Industry: Light bulb war a dim idea

Note:  This article was written in December 2011.  I am reprinting it here because some of the insights into the reasoning of Big Energy are eye-opening.  Additionally, the final statement by Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) illuminates that we have to be more vocal in our opposition to “the ban”.

“The only people we are aware of who have opposed the bulb standards are some politicians and some conservative commentators,” said Bill Wicker, a spokesman for Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.).


By ROBIN BRAVENDER | 12/18/11 7:47 PM EST | for Politico.com

 

Big Business usually loves it when the GOP goes to war over federal rules.

But not when it comes to light bulbs.

This year, House Republicans made it a top priority to roll back regulations they say are too costly for business. Last week, the GOP won a long-fought battle to kill new energy efficiency rules for bulbs when House and Senate negotiators included a rider to block enforcement of the regulations in the $1 trillion-plus, year-end spending bill.

The rider may have advanced GOP talking points about light bulb “freedom of choice,” but it didn’t win them many friends in the industry, who are more interested in their bottom line than political rhetoric.

Big companies like General Electric, Philips and Osram Sylvania spent big bucks preparing for the standards, and the industry is fuming over the GOP bid to undercut them.

After spending four years and millions of dollars prepping for the new rules, businesses say pulling the plug now could cost them. The National Electrical Manufacturers Association has waged a lobbying campaign for more than a year to persuade the GOP to abandon the effort.

Manufacturers are worried that the rider will undermine companies’ investments and “allow potential bad actors to sell inefficient light bulbs in the United States without any fear of federal enforcement,” said Kyle Pitsor, the trade group’s vice president of government relations.

So, if industry wants these rules, why is the GOP grinding them to a halt? Republicans say they’re pro-choice when it comes to light bulbs.

Conservative groups and tea party favorites in the House, including GOP presidential candidate Michele Bachmann, have accused the government of a heavy-handed attempt to ban incandescent bulbs and limit consumer freedom.

“This wasn’t a light bulb manufacturer to me; this was an issue of the fundamental freedom of the American people and one more area where the federal government was encroaching in a place where it didn’t belong,” said Texas Rep. Michael Burgess, who has backed multiple efforts to block the standards.

The rules — authorized under a 2007 energy law signed by President George W. Bush — call for incandescent light bulbs to be 30 percent more energy efficient. They’re still slated to take effect Jan. 1, but the rider blocks funding for the Energy Department to enforce the rules through Sept. 30.

Limited-government groups and conservative pundits have waged an aggressive campaign to upend the standards.

“The American people don’t like being told what to do,” said Thomas Schatz, president of the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste, which has lobbied Congress on the issue. “I’m glad I get to keep my light bulbs.”

Other conservative groups like FreedomWorks, the National Taxpayers Union and Americans for Prosperity have also embraced the cause.

Lighting manufacturers and advocates of the rules say that they’ve been falsely portrayed by conservatives and won’t take incandescent bulbs off the shelves.

The controversy over bulbs has spurred an unusual mix of lobbyists to get involved.

The Lupus Foundation of America has lobbied both chambers of Congress on a bill aimed at blocking the new standards, warning that lupus patients could suffer if incandescent bulbs become tougher to find.

Maggie Maloney, a spokeswoman for the foundation, said there have been indications that fluorescent lights can contribute to lupus flares. “We think it’s important that people with lupus to have options,” she said.

A host of other groups are pleading for Congress to keep the rules intact. Lobbying over light bulbs has soared over the past year as environmentalists, energy efficiency advocates and others have flooded Congress.

Light bulb lobbying has been reported in more than three dozen filings so far this year, according to federal reports. That’s compared with just three filings between 2007 and 2010 that mentioned light bulbs.

Other groups that have lobbied on bulb legislation in the past year include Puget Sound Energy, Sempra Energy, Edison International, MidAmerican Energy, the League of Conservation Voters, the National Association of Electrical Distributors and the Alliance to Save Energy.

Congressional energy aides on both sides of the aisle say they haven’t heard from any industry groups seeking a repeal of the lighting standards.

“The only people we are aware of who have opposed the bulb standards are some politicians and some conservative commentators,” said Bill Wicker, a spokesman for Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.).

