumers as new technology is introduced.
However that also allows - or should allow - unbiased monitoring of the effects on consumers of lighting availability and quality, and that supposed energy saving actually takes place.
But follow-ups are no fun for politicians - promises are. The typically and suitably long-term savings projections also apply for Canada (2025, see the proposal annex) allowing catchy quotable big savings figures, and then to say "Well, buddy, we'll check on that in 2025"! Brilliant - the decision makers long since having retired.
Suggested evaluation based on just measuring assumed savings from how products have been adopted (handy for the backing companies, who don't have to pay for that research themselves!) is hardly the same - and misses the overall consumer impact.
In BureaucratSpeak, "stakeholders" aren't any guys and gals strolling around Queen Street in Toronto.

Both the EU and the USA have 2014 review processes:
These should therefore have meant a neutral assessment of Tier 1.But as the continued bans are already written into legislation, the reviews are mainly about alternative lamps and possible change in the timing of Tier 2 implementation. Talk about a 1-way street.

As for the USA, it's not just that halogens are legislated to disappear sometime before 2020. The Obama administration in cooperation with the Democrat controlled Senate Energy Committee already tried to tighten lamp and other energy efficiency regulations in 2011. But as with many bills, it did not make it through Congress. Lowering the standards requires Congress passage, and the President's signature. Hardly anytime soon.

A further possible reason why the officials writing the laws want Tier 2 bans already legislated in place, is the difficulty and nuisance of having to revisit the issue in public or parliamentary debate.
US law is of course already difficult to alter as just noted, and this applies also in the 28 nation and multi-institutional EU.

Canada is different, and could be different, in openly considering what is right or wrong, and not just for multinational corporations.


The proposal here does commendably invite public comment....
but why is it kept away from Canadian Parliament for debate, all the more so since proposal comment finishes Dec 19, with MPs already being off looking for turkeys and tourtières on the 13th and not back until Jan 27?
The government cabinet rubberstamping American legislation into place over the holiday period surely sets a bad precedent if it hasn't done so already, given the mentioned ramifications.


The bigger picture about the light bulb regulations is not any guarantee about halogens.
The bigger picture is about why light bulb ban regulation is necessary in the first place - and particularly in Canada.

Canada has no obligation to ban either halogens or simple incandescents.
This was shown in already delaying ban implementation.
Canada is - still - an independent country.
If it is not in the interest of Canada, Canadian business, Canadian jobs, or Canadian consumers to ban lighting products on other than safety grounds, then it should not be done.

And it isn't...




2. What is good for Canadian Industry, Jobs and Consumers?

"This proposed amendment would support the Government’s regulatory policy of aligning with American standards, where feasible"
"it is anticipated that the proposed standards would help to increase the level of acceptability for MEPS for many Canadians, thus facilitating the adoption of further MEPS for these and other products in the future."
"compliance risks are much less than they would be if Canada had unique standards. Canada would benefit from the compliance regime that is in place to support U.S. standards."

Adoption of US standards for many more products - not just concerning energy efficiency - is set to continue.
The US dominance on the North American market hardly means Washington adopting Ottawa standards.

This does not just sideline Canadian autonomy for its own sake.
It means no longer making products to specific Canadian demands, should they conflict with American desire.

So, should the border just be shut, to only have "Canadian products for Canadians"?
No, the point is not the protectionism angle.
The point is that allowing American standard products in Canada, does not mean having to ban products made to specific Canadian demand and desire.
Manufacturers can still make American standard products both for internal market or export, as they wish.

Presumably if the American standard is so attractive for the major multinationals for market reasons, then they'll make to that standard, and leave the smaller specific Canada demand to Canadian suppliers.
They don't "have to suffer regulatory burden by making products to 2 standards", as the proposal basically puts it.


This is therefore about a lot more than light bulbs, it is about any product that because of climate, geography, culture, or other reason might be of value to Canadian consumers.

Legally, in a case of regulatory conflict between the Canada and USA standards,
if a Canadian requirement is deemed less stringent, that is obviously not a problem - the point here.
If a Canadian requirement is more stringent, perhaps on environmental or safety grounds, that is still justified on Canadian rights as a sovereign country.

The Government proposal at hand is overly focused on helping major manufacturers sell in both countries, repeatedly stating so.
Maybe some more widespread consideration is justified.

