Legislative Scorched-Earth Policy on Incandescent Lamp Standards Likely to Hurt Lighting Manufacturers
This past week, a Republican rider related to light bulbs on the FY 2012 Omnibus funding bill imposes funding limitations on the Department of Energy (DOE) to enforce the light bulb standards for FY2012. While it does not repeal or adjust the standards themselves or their effective timeline, it raises numerous concerns:
* American manufacturers have invested millions of dollars in transitioning to energy efficient lighting as a result of the EISA 2007 provision. Delay in enforcement undermines those investments and creates regulatory uncertainty.
* The inability of DOE to enforce the standards would allow those who do not respect the rule of law to sell inefficient light bulbs in the U.S. without fear of enforcement, creating a competitive disadvantage for compliant manufacturers.
* EISA 2007 gave state attorneys general the authority to enforce the standards. A lack of DOE enforcement will create consumer confusion resulting from a patchwork of state enforcement and place manufacturers in an intolerable position due to uneven and potentially unpredictable enforcement.
The National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA), which represents more than 95% of the U.S. lighting industry, “remains committed to and supportive of the lighting standards established in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007),” according to a press release from the organization, further stating that it “did not support the inclusion of this rider, which imposes funding limitations on the Department of Energy (DOE) to enforce the light bulb standards for FY2012.”
Opponents of the energy standards believe the incandescent lamp is being banned, limiting choice, but that is not the case. All the energy standards do is raise the bar on efficiency for certain classes of lamps, and incumbent technologies must step up or bow out. Consumers will retain choice after the standards begin to go into effect in 2012, including incandescent/halogen, CFL and LED.
Basically, the opponents of the energy standards have created a legal provision making it easier for disreputable companies to break the law and sell non-compliant bulbs, hurting legitimate manufacturers that respect the law, while creating confusion and waste in adoption.
New: Check out Ban The Bumbling, an editorial by the Designers Lighting Forum of New York, for another voice on this issue.
Another great commentary about why the GOP is misinforming the public about legislation that is beneficial to every American citizen. When did it become un-American to conserve energy and save money?
When did it become “American” and the government’s job to mandate what kind of lighting the individual must purchase? Save money? The costs of “energy efficient lighting” go way beyond the initial purchase price, what about the hazards of over heating components, excess mercury in the landfills, hazardous waste clean-up after breakage, delayed efficiency during warmup? and the list goes on.
The free markets will determine the efficiency and popularity of a product, then industry can adjust accordingly.
When did it become “American” for the government to decide what is energy efficient and saves money? Believe it or not, most people are not completely illiterate and will buy or not buy any product based on its own merits and their own situation. Sounds more to me like the DEM are trying hard to prop up their waning manufacturing friends (and “green” product distributors) with misguided laws.
There is obfuscation on all sides. The GOP is full of it, but consider this sentence, from the post above:
“All the energy standards do is raise the bar on efficiency for certain classes of lamps, and incumbent technologies must step up or bow out.”
Excuse me for pointing out the obvious, but:
(a) Not long ago, I was able to buy 60W light bulbs at prices like 3 for $1. The article to which you linked (Bumbling) quotes $1.75 for a halogen bulb.
There is a large difference between 33 cents and $1.75.
So to restate the sentence: “All the energy standards do is really stick it to the average guy/gal, who is finding it tougher to make ends meet — yes, to the point where he/she actually notices the difference between 33 cents and $1.75.”
(b) 95% of the incandescent bulb’s energy comes off as heat. This is supposed to be bad. I guess it might be, in August. I live in Virginia. It will be 42(F) tonight. The heat serves a purpose (I get the light as a bonus, don’t I?).
[by the way: In summer, there's natural light later, so the lights do not get turned on until later in the evening. Right?]
(c) Most people have incandescent bulbs in their homes. CFLs — a better buy, $-wise and energy-wise — have been around for 25 years.
Yet the recent NEMA data shows the incandescent-vs-CFL battle as 79.4% incandescent.
It’s possible that the vast majority of people are idiots. They can’t tell that the CFL option is better for them. They’d rather pay higher electricity bills.
Yet implementing a law that treats the vast majority (the people who put incandescent’s market share at 79% in Q3/2011 by tens of millions of individual actions) . . . as a bunch of idiots . . . is NOT bound to be popular . . . now is it?
=====
This is a case in which the government is acting as if the people are a bunch of idiots, and the legislators + regulators (and GW Bush, who signed this thing into law) “know better” than everyone.
In this, the government is being consistent. Hank Paulson knew better than the rest of us; Ben Bernanke still does. And so on.
So the GOP jumped on this tiny thing as a place where it could crystallize the resentment of the big stupid majority. It didn’t have the votes to repeal this one provision of EISA 2007 — but it had enough weight to get this thrown into the budget-for-the-next-5-minutes compromise.
=====
What would be smart, in the future, is to not allow the Congress to hand such opportunities to either side. One way to do that is to stop pretending that you should be able to tell me what kind of light source I can use in my house!
The point is that the cost to society of expanding the grid’s potential and new coal fired and other fossil fuel plants are unacceptable. Some of these costs are borne by private concerns, but the bulk of the expense is passed to Taxpayers and Ratepayers…..This is why we need and why we have the regulation.
Joe, the higher-efficiency alternatives cost more, but typically present a lower ownership cost, saving the owner money.
People aren’t idiots if they pursue lowest price, especially during a recession, but they don’t always pursue their overall interest and they certainly don’t pursue the public interest. If operating an incandescent results in pollution in the air, climate change, a weaker power grid and an overall higher cost personally and to society, it’s not that great a deal, but all many people see is the lower price tag. That’s where government comes in, to create a policy to pursue a higher good, one in this case that typically saves money over the life of the lamp.
Government is not telling people what light source to use in their house. Government is telling industry to make a better light bulb, and they have. As a result, consumers will retain choice, including incandescent/halogen, CFL and LED. If you don’t like CFL, use halogen or LED and wherever possible dim it.
We could argue whether the government should regulate this at all. But then you would have to accept a logical extension: Based on your logic, the government should repeal all regulation on seat belts, helmets, workplace safety laws, car fuel efficiency standards, building design, children’s toys and so on. Does the OSHA lockout/tagout rule, for example, treat electrical contractors like idiots, or does it save lives by preventing electrocution?
(By the way, whoever is reading this, Joe has a great electrical industry at blog you might want to check out at http://www.electricalcontractor.com.)
You may be arguing about a change that does not exist. News reports have attributed this change to H.R. 2055. However, the final version of that bill withholds funds ONLY for enforcement of reflector lamp standards. See Section 312(c)(2) of H.R. 2055. Can anyone show me the section of any specific legislation that bands enforcement of the standards for A-line incandescent lamps?
Vic, I checked with NEMA and confirmed that the bill refers to two provisions: 1) 10 CFR 430.32(x), which are the general service incandescent lamp standards, and 2) the statutory standards at 42 USC 6295(i) for BPAR, ER, and BR type reflector lamps, but not other reflector lamps.