Disc Power

It should be clear by now to readers of this blog how incandescent light bulbs are popular, simple, cheap and yes, efficient, in needing few parts to produce bright light, and without supposed energy saving to society (incandescents as the "real green" bulbs).

Unsurprising, then, that people around the world are using workarounds to be able to keep using them. Dumb governments, who make pointless and unpopular laws to suit lobbying profitmakers rather than their citizens, will always find such reactions.

In Europe as in North America, one such avenue has been the use of still legal "rough service" type of bulbs, as well as currently temporarily allowed halogen types.
There are also alternative voltage and current altering ways (in bulbs or externally) that extend incandescent lifetime albeit with some brightness loss.
The various workarounds were most recently covered in the post "USA and Canada Light Bulb Ban: Now and in the Future" from earlier this year.

One innovative way was as seen recently launched in the USA by two bright entrepreneurs, Lisa Elder and Trishah Woolley, using a disc with any ordinary light bulb.
To expand a little more about the California based Power Disc venture, edited extracts from the website, powerdisc.com...

It consists of a nylon reinforced thermoset plastic disc, a solid-state rectifying diode and a foam washer with an adhesive surface. The PowerDiscTM is attached to the base of a light bulb by means of the 3M adhesive coated foam so that the center contact of the bulb is in contact with one end of the diode. When screwed into a light socket, the other end of the diode contacts the center contact of the light socket.

By converting the electricity power used by the bulb from AC to DC, the PowerDisc™ significantly reduces energy consumption up to 42% and also extends the bulb life up to 100 times therefore reducing bulb replacement costs.

In other words, 120 volts of alternating current (AC) are converted to approximately 85 volts direct current (DC).
The light bulb filaments, that actually create the light we see, will burn at a much lower temperature...The degree to which the filament is heated is directly related to the life of the bulb.

Using the formula from the General Electric Incandescent Lamps Booklet (ref. GE #TP-1100R2 5/84) we calculate the life of the bulb with the reduced voltage.... example...

[On the light output reduction issue, making comparisons:]

As it is well known in the industry, all energy efficient light bulbs will have some reduction in lumens (light output), initially up to 30% over the first couple of months. Take note of the packaging for CFL and LED bulbs, they claim they will operate at 70% efficacy - which means they know their bulbs will lose 30% in lumens. Example, the packaging states 1000 lumens but they "guarantee" that the bulb will operate at 700 lumens.

Also the "long life" incandescent and halogen bulbs which operate at 130 volts, when you use it in a 120 volt socket, there is an immediate 25% lumen loss from what is stated on the packaging. Example, the packaging states 1000 lumens but in a 120V socket it is really 750 lumens.

With the PowerDisc there is also an initial lumen loss, the difference is the bulb will maintain that lumen level for the life of the bulb- it won't get dimmer and dimmer over time until it burns out. If it is necessary to maintain similar lumen levels it is recommended to increase the wattage of the light bulb used. The lumen level of the light bulb is dependent upon the manufacturer, clear or frosted and type of light bulb being used. Also keep in mind the lumen level you have upon insertion will be the lumen level for the rest of the life of your bulb until the day it burns out, which means it does not diminish over time, whereas with CFLs and LEDs you get around a 30% lumen loss in the first couple of months, then it slowly decreases until it is very dim. This makes for safety and security issues in certain areas.

If it is important to maintain the visible light level, a higher wattage bulb should be used...but as bulb wattage increases, efficiency in the transformation of electricity to light also increases.

So to begin with the downside, there is a seeming 25-30% brightness loss which means higher electricity costs for a bulb of given brightness, compared with an ordinary simple incandescent bulb.
But... the point is of course is that as such bulbs gradually get banned (and in the USA as in Europe there is talk of controlling the availability of rough service incandescents for ordinary consumers), it allows the extended use of any such bulb without hoarding.
Also, as they say, fluorescents and LEDs dim as they are used, reducing their effective light output too.
Finally the advantage of not having to change bulbs may be useful in some locations.

Overall, good to see this innovative spirit from others who are against the ban - and doing something about it!


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.
 

USA and Canada Light Bulb Ban: Now and in the Future

Updates Jan 3

Given the entry into force January 1 of the US ban on most remaining incandescent light bulbs for general service use, a review of the law as it stands and future implications.
Note that the same will apply to Canada, adopting the same regulations as USA in a tighter timeframe: Official link, Canada regulations.