Post to Twitter Post to Bebo Post to Yahoo Buzz Post to Delicious Post to Digg Post to Facebook Post to Google Buzz Send Gmail Post to LinkedIn Post to Ping.fm Post to Squidoo Post to StumbleUpon

Posted in Legislation and Legal Issues, Light Bulb Ban, Light Bulb Industry | Leave a comment

Light bulb dilemma: Shift to CFL lighting a concern

By: Tammie Smith | Richmond Times Dispatch
Published: February 06, 2012

When she goes outside, Lois Fay puts on two pairs of sunglasses and a hat to avoid too much exposure to light, which can bring on migraines and nausea.

At home, she keeps the lights low.

“In my house, I have to use a dimmer bulb. The incandescent is a much friendlier light for me,” said Fay, of Henrico County. “I can tolerate it longer.”

Fluorescent bulbs can flicker, she explained, and “that flickering can cause migraines in people prone to migraines. And it can influence other medical conditions, too,” she said.

For that reason, Fay is particularly interested in a bill in the General Assembly that would allow companies in Virginia to continue to manufacture incandescent light bulbs for distribution in Virginia even with a federal prohibition on energy-guzzling incandescent bulbs.

The Virginia legislation was defeated in subcommittee Thursday, but it struck a nerve with Fay, who is worried about what changes in light bulb standards mean for people like her.

The federal Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 does not ban all incandescent bulbs but does require them to be more energy efficient, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.

Most incandescent bulbs on the market now don’t meet those standards, so they are being phased out over the next few years as the new standards phase in.

Stores can sell existing inventory of incandescent bulbs. But a new 100-watt bulb, for instance, can use only 72 watts of energy to provide the same amount of light. The federal law does not require use of compact fluorescent bulbs. It also exempts some bulbs, including three-way bulbs, plant grow lights and refrigerator bulbs, from the new standards.

“That’s not what’s happened,” Fay said. “These CFLs are what’s taking over the market.”

The Virginia bill introduced by Dels. Robert Marshall and Beverly J. Sherwood sought to allow companies to apply for a license to manufacture incandescent bulbs in Virginia and for distribution in Virginia to make sure such bulbs remain plentiful and affordable and to protect Virginians from “risks associated with the use of light bulbs that provide poorer quality illumination.”

Fay said she contacted Marshall to alert him to another reason to make sure incandescent bulbs remain available — people like her who cannot tolerate fluorescent bulbs. “Of all the issues being discussed regarding this bill, no one seems to be concerned about the impact on the many who do not tolerate fluorescent or (compact fluorescent lighting),” Fay said. The bluish light and flickering can be hard on people with light sensitivity, she said.

“I have to use very warm lights in my house,” Fay said.

Researchers have examined compact fluorescent lighting in photosensitive people. Because such bulbs don’t put off much heat, people may use them closer than ceiling-mounted incandescent bulbs, suggested a 2011 study in the United Kingdom. “I want to be able to choose what kind of lighting I use so that I can be without painful eyeaches and headaches, nausea and agitation,” Fay said. “Light sensitivity is an issue with many disorders.”

tlsmith@timesdispatch.com (804) 649-6572

Post to Twitter Post to Bebo Post to Yahoo Buzz Post to Delicious Post to Digg Post to Facebook Post to Google Buzz Send Gmail Post to LinkedIn Post to Ping.fm Post to Squidoo Post to StumbleUpon

Posted in Fluorescent Light, Irlen Syndrome & Scotopic Sensitivity Syndrome, Light Quality, Testimonials | Leave a comment

New “Testimonials” Section Added to LightBulbChoice.com

There is nothing like a personal story to allow others understand what all the facts and figures actually mean…  to emphasize the true human cost.   For this reason, I have added a testimonials section to the site.

If you wish to contribute your story please contact us.  We’d love to hear your story!

http://lightbulbchoice.com/news/testimonials

Post to Twitter Post to Bebo Post to Yahoo Buzz Post to Delicious Post to Digg Post to Facebook Post to Google Buzz Send Gmail Post to LinkedIn Post to Ping.fm Post to Squidoo Post to StumbleUpon

Posted in From The Admin | Leave a comment

Missouri Bill deems bulb regulations not valid intrastate.

Missouri local state Rep. Chuck Gatschenberger and others have also, January 19, launched a bill 1146, that “Specifies that the intrastate manufacturing of certain incandescent lightbulbs is not subject to federal law or regulation”, referred to the Small Business Committee.

Missouri also had an earlier bill (2468) in 2010 with Cynthia Davis as chief sponsor, that stalled.