Yet even on such narrowly defined market-minded economic justification for bowing to Washington, the question is if it's a good policy.

To keep adopting US standards will likely cost Canadian supply and distribution jobs,
especially of already existing standards as supply and distribution to those standards is already well established on the bigger US market, but also of simultaneously applied standards, as larger US based suppliers simply extend the reach for their products.

Conversely, while still allowing such free trade movement of goods,
the freedom of manufacture to local needs gives local jobs and locally satisfied consumers.
Also if Americans are not making or distributing such products then clearly all the better for Canadian jobs.


Turning now specifically to energy efficiency regulations, such as on light bulbs,
the relevance of what has been said is even greater, on several counts.

Firstly, by adopting US legislation, USA based control becomes even more likely - after all, their manufacturers and distributors have had regulatory knowledge and established implementation for several years on any such regulatory shift. With the light bulbs, that's 7 years knowledge and 2 years implementation for the US rivals.
After all, the proposal makes much of how manufacturers prepare for standards in advance (and, conversely, if anything, Canadian suppliers prepared for the wrong MEPS standard).

Secondly, how big is current and assumed future Canadian light bulb production anyway?
While I have been unable to find figures (and, again, the proposal could have supplied them!) it presumably mirrors the USA and EU in dominant Chinese CFL/LED imports and dwindling local incandescent/halogen manufacture.
Maybe it's great to help the Chinese (as also outsourced by Philips. GE or Osram-Sylvania) but surely not of utmost importance, and on the distribution side that again comes down to likely American control on a unified market for reasons given.

Thirdly, with energy efficiency regulations it need not be USA versus Canada standards.
Not having energy efficiency regulations in the first place opens up to true manufacturer freedom without the "regulatory burden" that the proposal worries so much about.
That obviously need defending of itself, and will be done for light bulbs, but one should also be well aware of what it would mean for industrial policy and jobs, given the industry focus in the proposal.

The tone of the proposal is of abandoning regulations with threatened chaos.
But it is just to continue without implementation, and with manufacturer and consumer freedom.
A freedom that allows the start up of making popular bulbs, that hasn't hitherto happened given threatened regulation.


The popularity of bulbs to be banned (phased out, regulated..) is hardly in doubt.
If they were not popular, there would be no "need" to ban them and celebrate the supposed savings.
There are in fact many reasons why it is both easy and attractive to set up local small/new Canadian manufacture and sale with associated jobs of traditional light bulbs.
Firstly in being popular, as mentioned.
Secondly in being simple and easy to make.
Thirdly in being generic patent-free bulbs without licensing requirement from major manufacturers (now guess why GE/Philips/Osram-Sylvania want those bulbs banned).
Finally, in being without competition from America, and with likely little competition from anywhere else - while always allowing alternative "energy saving" bulb manufacture and sale as desired on the market.
Canada could have a considerable domestic light bulb industry of incandescent lighting.
Can the same be said about CFLs or LEDs?



Responding to the idea that regulations might actually not be imposed, the proposal suggests:

"Canada could become susceptible to product dumping from manufacturers from other countries seeking to sell traditional incandescent light bulbs no longer permitted in their own country."

This repeats what they said 2008 in defending the first MEPS regulations.
But bans have now already been legislated in many other jurisdictions (rationale later) and the proposal itself emphasizes how manufacturers prepare for them.
So the notion that those guys have been stockpiling incandescents on-the-side, just to dump on Canada in case Canada does not implement a ban, hardly holds.
Besides, Canadians would get more choice, and would have to want to buy them in the first place - "terrible" if they can buy what they want?
Finally, any dumping problem can always be met by import controls - it does not necessitate, nor does it justify, banning what people want to buy.


Two further justifications are given for not abandoning regulations:

"Suppliers to the Canadian light bulb market have already made considerable investments in research, development and retooling to meet the MEPS as written in 2008.
Canadian retailers have begun selling, promoting, and educating consumers about more efficient bulbs."

As for Canadian retailers,
I am sure they would be delighted to sell whatever Canadians want to buy.
Educating about "efficient bulbs" - that presumably means bulbs efficient in producing bright light using few components?
No? Well, that just shows how politically correct language is defined - handily substituting "efficient" for "energy efficient"
(as with calling fluorescent bulbs "energy saving" bulbs:
Hello Mr Retailer, can I have one of those Energy Wasting bulbs please? Ah, gosh, thanks very much!)