"Beyond 2014, while also allowing LEDs, the new rule for general household lighting of 45 lumens per Watt happens to be exactly that of fluorescent 'energy saving' bulbs..."



 Gary Locke




Edited and somewhat updated sections of the accompanying website,
http://ceolas.net/#li01inx "What is Banned and When"

Lumens	old Watts	new Watts	Min Life	min CRI	Date Start
1490-2600	100	72	1,000 hrs	80	1/1/2012
1050-1489	75	53	1,000 hrs	80	1/1/2013
750-1049	60	43	1,000 hrs	80	1/1/2014
310-749	40	29	1,000 hrs	80	1/1/2014

CANADA: Same rules, 100 + 75W start 1 Jan 2014, 60 + 40W bulbs 31 Dec 2014.
January 1 2015 therefore sees Canada "in phase" with US regulations.

From the legislation, starting 2012 for General Service Incandescent Light Bulbs:
A phase-out based on the lumen (brightness) rating of the bulbs, rather than their wattage.
Standard bright 100 Watt equivalent household light bulbs can therefore be at most 72 Watts equivalent from January 2012, and so on with increasing stringency.
There are also lifespan and CRI (color rendering index) provisions. The coloring rendering index measures how accurately colors are shown.


Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007/Title III/Subtitle B/Section 321
"The Secretary of Energy shall report to Congress on the time frame for commercialization of lighting to replace incandescent and halogen incandescent lamp technology"

2 tiers, based on 2012-2014 and 2014-2017, backstop rule extending to 2020.
A third tier is planned, provisionally set for 2020: "DOE [the Department of Energy] is also required under the EISA 2007 to initiate a rulemaking in 2020 to determine whether the standards in effect for general service incandescent lamps should be increased" as per the DOE fact sheet linked below. The understanding since then is that this will likely be brought forward.
Aim: to reduce the allowed wattage for incandescent bulbs by 28 percent starting in 2012, becoming a 67 percent reduction by 2020 at the latest, in accordance with the defined annual review procedures.
Should the review procedures not have produced a minimum efficacy standard of 45 lumens per watt by January 1, 2017, that sees a backstop final rule come into force:
Effective January 1, 2020, the Secretary shall prohibit the sale of such general service lamps that do not by then meet a minimum efficacy standard of 45 lumens per watt.

`(i) The term 'general service incandescent lamp' means a standard incandescent or halogen type lamp that—
`(I) is intended for general service applications;
`(II) has a medium screw base;
`(III) has a lumen range of not less than 310 lumens and not more than 2,600 lumens; and
`(IV) is capable of being operated at a voltage range at least partially within 110 and 130 volts.

Prohibited act... for any manufacturer, distributor, retailer, or private labeler to distribute in commerce an adapter that—
`(A) is designed to allow an incandescent lamp that does not have a medium screw base to be installed into a fixture or lampholder with a medium screw base socket; and
`(B) is capable of being operated at a voltage range at least partially within 110 and 130 volts.'
[In short, to stop people from getting what they want, manufacturers and sellers are not allowed to provide adapters that allow other incandescent lamps to use medium screw base 110-130 volt sockets]


List of exceptions: Appliance lamps, Black light lamps, Bug lamps, Colored lamps, Infrared lamps, Left-hand thread lamps, Marine lamps, Marine’s signal service lamps, Mine service lamps, Plant light lamps, Reflector lamps, Rough service lamps, Shatter-resistant lamps (including shatter-proof and shatter-protected), Sign service lamps, Silver bowl lamps, Showcase lamps, 3-way incandescent lamps, Traffic signal lamps, Vibration service lamps, G shape lamps with a diameter of 5” or more, T shape lamps that use no more than 40W or are longer than 10”, and all B, BA, CA, F, G16-1/2, G-25, G-30, M-14, or S lamps of 40W or less.

Sales will be monitored to avoid substitution effects - see below.
These will also be reduced on mentioned planned tier 3 regulation by 2020.


Lighting section 321 of Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (pdf)
Application: DOE appliance standards homepage, details (pdf), details with list of exceptions.
Industry info page: This also includes more information on the law for "modified spectrum" lamp types (less energy efficient ordinary bulbs that have tinting to make the light more white in color).
For extensive information 2012-2014 including reflector lamps etc, with illustrations:
0sram-Sylvania document (pdf)

Greenwashing Lamps good post about the US ban
Also the past posts on the specifications here, with a 2012-2014 update here.




