"Most Americans against the Light Bulb Ban"

January 8 update, new ending. [Original post also January 8]


Rasmussen Survey, conducted January 2-3 and as reported January 7 2014

Only one-in-four Americans support the ban on conventional 40- and 60-watt light bulbs in the United States that went into effect January 1, and the same number say they or someone they know stocked up on the old bulbs beforehand.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 60% of American Adults still oppose the ban on traditional light bulbs ordered by the federal government in the name of improved energy efficiency. That's down only slightly from 67% in July 2011 when the government first announced the new regulations. Twenty-five percent (25%) now support the light bulb ban, up from 20% two-and-a-half years ago. Fifteen percent (15%) remain undecided.

The national survey of 1,000 Adults was conducted on January 2-3, 2014 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC.

The questions asked...

National Survey of 1,000 Adults Conducted January 2-3, 2014 By Rasmussen Reports

1* How closely have you followed recent news stories about changes in the manufacturing of light bulbs?

2* While effectively banning the sale of traditional light bulbs, a new law will allow only more expensive light bulbs that are expected to last longer and be more energy efficient. Should the sale of traditional light bulbs be banned?

3* The Energy Department says that the new light bulbs will cost more up front but save money in the long run. How likely is it that the new light bulbs will save money in the long run?

4* Is it the government’s job to tell Americans what kind of light bulb to use?

5* Suppose the new light bulbs don’t work so well and end up costing more money in the long run. How likely is it that the government will then allow the sale of traditional light bulbs?

6* Will the new fluorescent or halogen bulbs be good for the environment, bad for the environment or will it they have no impact on the environment?

7* Have you or anyone you know bought large quantities of traditional bulbs to use once they are no longer available in stores?

8* Are you buying the new energy efficient bulbs because you want to or because traditional light bulbs are no longer available?

9* Who would do a better job of providing quality products for consumers-- government planners and managers or companies hoping to make a profit?

NOTE: Margin of Sampling Error, +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence

Today, January 8 2014 sees a new press release

January 8, 2014:

Just 18% of American Adults believe it is the government’s job to tell people in this country what kind of light bulb to use. Seventy-two percent (72%) disagree and feel it is not the government’s job to make that call. Ten percent (10%) are not sure.

Which happens to be identical to 2009

Rasmussen July 2009:

Just 18% of American Adults believe it is the government’s job to tell people in this country what kind of light bulb to use. Seventy-two percent (72%) disagree and feel it is not the government’s job to make that call. Ten percent (10%) are not sure.

This is presumably an unintentional mistake? ;-)
The comparative January 7, 2014 press release, as per above, edited to fit in

Twenty-five percent (25%) support the light bulb ban....60% of American Adults still oppose...Fifteen percent (15%) remain undecided.

For the sake of completion, the July 2011 survey

Just 20% of adults think the sale of traditional light bulbs should be banned. Sixty-seven percent (67%) oppose such a ban. Thirteen percent (13%) are undecided.

[Thank you to MB Snow, since retired, for the 2011 information, The Snow Report, which has more about that survey]



Comment

Lies, damn lies, and statistics...
There are other surveys in the past, as by USA Today (more below), purporting to show "How people welcome regulations and the great new light bulbs".

There are 2 main points here.

Firstly, how the questions are asked
(eg "are you happy about the great new bulbs" versus "should government tell you what light bulb to buy" kind of juxtapositions, with nuances in between).

Secondly, and more importantly, that bans are wrong either way.
Why?
New bulbs are desirable - No point banning old bulbs
New bulbs are not desirable - No point banning old bulbs

If new bulbs are "so great and welcome", presumably they would be bought voluntarily, and there is little savings in not allowing the presumably low sales of alternatives for those who still want them.
Conversely it's hardly great either, of course, to ban a more desirable choice.
[More cynically, one might also ask, if people really think the "alternatives are so great", why haven't they already bought them then? Standard light bulbs remain the most popular choice.]

Overall,
as the more detailed surveys also show, people certainly have bought new kinds of bulbs.
They just don't want all their light bulbs to be non-incandescent (and as per other posts, halogen replacement incandescents are also legislated to be banned in North America, Europe and Australia on tier 2 regulations).
Switch all your bulbs and save money, is like saying
Eat only bananas, and save money.

See the issues around these kind of surveys, as already summarized in the "How Regulations are Wrongly Justified" 14 points rundown.



To illustrate some of this:

The USA Today paper has in the past put out survey results showing how "Americans welcome the regulations" and indeed new light bulbs themselves.