Post to Twitter Post to Bebo Post to Yahoo Buzz Post to Delicious Post to Digg Post to Facebook Post to Google Buzz Send Gmail Post to LinkedIn Post to Ping.fm Post to Squidoo Post to StumbleUpon

Posted in Legislation and Legal Issues, Light Bulb Ban | 1 Comment

pdf: Compact Fluorescent Lights (DFLs) Are Costly and Dangerous Can Cause Fires – Even Explosions!

Editorial Note:  Below is a copy of the Table of Contents page from this very well researched paper.

Compact Fluorescent Lights (DFLs) Are Costly and Dangerous Can Cause Fires – Even Explosions!

by Robert Ferguson, President of the Science & Public Policy Institute.
“Science-based policy for a better world.”

Table of Contents

pg 03 Fires and Explosions from CFLs
pg 04 The PROVEN Dangers of Mercury in CFLs
pg 06 Other Hazardous Chemicals in CFLs
pg 07 False Information on CFL Costs and Bulb Life
pg 09 Recycling Costs, Health and Environmental Dangers
pg 10 What About LEDs?
pg 11 Other Problems
pg 12 Is Government Really Smarter Than the Consumers?

The latest recall:
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commissionon May 12, 2011 issued a recall order for sixteen models of Telstar and Electra brand CFLs in twelve different wattages: “Hazard: The light bulbs can overheat, posing a fire hazard to consumers.” The recall order involved 317,000light bulbs.

Mercury—The danger is fargreater than admitted.
CFLs Save Money?—The numbers are false!
CFL Bulb Life—Wildly exaggerated

.

Post to Twitter Post to Bebo Post to Yahoo Buzz Post to Delicious Post to Digg Post to Facebook Post to Google Buzz Send Gmail Post to LinkedIn Post to Ping.fm Post to Squidoo Post to StumbleUpon

Posted in Fluorescent Light, LED Light & Lighting, Mercury and Health | 2 Comments

Light Bulb Phaseout Worse Than Reported

Posted 01/12/2012 05:15 PM ET | Investors.com

Reposted from: sendyourlightbulbstowashington.wordpress.com

Environmentalism: As the light bulb phaseout goes into effect, you may be surprised to know the law also requires their already-costly replacements to be phased out too.

That’s right, new light bulb efficiency standards set by Washington also mandate light bulbs become 70% more efficient than classic bulbs by 2020. The only bulbs that meet that higher standard are light-emitting diodes, or LEDs. And they are even more expensive than compact fluorescent lamps.

CFLs will replace incandescent bulbs to meet the first level of efficiency that’s been widely reported in the media. By 2014, household bulbs using between 40 and 100 watts will need to consume at least 28% less energy under a stupid law passed by Congress in 2007.

But a little-noticed provision of the law, known as the Energy Independence and Security Act, also sets a second efficiency goal of 70% that must be met nationwide by 2020.

LEDs already exceed that goal. But an LED replacement for a 50-cent, 60-watt incandescent bulb costs as much as $60. No doubt costs will drop by 2020.

But it’s yet another unnecessary federal mandate looming on the horizon for consumers — many of whom are perfectly happy with their old bulbs.

The federal regulation effectively bans those bulbs by halting their manufacture. Major bulb makers have already made the plant investments to follow the law.

As of Jan. 1, traditional 100-watt bulbs no longer meet standards, and are no longer stocked in stores. Starting next January, the 75-watt incandescent bulb also will be phased out, followed by the 60-watt version in 2014.

The Energy Dept. claims each household can save $50 a year in electricity by replacing 15 traditional bulbs. But the costs of the new CFLs exceed those savings. And they’ll only get worse with LEDs.

Here’s what’s really crazy: Two years before it banned classic bulbs in favor of mercury vapor CFLs, Congress passed a law banning mercury vapor streetlights. Under the Energy Policy Act of 2005, manufacturers cannot make or import ballasts for mercury vapor lights after Jan. 1, 2008.

According to the act, mercury vapor security lights are being phased out to “protect the environment” and to “promote energy efficiency” in lighting.

Utility companies across the country have been replacing mercury street lamps with high-pressure sodium fixtures or metal halide fixtures, which are twice as efficient as mercury vapor and possibly safer.

The government warns that the amount of mercury in one CFL bulb is enough to contaminate up to 6,000 gallons of water beyond safe drinking levels. The same agency that’s pitching them as a green alternative requires households perform a small hazmat operation to dispose of them upon breakage.