Points regarding the Legislation

General
The manufacture and import - but not the sale itself - of general service incandescent lighting is progressively restricted, beginning with ordinary 100 W bulbs.
So the sale of existing stock of the targeted bulbs will still be allowed.
Bulbs equivalent to 25W and below, of 150-200W, and of higher wattages, are also not affected, subject to sales monitoring as with specialist bulbs.


Packaging
Additionally, the January 1 2012 packaging requirement changed the way light bulbs are referred to.
Instead of buying a "72 watt light bulb," one might purchase a "1500 lumens" light bulb.
See the blog post on packaging and labeling in the USA and the EU.


Halogen Replacements
The Halogen etc incandescent general service mains voltage replacements, which the initial ban was geared to allow via the typical "72 Watt" replacements for 100 W bulbs (etc) found in stores,
will therefore also be banned sometime after 2014. They are typically 20-25 lumen per Watt, way below 45 lumen per Watt equating to fluorescent bulbs. LEDs also pass the standard.
If the review process beginning in 2014 does not ban Halogen replacements by 2017, the backstop final rule that kicks in will ensure a ban by 2020.

Of course, legislation can be overturned.
But any legal change has to pass both Houses of Congress and get the President's signature. Hardly anytime soon.
Rather, the Obama administration with Senate Democrat cooperation has sought to tighten rather than relax energy efficiency regulations, including on lighting.

Besides, Halogens are themselves still different and more complex than ordinary simple incandescents, and much more expensive for marginal savings, so not popular either with politicians (no halogen switchover programs!) or with consumers in a free choice.
Halogen or other incandescent development has moreover been ruled out by major manufacturers, as per meeting with the EU (European) Commission November 25 last.


CRI
About the color rendering index (CRI):
This, more precisely is "the ability of a light source to reproduce the colors of various objects faithfully in comparison with an ideal or natural light source".
According to the legislation, CFL, LED, or incandescent light sources "used to satisfy lighting applications traditionally served by general service incandescent lamps" must as seen have a minimum CRI rating of 80.
Incandescents, in performing as "black body radiators" typically have a perfect or near perfect 100 rating (unlike CFLs or LEDs), so the lesser 80 requirement, if followed by manufacturers, degrades current performance. In other words, yet another issue when it comes to targeting this technology.
Light sources with a high CRI are also desirable in color-critical applications such as photography and cinematography, and even when fluorescent lamps or LEDs have high CRI ratings, their spiky emission spectra do not correlate well with color rendering quality in practice, so that the photography and movie-making issues remain.



Ban Anomaly
It's a funny world and a funny US Congress.
Notice the anomaly that 75 W "dim" bulbs are allowed, but a 75 W "bright" bulb is effectively banned!
In other words, as the official sources confirm, incandescent bulbs are being banned on the basis of their "lumen" brightness - not on their energy use, bright bulbs being banned first.
So you can still, for a while, buy a 100W incandescent bulb if it's dim enough, which might, at least at first, seem an attractive alternative even to regular incandescents, since dimmer incandescent bulbs of given wattages tend to have have longer lifespans (the trade off).
That's just the start of it....there are specific legal workarounds to that effect, higher energy use but longer life for a bulb of given brightness.



Ban Workarounds
CFLs and LEDs have brightness issues, especially omnidirectionally to light up rooms - and they get dimmer with age.
That may mean using more of them to light up a room, negating savings, along with all the other reasons that savings don't hold up in practice, as covered via the left hand links here, especially the summary page link as also found at the bottom of this post.
But the focus here is on the incandescent bulbs themselves, and how they might continue to be used.


Rough Service
One is the "rough service" bulb route, for example Newcandescent incandescent manufacturer (who conspicuously don't state bulb brightness!) eg 100W 130V 10,000 hrs $2.88 bulb, or Aero-Tech , 100W 120V 20 000hr bulb, 1000 lumen, for $2 [both manufacturers with minimum order conditions]
That makes the Aero-Tech bulb brightness somewhere between 1000 hour standard incandescent 60W bulbs (900 lumen) and 75W bulbs (1200 lumen), regular 110-120V 100W bulbs being around 1700 lumen.
While such "rough service" classed sturdier bulbs are allowed subject to sales monitoring as a workaround to get incandescents, and it's welcome that manufacturers are supplying them to meet such consumer demand, the bulbs would therefore otherwise be more of a convenience measure for difficult to reach locations - rather than to save energy or money for required brightness.