Nearly three of four U.S. adults, or 71%, say they have replaced standard light bulbs in their home over the past few years with compact fluorescent lamps or LEDs (light emitting diodes) and 84% say they are "very satisfied" or "satisfied" with the alternatives

.... which incidentally applies to switching one or more bulbs, not a total switchover - again statistical manipulation!
As it happens, the same article author had 10 days earlier pointed out

Types of lightbulbs consumers have in their homes:
Incandescents 82%
Compact fluorescent 72%
Halogen 39%
Light emitting diodes 27%
Source: Sylvania Socket Survey

As for the more recent 2013 Sylvania socket survey, it finds that

65 percent of Americans plan to switch to more energy-efficient lighting technologies, as a result of federally mandated legislation that is increasing efficiency standards     [well, they hardly have a choice!]
More than half (59%) of consumers are excited about the phase out, as it will help Americans use more energy efficient light bulbs.     [why - who was stopping them using them?]

Conversely, it also says

30 percent of consumers say that they plan to buy a lot of traditional light bulbs where still available and will continue using them. This is a sharp increase from the 2012 Socket Survey which showed just 16 percent said that they plan to stockpile bulbs.

Given what was said about different lighting having different advantages, this is hardly surprising, the contradiction is only apparent.
Yet, most US media seem unable to make balanced appropriate remarks:
"Liberal/Eco" side focusing on the "welcome" bit, "Republican/Conservative" side on the "stockpiling" bit, others seemingly "perplexed" at the findings, which are therefore not really contradictory at all.

It's a bit tiring to be an assumed retrograde lover of obsolescent technology.
It seems incredibly hard for some to understand that being against a ban does not necessitate being against other forms of lighting.
Of course, fluorescent bulbs or LEDs have disadvantages too, but disadvantages are also naturally highlighted in objections, if one is forced to use such lighting where incandescents would have been better (and yes it is a "ban" on incandescents including halogens, for reasons covered at length elsewhere, including tier 2 US/EU etc law references).
All lighting has different advantages for different uses.
Politicians that have something in their heads that can be likened to a brain might understand this. Then again, they might not.



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 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.
 

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.
 

Canada Light Bulb Ban: A Summary of How it is Wrong

Update, additions Jan 1 2014

There are particular reasons to have focused on the Canada light bulb ban in the past several posts.
Firstly, because unlike USA or EU there is some sort of chance of avoiding or at least overturning it later, given a simpler lawmaking procedure in a smaller jurisdiction.
Secondly, because it is particularly odd to ban them in such a country.


Strange to ban a popular safe product:

It's not like banning lead paint, and some of the suggested replacements are arguably less safe to use.
CFLs have known light quality and safety issues, while expensive and subsidised LED clones for many rarely used bulbs in a 36 bulb Canada household hardly saves money and is hardly progress, LEDs use up many rare earth minerals and with several health and environmental issues themselves (eg ANSES France, UC Davis California investigations).



Incandescents have many specific advantages for Canadians:

Canadians live in relatively large homes where much time is spent with varied lighting conditions, and where incandescent light quality, reaction time, brightness, sensor/dimming and other versatility is welcome, along with bulb heat on most dark nights.
Incandescent advantages for Canadians are covered at length in section 3 of the analysis as listed below.
Also see "Why ban in Canada particularly wrong" (http://ceolas.net/#li11x)



Major manufacturers Philips, Osram and GE have oddly welcomed being told what they can or can't make:

They have lobbied in different countries including Canada for a ban on patent expired simple generic cheap and relatively unprofitable products - and the proposal makes repeated mention of justifying a ban on their behalf.
The invitation to sympathy for not having competition banned can be compared with real sympathy if what they were preparing to make had been banned!
There is nothing wrong in manufacturer lobbying for profits on behalf of shareholders - it is arguably wrong of them not to. However, that does not require Government acquiescence on behalf of the public.
Besides, the manufacturers could of course just stop making the bulbs themselves in the name of the "progress" that they like to talk about in all their PR handouts regurgitated by politicians and media. After all, the very same manufacturers stopped making much else in the name of "progress". This had a natural market flow, in that the public could see the advantages of the new products, with little demand for the old ones, although always with niche uses (vinyl records, audio tubes, etc).
Therefore the irony and the idiocy that apples here:
If incandescents were not so popular, there would be no "need" for Government to ban them.



Local Canadian industry and jobs:

Adoption of US law as planned for more products and services carries implications of Canadian industry satisfying any specific local demand.
Not least in terms of ordinary incandescent light bulbs. The loss of jobs in USA and Europe was admitted by policy makers (EU over 5000 in final stage, adding to the thousands in ban anticipation). Complex CFL/LED manufacture is largely outsourced to China.
Local outfits with small overheads could easily make the simple generic patent-free products without licensing obligations, giving local Canadian jobs and local sustainability from using few components with little transport and no recycling needed, and no competition from the USA and little from elsewhere.
Compare with being blown over by Chinese imports and major American distributors who - in addition - have already known about their own American standard for 7 years and implemented it for 2, while, if anything, smaller Canadian counterparts have been preparing for the wrong original MEPS 2008 Canadian standard.