As for suppliers to the market,
the odd notion is this invitation to cry for them when they now instead have full freedom to make and supply what they want - including the bulbs they prepared for.
Compare with if they had been busy preparing to sell a bulb that was then made illegal!

The manufacturers were perfectly free themselves to stop selling incandescents if "they are so bad for the planet", as their press releases keep saying, and the media keeps swallowing. After all - the same GE/Philips and other companies stopped making record players, cassettes, 8-tracks and much else in the name of "progress".
But "unfortunately", others would make the popular bulbs if they stopped!
No manufacturer/distributor should rely on bans on competition to shift product they presumably have some sort of confidence and ability to sell.
Besides, the big American market would still have the limited competition they want.

Moreover, if the suppliers were preparing for the Canadian standard, "MEPS as written in 2008" and it "is a burden to make and distribute to both American and Canadian standard", well, then the suppliers have been preparing for the wrong standard, with Canada Gov now pulling the rug from under their feet!
Also, the fact that simple traditional light bulbs are easy to make means those guys can easily "retool" and make them too, and have the limited competition from USA on that score as already described.
Don't cry for me, Argentina.


For deeper discussion of industrial policy and manufacturers, see section 8

Meanwhile, do these bulbs really have any value for Canadians?.....



3. How Incandescents have particular advantages for Canadians

First, a summary of general advantages of Incandescents, then particular advantages to Canadians, and afterwards, a look at simple incandescent advantages vis-à-vis Halogens.

General incandescent advantages

A high quality 100% CRI (color rendering index) light with a warm characteristic: Incandescent lights have a smooth broad light spectrum, which in ordinary light bulbs rises more towards the red end, giving the characteristic warm glow, increased on dimming (fluorescent and LED lights give out different types of light...LEDs also in car headlamps, bicycle lights, flashlights/torches, sees an often bluey omnidirectionally weaker but point source glare type of lighting taking over in society).

The light bulbs have for many a pleasing simple appearance, and the transparency sparkle effect makes their use in some lamps, lanterns, and chandeliers attractive.
They are versatile with dimmers and sensors, advantageous where vibration or rough use is expected, and in very hot or cold conditions when they are also quick to come on. Moreover, the heat of the light bulbs (of itself often useful) finds direct applications in space heating applications, greenhouses, hatcheries, pet keeping etc.
Converse arguments note the situational disadvantages in particular of CFLs, for example in recessed and enclosed fixtures or humid (bathroom) situations



The brightness issue

Small and standard size incandescent lights are particularly useful, since CFL or LED equivalents usually can't be made as bright, and when they can they are even more expensive than usual.

The early ban on small/standard 100 Watt bulbs is therefore particularly ironic, added to by any future absence of halogens.
Such bulbs have especially good and cheap brightness as well as heat benefit, with 100W bulbs being at the same low price as other bulbs (and yes, that is also a reason they "must" be banned quickly based on what people might otherwise want to buy, such that big "savings" can be announced instead).

Fluorescent and LED lights, often dim to start with, also dim more with age, shortening lab quoted lifespans.
Fluorescent encapsulation (with pear shaped outer envelope, recommended for close use) further reduces brightness, similarly the phosphorescent covering of LEDs to spread the point-source lighting reduces brightness in any direction.
Cheap Chinese imports, directly or for assembly and rebranding, also mean that brightness retention, lifespan and other issues remain with these lights.
Any older reader might like (or not like) to note that not only do older eyes need brighter light, but ageing also means yellowing eye lenses so that they absorb the greater blue light component of fluorescents and LEDs, making them appear still dimmer.
Je vous souhaite la retraite agréable.



Safety issues

Normally products are banned for being unsafe to use.
The irony here is that old and thereby well known bulbs in their safety are forcibly, albeit gradually, replaced by CFL and LED bulbs with several health, safety, and environmental concerns.
There is little point in going through the concerns here which can easily be found in online discussion and documentation -
especially regarding fluorescent lighting mercury and radiation concerns, which after all also influenced the 2 year regulatory delay in Canada. Those issues have of course not simply gone away, including accidental breakage of CFLs and their recycling as alternative to being dumped (and with some calls for LED recycling too, see below).
A point of irony is the light bulb heat issue.
Irony, because politicians and journalists and indeed the info sheets from the OEE (Canada Gov office of energy efficiency) love to say how incandescents "waste 90-95% of their energy as heat", never a word that CFLs also waste 70-80% and current LEDs 50-70% of their energy this way.
Irony, because while much incandescent heat is radiated externally to potential use, CFL and LED is internalized, with unpredictable fire risk, especially of CFLs (incandescent heat being more noticeable in burning lampshades and the like, to warn users).