Raised Voltage
As also with the Newcandescent bulb, many other currently legal bulbs eg "long life halogen" type replacements are marketed on a longer lifespan basis, this time from raising the voltage usually to 130V - but again, on a "dimmer bulb" 1000 lumen or so for 100W rating.
[As an aside, European and other 220V bulbs are noticeably dimmer than American ones, 100W only c.1300 lumen but rated 1000 hrs lifespan versus 750 hrs on US standard requirement]

AC to DC
A third way also marketed as a workaround is via solutions like Powerdisc.com:
Quote: "By converting the electricity power used by the bulb from AC to DC, the Envirolite PowerDisc significantly reduces energy consumption up to 42% and also extends the bulb life up to 100 times therefore reducing bulb replacement costs." The website quotes around 30% lumen reduction along the lines of 130 Volt lamps, but that this brightness will be better maintained through the bulb life.
It is also more flexibly applicable to any incandescent bulb, just by putting a small disc on the bottom of it. While it does not stop the bulbs being banned, it therefore again extends their life. Good American inventive, and combative. spirit!




 Christena Dowsett

Texas Hold 'Em
While some states like California and Nevada and the Canadian British Columbia province have sought to precede federal regulations, others have sought to stop them.
Most notably, Gov Perry signed into law incandescents as being legal in Texas June 2011 (Texas Allows Regular Incandescent Bulbs). The practical implications are less clear, supposedly that is only for local manufacture and sale, and it comes under similar federal-defying local laws like Arizona gun law or California /Colorado marijuana laws.
Still, Gov Perry got help from Republican colleagues Joe Barton and Michael Burgess in Congress, House Energy Committee, in attempts at thwarting federal regulations, including achieving the specific albeit temporary block of funding for federal oversight of regulations in Texas and elsewhere.
South Carolina Gov Nikki Haley may sign similar bill albeit stuck at end of senate stage there, having local small independent manufacturing, apparently awaiting federal and Texas repeal efforts - in fact around a dozen state repeal bills have been launched, most though likely speculative for a local constituency base without hope of success (similar MP campaign effort seen in Canada, as in a recent post here).



Uncle Sam Strikes Back: Sales Monitoring
Joining hands with Uncle Maple Leaf...

Exemption reversal condition: The Act includes a provision whereby, in cooperation with NEMA, sales of certain exempted lamps will be monitored, specifically:
• rough service
• vibration service
• 2601-3300 lumen general service (150-200W)
• 3-way
• shatter-resistant lamps

For each of these lamp types, if sales double above the increase modeled for a given year — signaling that consumers are shifting from standard incandescents to these incandescents and thereby supposedly not saving energy — the lamp type will lose the exemption.

Consequence: A requirement that any such popular lamp type can then only be sold "in a package containing 1 lamp", and with a maximum 40 watt rating in most cases (95-watt for 2601-3300 lumen ie 150-200W lamps, variably reduced for 3-way lamps).

In other words, if sales go up, further restrictions arise, and only 1 lamp packages may be sold:
Buy several packages, or walk out the shop and back in again to buy another one.

Note that tier 3 regulations by 2020 is planned to cut down on allowed exemptions anyway.



EU too
Too much to go into here, the EU is not behind in elaborate checks and monitoring.
See previous posts under the EU tag. It includes Commission proposals to ban fittings for special bulbs which are modified to take regular bulbs, and the German Energy Commissioner seeking to extend the 50 German store inspectors he apparently got to inspect "rough service" sales in ordinary stores in that country, to EU-wide inspections.
An earlier Irish Government proposal has sought to fine the distribution of illegal (imported) incandescent bulbs by individual citizens eg to neighbors with a 5000 euro first offence fine, and a 50 000 euro fine alternatively 6 months prison for repeat offence. Such would of course be on top of any customs etc fines for illegal imports generally.


Pssst...want to buy a light bulb...


 cei.org


The crass idiocy of a bureaucrat ruled world:
Do whatever it takes, to stop people from buying what they want, who in turn obviously do what they can, to satisfy their desires.
Above all, do not make any rational decisions, to actually deal with energy or emission issues, as per other posts here and the ceolas.net site.



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

EU Commission Light Bulb Ban Review 2: Lighting Industry Views

See a previous post which covers all the details of the review of the 2009 light bulb regulations that has been started by the EU (European) Commission.