The Energy Dept. recommends numerous steps to “reduce exposure to mercury vapor from a broken bulb,” including shutting off the air conditioning for “several hours” and even removing pets from the contaminated room. It advises picking up debris with duct tape, enclosing it in a glass jar and taking it to a special recycling center for proper disposal.

So the geniuses in Washington are removing mercury from outside the home, while adding it inside. And making us all pay for it. Yet another bright idea from Congress.

 

Post to Twitter Post to Bebo Post to Yahoo Buzz Post to Delicious Post to Digg Post to Facebook Post to Google Buzz Send Gmail Post to LinkedIn Post to Ping.fm Post to Squidoo Post to StumbleUpon

Posted in Fluorescent Light, Legislation and Legal Issues, Light Bulb Ban, Light Bulb Industry, Mercury and Health | Leave a comment

Virginia Lawmaker Files Wildly Unconstitutional Bill Seeking To Nullify Federal Lightbulb Standards

By Ian Millhiser | ThinkProgress.org | on Jan 10, 2012 at 9:50 am

[Editorial Note:  To state the obvious... Federal law is controlled by two houses of Congress which is made of Representatives and Senators from individual States.  As each State, one-by-one, enact their own laws opposing a federal law, it brings more members of Congress on board to repeal the federal law itself.  Yes, such State laws are unconstitutional, but the movement they embody is not.]

Last year, Texas Gov. Rick Perry signed an unambiguously unconstitutional bill nullifying a federal law signed by George W. Bush that gradually phases out older and less energy efficient light bulbs. As ThinkProgress has previously explained, state attempts to nullify federal laws run headlong into the Constitution, which provides that Acts of Congress “shall be the supreme law of the land…anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.” Indeed, as James Madison wrote in 1830, allowing states to simply ignore the laws they don’t want to follow would “speedily put an end to the Union itself.”

Nevertheless, Virginia Delegate Bob Marshall (R) has now decided to emulate Texas’ disdain for the Constitution by introducing a similar light bulb bill of his own:

The Manassas Republican introduced a bill to allow makers of incandescent lightbulbs to set up shop in Virginia after a federal ban on the bulbs went into effect Jan. 1. [...]

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

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

So Marshall’s bill isn’t just unconstitutional, it is also futile. Sadly, however, that is unlikely to stop Marshall’s effort to thumb his nose at the Constitution. Marshall was the lead sponsor of a similarly unconstitutional bill nullifying part of the Affordable Care Act. He responded to the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell by calling for a ban on “active homosexuals” in the Virginia National Guard. And he once claimed that children with disabilities are God’s punishment to women who had abortions.

Post to Twitter Post to Bebo Post to Yahoo Buzz Post to Delicious Post to Digg Post to Facebook Post to Google Buzz Send Gmail Post to LinkedIn Post to Ping.fm Post to Squidoo Post to StumbleUpon

Posted in From The Admin, Legislation and Legal Issues, Light Bulb Ban | 1 Comment

Ontario Delays Ban on Incandescent Bulbs

The Epoch Times | By Jeffrey Thompson, Epoch Times Staff  | Created: December 29, 2011

Over 125 years old, the incandescent light bulb is getting an extension on life in Ontario for at least another 2 years.

The Ontario Ministry of Energy has decided to delay the ban on inefficient incandescent light bulbs to 2014 to be consistent with the federal government. The province had announced back in 2007 that it would ban the sale of incandescent light bulbs in 2012.

“The province proposes to harmonize compliance dates for incandescent light bulbs with the federal government,” the provincial government said in a statement on its website.

The federal government will be enacting energy efficiency standards for light bulbs on Jan. 1, 2014, when it will become illegal to import incandescent lights across the country.

Energy efficiency levels for 100 and 75 watt light bulbs will also increase by that time, and by the end of 2014 efficiency levels for 60 and 40 watt light bulbs will go up as well.

Post to Twitter Post to Bebo Post to Yahoo Buzz Post to Delicious Post to Digg Post to Facebook Post to Google Buzz Send Gmail Post to LinkedIn Post to Ping.fm Post to Squidoo Post to StumbleUpon

Posted in Legislation and Legal Issues, Light Bulb Ban | 1 Comment

Despite GOP opposition, light bulb standards will phase in on Jan. 1

By Andrew Restuccia | 12/29/11 02:28 PM ET | In TheHill.com

 

New light bulb efficiency standards will begin phasing in on Jan. 1 despite intense opposition from conservatives, who have blasted the rules as a textbook unnecessary federal regulation.