The ban is justified as lowering electricity consumption:

As it is a proposed ban for electricity consumption reasons, not because of unsafe bulbs, logically one would first look at the overall question of electricity consumption, looking at if and when a lowering is needed, and in turn the effects of various measures in relation to the penalty caused in terms of product choice or otherwise.
Renewables wind wave hydro and nuclear (Canadian uranium) hardly have Canadian shortage issues albeit that new plants or extensions could be avoided - hardly an issue with light bulbs for reasons soon explained.
The main issue is usually fossil fuel, especially coal, and its greater emissions (not just CO2) than other sources.

Light bulbs don't burn coal or release CO2 gas.
Power plants might - and might not.
If there's a problem - deal with the problem.
In Canada, hardly a problem, given Canada 86% emission-free electricity, and of course coal itself can be treated in various ways.

The usual "10% of domestic electricity is used for lighting" type statements,
ignore that around half of domestic lighting is not incandescent anyway, especially the mainly used kitchen lighting, also that replacements use electricity, also the heat replacement of incandescents and power factor (PF) issues of CFLs and LEDs (effectively energy use not recorded by the meters), also that domestic electricity is a small part of overall grid demand (industrial, commercial, municipal, transport - with hardly any incandescent use in any of those sectors).
On a general level, also the life cycle energy use of more complex replacement lighting, including transport in all stages from mineral mining to recycling (when not dumped, leeching mercury etc) and bunker oil powered shipping from China by major manufacturers, compared to easier local Canada manufacture by small/new manufacturers of patent-free simple incandescent bulbs.
Incandescent electricity use is just fractional amounts of mostly off-peak evening-night surplus electricity, as per usage and grid data references, effectively smaller still given the bulb heat supplied as per Ontario/BC institutional studies, and with the Canadian Center for Housing Technology also confirming that 83% to 100% of lighting energy contributes to heat demand reduction.

The total reduction [in energy use] would be 0.54 x 0.8 x 0.76% = 0.33%,
This figure is almost certainly an overestimate,
particularly as the inefficiency of conventional bulbs generates heat which supplements other forms of heating in winter.

Which begs the question: is it really worth it?
Politicians are forcing a change to a particular technology which is fine for some applications but not universally liked, and which has disadvantages.
The problem is that legislators are unable to tackle the big issues of energy use effectively, so go for the soft target of a high profile domestic use of energy...
...This is gesture politics."

Using comparable European Commission VITO data to similarly cut down even greater "15% of domestic electricity use" type statements, this came from the Cambridge University Scientific Alliance, UK Government advisers from several institutions normally supportive of energy and emission measures, similarly with other referenced science institution communications from different countries.



Alternative policies:

Again, as it is a proposed ban for electricity consumption reasons, not because of unsafe bulbs,
then electricity consumption reduction policies should be looked at in an overall sense.
That means, if required, say coal tax or emission tax or regulations, or a general electricity tax with payback subsidies for house insulation etc - ideally conceived within an overall electricity distribution policy that increases supplier competition and ease of switching between those suppliers, itself made more easy with eventual smart metering systems. Smart meter systems will also shift people from peak time use to other times of electricity surplus availability, by time-basd pricing.
Compare with the pedantic bureaucratic exercise of telling Canadian folks what light bulbs they can or can't use in their bedrooms, and repeating the process for a plethora of other products.

Of course, if light bulbs really needed policy targeting, it could be done by information, taxation, or market stimulation measures, as also described, rather than clumsy once-off standards that permanently bans also any future invention that might have been made with its own specific advantages.



The "Hey don't worry everybody" message:

Instead, Canadians worried about future choice may soon hear the on-song message from Government spokespeople:
"Hey, don't worry everybody, similar Halogen incandescent light bulbs will still be allowed!".
Except that they won't.
Adoption of USA law is the main stated justification for the proposal, defended as standard harmonisation to facilitate future trade on the North American market, and planned for more products and services.
This of itself should worry those concerned about specific Canadian service for Canadians.
It also means abiding by future decisions in Washington.
As it happens, USA EISA 2007 law tier 2 2014-2017 regulation on light bulbs will ban all incandescents for general service, including Halogens, based on the 45 lumen per Watt final rule requirement that equates to fluorescent bulb standard.
Presumably the Ottawa Government know this:
"it is anticipated that the proposed standards would help to increase the level of acceptability for MEPS [minimum energy perfomance standards] for many Canadians, thus facilitating the adoption of further MEPS for these and other products in the future."
A little more upfront honesty would perhaps not go amiss...

One might in passing note that the Halogen type replacements anyway have some light qualitative differences, also being more complex and expensive with marginal savings and therefore less popular in a free choice either with consumers or politicians (no Halogen switchover programs!).



For details of why the regulations are wrong for Canada, see the introductory post
"Canada to adopt more US Laws beginning with Light Bulbs:
Losing Industry, Jobs and Choice, with Hardly any Savings"

Full version   As Doc    As PDF

Content List

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.




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.