LEDs Magazine is an excellent USA based publication covering mainly technical issues relating to LED lighting.
While obviously supportive of LED development (and why not), the October article covering the upcoming EU review of lighting regulations was surprisingly critical of the EU phase out - as were the industry representatives interviewed, although obviously from a perspective of their own eventual successful sales.
A delay of the halogen phase-out to 2019 is proposed, which as it happens is close to the EU proposal of a delay to 2018.


Regarding LightingEurope, the industry association covered in the article, quoting from their website introduction:

LightingEurope is an industry association representing leading European lighting manufacturers, national lighting associations, and companies producing materials. We are committed to innovation, sustainability, quality and leadership. We contribute to shape policy and establish industry standards and guidelines.
We are dedicated to promoting efficient lighting practices for the benefit of the global environment, human comfort, and the health and safety of consumers [and our profits].

If incandescents were so bad, then they could of course just stop making these "terrible" bulbs!
Manufacturers change standards all the time - without government bans.
"Unfortunately" someone else would of course then make the cheap popular bulbs.
Hence the irony: if incandescents were not so popular, there would be no "need" to ban them.

Incidentally, it is perfectly alright and even to be expected, that GE, Philips, Osram et alia lobby for a ban on patent expired cheap generic popular incandescents for their own profits from expensive patented alternatives.
The issue is with politicians - and people like the EU bureaucrats - handing them profits on a plate, to the detriment of consumers and their free choice, and with little if any overall energy saving for the extensive reasons provided elsewhere here (see pages on the left), which also answers "green" concerns in terms of which bulbs are actually "green".


Below article:
Energy efficiency may come at the cost of consumer confidence
Caroline Hayes, LEDs Magazine October 2013

Comment

LightingEurope believes that no LED-based lamps will meet the Stage 6 requirements of European Commission (EC) Regulation 244/2009.... LightingEurope advocates that 2019 is a more realistic date for halogen bulbs to be replaced, rather than the current deadline of 2016. There are several reasons for this request: affordability, a desire for consumer choice, and quality issues....
Jürgen Sturm, secretary general of Lighting­Europe, is concerned that an accepted technology is taken away with no viable alternative offered...

A delay is better than an immediate ban, and overall the conclusion is welcome, although if LEDs "keep getting better and cheaper" then presumably consumers would want to buy them - voluntarily - without bans on alternatives.

Why the eternal assumption that we, as consumers, are idiots?
And why the assumption that we are idiots because we may think (Shock, Horror!) that lighting products should primarily be judged on lighting ability.


As it happens, it's hardly out of worry for consumer choice that the manufacturers want a delay - rather that there are still too many cheap alternatives that might, er, distract consumers from their own expensive wares...

[Jürgen Sturm]...the fear is that halogen bulbs will be phased out before the market is mature, leaving low-quality LEDs to be seen as the only option, based on prices. This will be detrimental to the maturing market, Sturm warns...
A related issue is that there is no provision for what Sturm calls "market surveillance." Each EU member state is to be responsible for policing the pricing and quality of LED replacements. What is affordable in Sweden may be unacceptable in Romania, for example, he points out. The lack of market surveillance in member states is a particular worry for LightingEurope...

[Nick Farraway]...there will be many products imported without quality controls and sold alongside the expensively produced ones.... consumers, buying cheaper brands, are left with a poor impression of LED lighting.

A worry then that cheap (Chinese) imports will displace profits from their expensive bulbs - with an ominous call for market surveillance.

It is perfectly understandable that a maker of a quality product does not like that his/her product might get a bad name from rival manufacturers making cheaper, worse, similar ones.
If technical specifications are not met by the imports there is obviously a legal case as well, and imported bulbs like all bulbs should meet whatever the label holds on lifespan and other criteria.
But regulating "quality" is a questionable business - and the manufacturers seem to have regulation on the brain.

There is a market, and there is an ability to sell: Show it, folks.

Market surveillance is needed for dangerous-to-use products.
If market surveillance is called for here, why doesn't Big Gov stop people buying anything cheap and shoddy.
Hey, ban fast food - expensive high quality food is better for us!
Hey, ban cheap batteries and washing up liquids - so we only buy the good expensive alternatives!
(Which are advertised as such of course "expensive to buy but cheap in the long run" and/or otherwise in having better performance quality - and which light bulb manufacturers could too, instead of crying like this all the time).

This is also of course similar to why incandescents were banned in the first place (getting cheap popular competition out of the way).
It is also similar to the "call for shop inspections" by a sympathetic Commissioner Oettinger, to get rid of the legal rough service incandescents that people again "unfortunately" might buy.