Not only do incandescents often usefully release around 95% of their energy as heat:
Proponents conveniently "forget" to add that CFLs and LEDs really waste energy as heat, CFLs 80% and LEDs 70%.
That is because the CFL/LED heat is internalized, to give a greater, unseen, unpredictable fire risk, particularly with CFLs (incandescent heat being more noticeable, to warn users).

A brief further word on LEDs, as the touted catch-all replacement product.
Just to mention 2 aspects and 2 institutional references.
The official French health agency ANSES in a 2010 multi-disciplinary study highlighted point source glare and blue light radiation issues and various side-effects, echoed by several other studies, and unusually in a repeat call 2013 complained to the Commission that nothing was being done.
Similarly the Department of Chemical Engineering and Materials Science, University of California, USA has been involved in several multi-disciplinary and multi-institutional and international (Korea) studies concerning the toxicity and environmental effects of LEDs, including depletetion of rare earth minerals, and calling for recycling as with CFLs.



Certainly, new technology should be welcomed for its advantages.
But it does not necessitate banning the old - it seems remarkably hard for politicians to understand that manufacturers themselves can and do move on the new products, without the necessity of bans, and that there are many other ways both of reducing energy consumption in general and of enhancing energy saving product purchase in particular.

Progress is welcomed - not feared.
True progressive politics brings more choice and more advantages, a progress helped - not hindered - by allowing competition against that which already exists.

Politicians love to keep saying how "energy saving products are getting better and cheaper all the time".
Good.
Then presumably people might actually buy them - voluntarily - while still allowing niche special use of "old" varieties.
We've witnessed an incandescent to solid state switchover before - and with the same GE, Philips etc companies.
The audio version. Incandescent audio tubes to solid state (LED-like) transistors.
Now then: If that had been today, then worldwide the call would have been to ban the "energy guzzling" audio tubes.
Which in turn would have prevented rock era tube amps and other niche audio processing developments.
Politicians set energy cut-off standards thinking they just ban existing products. But they also ban what might have existed, and never will.

Ergo:
New lighting is better - why ban old lighting, no point
New lighting is not better - why ban old lighting, no point




Incandescent advantages for Canadians

(i) Canadian homes tend to be big in international comparison, with more light bulbs:

Canadian around 35 light points per home, EU average 20-25 (less in Southern Europe), USA 40-45

Thereby:
• Increased variety of conditions where different lights are useful, so a ban on any lighting type is felt more.
• More individual rooms and lamps with lights that are not often used - reducing supposed running cost savings after buying expensive "energy saving" lighting



(ii) Canadians have a higher need and usage of lighting itself:

• Increased time indoors, including at home, because the homes are bigger, better and more comfortable, related both to the cooler climate and to a greater household wealth, compared with most other countries.
• Increased time indoors, including at home or other situations where the lighting can be chosen, because of colder climate and also because the dark winter season is only partially offset by summer brightness for working Canadians outside vacation times, when some rooms will likely still need to be lit up fairly early



(iii) Canadians more often have cold conditions that can affect the lighting used:

• Incandescent lights come on quickly in the cold. While nowadays CFLs have little delay in ordinary conditions, that does not apply in cold conditions.
LEDs also are more sensitive to ambient temperatures (both hot and cold performance deterioration).
• Cool or cold conditions can combine with other usage factors unsuitable to other lighting, like incompatibility with sensor systems and/or frequent on-off switching, as with hallway and passage areas, bathrooms, outdoor porch and garage lights.
On a more curious note, replacing incandescents with other lighting has reportedly seen Canadian traffic lights being obscured by snow in wintertime, whereas beforehand the incandescent heat would keep the lights clear.