For hotels and commercial installations, the payback period should be 6–12 months, but for homes, where lights are used less, the payback may be extended to a period of 3–4 years, which is not such an obvious financial return for consumers.

Well, well. There's an admission.
Although 3-4 years is still far too low for the infrequent usage of most household bulbs (average 20-25 bulbs per household in the EU, more in North / West European households) - as covered elsewhere here.
Longer time still, when taken as the unsubsidised payback cost per LED to the taxpayer.

For Farraway, there are other flaws in the EcoDesign Regulations.
One is that the low specified CRI (color rendering index) may deter end users from LED lamps. Halogen lamps are popular with consumers because they render color well, he says, enhancing interiors. He is concerned that the EU is allowing quality to be diluted.

He fears lessons have not been learned from the introduction of energy-efficient compact fluorescent bulbs. "Compact fluorescent is a good technology to save money, but is a poor light, and therefore unpopular," he says, referring to its green hue. He wants a much more stringent color metric for replacement bulbs. The EU wants 80 CRI, but Farraway wants 95 CRI or greater, although he concedes that the obstacle to this is a more difficult and more costly process technology.

While recognizing the central issue all bulbs have advantages - as it happens, incandescents have a maximal Color Rendering Index of 100 - it's hardly "progress" to push for expensive LED clones in such respects.
CFLs and LEDs have advantages other than CRI.
Imposing incandescent-style CRI standards just shows how messed up the regulatory thinking is - by all sides concerned.

[Farraway]...the price will decrease as volume increases for an affordable product that can last 40,000 hours, compared to an incandescent bulb's 700 hours.

700 hours?
If your associates didn't stick with Phoebus cartel standards for household consumers - and even that is 1000 hrs - then they could last 20,000 hrs and more, as per Aerotech and other incandescent bulbs for industry.
Conversely, the lab specificed 40,000 hr life is doubtful on several grounds in real life (including the dimming with age of LEDs) - and even the EU Commission's own VHK/VITO research report uses 20, 000 hrs.




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.
 

South Carolina Bill Update

 

Loretta Grice and Jessie Williams were among 14 employees producing more than 9,000 incandescent bulbs a day during 2011 at the American Light Bulb Manufacturing Co, Mullins SC.
It is, or was, one of two manufacturer of incandescent light bulbs in the United States, and local state legislators are pressing forward with a bill to maintain production of the bulbs to be phased out under federal law. [Adapted from SC Now, see below]


As mentioned earlier, apart from the Missouri meeting there was also a South Carolina meeting today on the H.3735 bill (bill summary).

It was a sub-committee meeting, and a full Senate committee meeting is due to follow after being held over from last year, having awaited the result of the Congress deliberations on the federal ban, as well covered on this blog.

The South Carolina (SC) bill is perhaps the most interesting of the outstanding local state bills.
Firstly, because the bill is far advanced, passed in House 76-20, now in Senate where Republicans have a majority (27 of 46 seats), so if it passes committee would probably go through to the Governor for signing.
Secondly, because SC has the bulb manufacturing, and it's a small independent outfit, less subject to major manufacturer and federal pressures.
The American Light Bulb Co in Mullins SC made the simple incandescents right up to 2012 and are "fired up" against the ban, as also covered in a previous post on American incandescent light bulb manufacturing.


A lot of SC media covering it today Wednesday 15th February, as an Associated Press syndicate story, for example WBTV

While I have not confirmed the details, there is a certain irony of a special hearing sought by an environmental group seemingly waking up the Committee to perhaps go ahead and pass the slumbering bill!

SC senators consider 'light bulb freedom' bill
An environmental group wants South Carolina senators to reject a bill meant to trump federal energy standards for light bulbs.

The proposal passed by the House last year would allow South Carolina manufacturers to make and sell traditional incandescent bulbs only in the state. It's in response to a federal law requiring 100-watt bulbs to be more energy efficient.

Ryan Black of the Coastal Conservation League told a Senate panel on Wednesday that the bill circumvents federal efforts to promote innovation and save electricity. He says some new incandescent bulbs meet the efficiency standard.

Sen. Kevin Bryant says the government shouldn't tell residents what kind of light bulb they can buy.

No action was taken. Bryant's subcommittee advanced the bill last year. It is awaiting debate in full committee.

Naeem McFadden's May 2011 SC Now article, extracts

Mullins light bulb factory fired up about light law
The Incandescent Light Bulb Freedom Act passed by members of the S.C. House of Representatives on April 14 not only takes a stand against a forced phasing-in of compact florescent bulbs, but also instills confidence in a Mullins manufacturer fighting to stay in business.

American Light Bulb Manufacturing Co. owner Ray Schlosser said the company is the only independent incandescent light bulb manufacturer in the state. He said the proposed state law will keep his business competitive.

“I think this is crucial and a very important step,” Schlosser said. “Not many are in the business of producing incandescent light bulbs and there have been several hundred jobs lost as a result.”


The bill passed by the S.C. House would allow American Light Bulb Manufacturing Co. to produce and sell within the state, stamping them “Made in South Carolina.” The Senate has yet to vote on the bill sponsored by Rep. Bill Sandifer.

Sandifer, a Seneca Republican, said states’ rights would prevail in the argument that the federal government only has the power to regulate commerce between states. The stance is in reference to the 10th amendment of the Constitution, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” The bill states the General Assembly finds that if an item manufactured in the state without inclusion of any significant parts imported from another state and the item is offered for sale and sold only for use within the borders, the item is not in the stream of interstate commerce.

American Light Bulb Manufacturing Co. has been operating in Mullins for the past 10 years. With a staff of 14 people, the majority of the workers have vast experience working in an industry that has been in place for more than four decades.

The light bulb manufacturing industry took shape in the form of Marvel Lamp in 1963 followed by Supreme Lighting Co., which was later sold to SLI, Inc. in 1999. The plant later announced a shutdown in November 2000. More than 300 workers lost their jobs as a result.
“A federal ban on incandescent bulbs would be detrimental to the manufacturing business and result in more job losses”, Schlosser said.

Plant manager Carolyn Roberts said the facility experienced layoffs a year ago, but now business appears to be picking up.
“We have a large customer base and we usually produce up to 9,000 bulbs per day,” Roberts said. Workers also package and distribute the bulbs after several rounds of testing, she said.

Raw materials used to make bulbs include glass, brass for the base and tungsten wire. Workers assemble the bulbs operating machines that use multiple flame sources, fixating the filament on a glass stem, fusing it to the bulb. The air is later pumped out of the bulb and sealed by fire before inserted into a brass lamp base and then tested.

Schlosser said he is excited about being the lone manufacturer in the state. Eighty percent of all bulbs are imported from mainly from China, he said, and an American presence in the bulb-making industry should remain.

Schlosser said Sandifer’s bill will level the playing field by sustaining a company in the state despite a large number of imported light bulbs being distributed throughout the country.

Updates on the 10 US state freedom light bulb bills (legislated Texas) can be seen on http://ceolas.net/#bills


 

US Regulation Absurdity: Dim 100W bulbs allowed, Bright 100W bulbs banned!

 
US regulations are based on bulb brightness (lumens) not on energy usage (watts):
Bright incandescent bulbs are banned, dim incandescent bulbs using the same or more energy are still allowed.


In the Resource News Update recently,
I incorrectly commented on Halogenica's informative blog post, on the USA regulations.

I said:
"As a comment, and as I also tend to leave out, less common 75 Watt bulbs are also banned from Jan 1 2012 in the Act (in fact, any regular incandescent over 72W, Energy Dept info)".

As I have since corrected, Halogenica was right, which highlights the absurdity, that 75 W "dim" bulbs are allowed but 75 W "bright" ones are banned!
This is because the regulations are based on brightness, rather than energy usage.
The above Dept of Energy link seems to indicate a 72 W maximum, but it is as a lumen (brightness) reference, and several other official documents clarify the legality of regular 75 W bulbs, until 1 Jan 2013.


So you can actually still buy a 100W incandescent bulb, if it's dim enough, which can sometimes be an attractive option, since dimmer incandescent bulbs of given wattages tend to have have longer lifespans (the trade off).

For example Aero incandescent manufacturer, 100W 20 000hr bulb, 1000 lumen, for around $2 each in bulk purchase, January 2012.
That makes it pretty equivalent to an 1100 lumen 1000 hour standard incandescent 75W bulb.
While the Aero light bulb is allowed in 2012 anyway as a rough service bulb, with associated advantages, such bulbs would, bans apart, otherwise be more of a convenience measure for difficult to reach locations etc...
$2 dollar long life bulb plus 25 W extra energy cost for 20 000 hours, 25W x 20 000 hrs = 50 kWh, USA 12 cent per kWh average residential cost (EIA), 50 kWh x 12c = 600c or 6 dollars, + 2 dollar bulb cost = 8 dollars.
Box of twenty 75W regular bulbs, typically 10-12 dollars, so given that 1000 hrs is considered typical yearly use, it's pretty much the same overall cost, just a couple of dollars difference over 20 years, more exactly depending on local electricity costs.