(iv) Canadians particularly benefit from the light bulb heat effect:

• The heat effect, of which more later, gives an overall reduction of energy use to maintain room temperature.
That is not just from being used more than air-conditioning cooling through the year. Even in the summer, when it is dark, it may be cold enough to turn on room heating. Besides incandescents can be changed as desired if conflicting with air conditioning - and may of course be preferred anyway for their other advantages.
• The house insulation factor: Well built Canadian houses that are well insulated, giving a greater light bulb heat benefit compared to more poorly insulated ones elsewhere, as in the UK. The heat from bulbs stays in the room, not escaping through the ceiling.
A point of irony is therefore how governments are increasing home insulation schemes to save on heating, while banning bulbs which, proportionate to small energy use of course, would thereby contribute more to such heating.



(v) Canadians are more likely to enjoy the psychologically warm effect:

Incandescents tend towards the red end of the spectrum, while unmodified fluorescents and LED lighting have more blue light, cooler in effect.
Also, when dimmed, the warm effect of incandescents increases: and people in northern countries like Canada or Nordic Europe are more likely to entertain others in their homes for say dinner parties, possibly also for cultural reasons.
Compare with warmer regions where people go out more to socialize, have no control over such lighting used, and barely use their own home lighting that they can control.



(vi) Canadians are more likely to enjoy bright light:

Having longer darker winters, and generally with less bright conditions than more tropical locations.
100W+ bright equivalent lighting is less easy to make in fluorescent or LED bulb form, is not often available for general household use, and is particularly expensive when it is (and is still not widely possible omnidirectionally with LED bulbs).
The importance is also seen from the existence of SAD, Seasonal Affective Disorder in Northern countries generally, where the lack of light during winter months plays a role as seen from the bright light phototherapy treatment that is involved.

[ Sections 4 to 10 can be seen via doc or pdf download, see top of this page]



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.
 

Learning from History: Audio Incandescent and Solid State

Revision, additions: December 2, November 29     Original Post: November 28

The beginning of the EU review of the 2009 light bulb regulations which sees the November 25 launch of the EU (European) Commission alteration proposals has been covered here earlier with extensive analysis.
Subsequent posts have covered industry views, mainly LightingEurope (Philips, Osram and other manufacturers).

The main recommendation here as part of the first stage 6 review by the Commission, concerning the future of halogen replacements, is to allow frosted halogen bulbs, which were not banned for any energy efficiency reason but rather to push sales of CFLs, an outdated legacy ban given that solid-state LEDs exist in both clear and frosted versions and will "be bought more and more" according to both the Commission and its energy efficiency advisers, on the basis of becoming "ever better and cheaper", which rather takes away the whole point of the ban.


Compare the close historical relationship to incandescent audio tubes/valves...
after all, who are the major light bulb manufacturers?



source  vintage ad browser

     





The tubes (structurally like incandescent bulbs) were not banned in radios and other audio equipment when "ever better and cheaper" solid-state transistors (structurally like LE diodes) came along: manufacturers - not governments - supplied energy-efficient market demand.


Today's EU Commission would have jumped on top of the "energy-guzzling" tubes.


Never mind that they have retained niche uses - and launched a rock and roll guitar amplifier age.
As with light bulbs, the Killjoy Commission would have been at the forefront of ban implementation to make sure that never happened - which just goes to show that setting usage standards does not just ban existing products - they ban what could have existed, and never will.
Relating such argument to light bulbs, see the post "What We Will Never See".




So who do the Commission talk to about all this?
"Stakeholders".
Ordinary people are never seen by the EU as stakeholders. They just have to swallow what's coming to them.
In fairness, "everyone can't be heard", but Consultation Forums that fill the room with Energy Agency Yes-Men hardly make for balanced conversation.

This is also why alternative views to the EU process have been posted here in recent days.




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

The Virginia Bulb Bill and its Background

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

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

Bill Summary

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

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

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

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

§ 59.1-551. Purpose.

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

B. The General Assembly finds that:

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

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

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

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

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

Comment

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


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

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

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

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

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

The Washington Post 2010 article adds

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


#     #     #     #     #     #     #     #     #     #     #


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


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


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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Marshall is not worried.

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

Environmental groups have pledged to contest Marshall's proposal.

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

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

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

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

Comment: The Federal v State issue

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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


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

 

Light Bulb Testimonial

 
 

 

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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


It's Green and Blue, But Not Bright

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




Footnotes:

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



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

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

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