Update 7 May 2012
See comments below ...
"But 25W * 20,000 hrs is 500KWH, not 50KWH. That means it costs $62 for the life of the bulb."

So this makes it even more interesting,
in that the hailed legal "rough service" "long life" alternatives therefore waste a lot more energy and money, compared to allowing continued use of simple incandescent light bulbs (or for that matter allowing continued use of Halogen replacements with their marginal savings...)

Further Update 25 May 2012
Looking more closely at lumens, 1000 lumen is actually closer to the typical 60W rating for clear bulbs, the Aerotech bulb being a clear bulb.
That is 900 lumen for 60 watt compared to 1200 for 75 watt bulbs.
Incidentally, brighter bulbs in North America from usually using lower (120V) voltages than say Europe (220V).
So really around 10 watts equivalent use should be added, or about 24 dollars
That gives 86 dollars... over 70 dollars more in total cost for equivalent brightness over the period compared to 20 ordinary bulbs.


For more on the USA regulations, and the various exceptions, http://ceolas.net/#li01inx.


Of course, the regulations are wrong for many other reasons,
energy savings is not the only reason for choosing a bulb you want to use,
and overall energy savings are not that great, whatever way the ban is defined.

The point here is therefore the lack of logic, in the stated justification for the ban, to "prohibit energy wasting" bulbs, not to "prohibit bright bulbs",
such that a 100 Watt bright incandescent bulb is banned, but a 100 Watt dim incandescent bulb is still allowed!
 

The effect in 2012 on consumers and manufacturers

 
Update on yesterday's effective postponement of USA light bulb ban
(it will partly run in parallell, to keep them in one place).


To begin with,
according to the Department of Energy, the law prohibits the manufacture and import of new 100-watt incandescent bulbs but does not prohibit stores from selling out their existing stock - nor, of course, does it prohibit consumers from using them.

Therefore, regardless of the amendment regarding oversight funding of the ban implementation, American consumers would likely be able to buy regular 100 Watt bulbs for at least a year, albeit perhaps marked up in price, in stores cannily stocking up on them.
That is also what happened with the EU ban of 2009.

This can easily be confirmed online, for example, NY Times, J&J Tech etc, and several online retailers, apart from the more hidden legal text via official links.

Again, since Canada is delaying a ban to 2014, that offers another way to get the bulbs, even easier if there is no federal oversight of import activities, as per the latest bill amendment.



But that is not all.
While the law does prohibit manufacture, the fact that there is no oversight might see a limited 2012 continuation of American manufacture of the targeted incandescents - even without any local "freedom bills" being enacted.


Take South Carolina:
How the American Light Bulb Co in Mullins, SC is "fired up" against the ban: here

American Light Bulb Manufacturing Co. owner Ray Schlosser said the company is the only independent incandescent light bulb manufacturer in the state. He said the proposed state law will keep his business competitive.

As for Pennsylvania, see the earlier post, noting the manufacturing plant in St. Marys: It is the country's oldest functioning light bulb manufacturing facility, and produces nearly 2 million incandescent light bulbs a day - but being owned by the major Osram /Sylvania maker, would presumably be more susceptible to federal political pressure, and has in any case been taking steps over the past years to convert manufacturing to halogen type bulbs.

As seen, Osram/Sylvania also has manufacturing of some incandescent light bulb types in Winchester, Kentucky.

There are also smaller outfits making and marketing "rough service" legal incandescents (examples: AeroTech and Gadsden).


Texas has no current manufacturing,
but Gov Perry spokesmen told me earlier this year that they were looking for interested companies, after legalisation of local incandescent manufacture in June 2011.
There was the contention of contravening federal laws, but they had been in touch with the Federal Attorney General's office before legalising it locally (as seen from the changes in the bill text).
More on Texas in an earlier (updated) blog post.

One can also note that California had no problem in locally legislating on the issue, albeit the other way round, in the sense of banning local sales of higher wattage incandescents earlier this year.
This is in line with US (and similarly EU) policy of "locally more stringent interpretations of federal laws being allowed",
but invites criticism on the basis that if federal laws are needed in the first place, then they should be equal for all...