While Republicans secured inclusion of a measure blocking funding for enforcement of the standards in a year-end spending bill, energy efficiency groups say the provision will have little practical impact. The Energy Department rules will nonetheless go into effect at the start of 2012.

“The [spending bill] cut funding for enforcement, however the law is still in effect,” said Jack Gillis, spokesman for the Consumer Federation of America. “It is our expectation that companies will still comply with the law.”

Steven Nadel, executive director of the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, said companies have been preparing for the new light bulb efficiency standards since Congress passed the 2007 energy law requiring traditional incandescent light bulbs to be 30 percent more efficient starting in 2012.

“The major manufacturers have already made the investments to follow the law,” he said. “They’re law-abiding companies who aren’t going to break the law.”

The GOP-backed measure to cut funding for enforcing the light bulb standards “probably is not going to have much impact,” Nadel said.

Post to Twitter Post to Bebo Post to Yahoo Buzz Post to Delicious Post to Digg Post to Facebook Post to Google Buzz Send Gmail Post to LinkedIn Post to Ping.fm Post to Squidoo Post to StumbleUpon

Posted in Legislation and Legal Issues, Light Bulb Ban, Light Bulb Industry | Leave a comment

Industry: Light bulb war a dim idea

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1211/70621_Page2.html

By ROBIN BRAVENDER | 12/18/11 7:47 PM EST

Flames heat glass light bulbs before stems are attached at American Light Bulb Manufacturing Inc. in Mullins, S.C. Monday, March 28, 2011. | AP Photo

Big Business usually loves it when the GOP goes to war over federal rules.

But not when it comes to light bulbs.

This year, House Republicans made it a top priority to roll back regulations they say are too costly for business. Last week, the GOP won a long-fought battle to kill new energy efficiency rules for bulbs when House and Senate negotiators included a rider to block enforcement of the regulations in the $1 trillion-plus, year-end spending bill.

The rider may have advanced GOP talking points about light bulb “freedom of choice,” but it didn’t win them many friends in the industry, who are more interested in their bottom line than political rhetoric.

Big companies like General Electric, Philips and Osram Sylvania spent big bucks preparing for the standards, and the industry is fuming over the GOP bid to undercut them.

After spending four years and millions of dollars prepping for the new rules, businesses say pulling the plug now could cost them. The National Electrical Manufacturers Association has waged a lobbying campaign for more than a year to persuade the GOP to abandon the effort.

Manufacturers are worried that the rider will undermine companies’ investments and “allow potential bad actors to sell inefficient light bulbs in the United States without any fear of federal enforcement,” said Kyle Pitsor, the trade group’s vice president of government relations.

So, if industry wants these rules, why is the GOP grinding them to a halt? Republicans say they’re pro-choice when it comes to light bulbs.

Limited-government groups and conservative pundits have waged an aggressive campaign to upend the standards.

“The American people don’t like being told what to do,” said Thomas Schatz, president of the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste, which has lobbied Congress on the issue. “I’m glad I get to keep my light bulbs.”

Other conservative groups like FreedomWorks, the National Taxpayers Union and Americans for Prosperity have also embraced the cause.

Lighting manufacturers and advocates of the rules say that they’ve been falsely portrayed by conservatives and won’t take incandescent bulbs off the shelves.

The controversy over bulbs has spurred an unusual mix of lobbyists to get involved.

The Lupus Foundation of America has lobbied both chambers of Congress on a bill aimed at blocking the new standards, warning that lupus patients could suffer if incandescent bulbs become tougher to find.

Maggie Maloney, a spokeswoman for the foundation, said there have been indications that fluorescent lights can contribute to lupus flares. “We think it’s important that people with lupus to have options,” she said.

A host of other groups are pleading for Congress to keep the rules intact. Lobbying over light bulbs has soared over the past year as environmentalists, energy efficiency advocates and others have flooded Congress.

Light bulb lobbying has been reported in more than three dozen filings so far this year, according to federal reports. That’s compared with just three filings between 2007 and 2010 that mentioned light bulbs.

Other groups that have lobbied on bulb legislation in the past year include Puget Sound Energy, Sempra Energy, Edison International, MidAmerican Energy, the League of Conservation Voters, the National Association of Electrical Distributors and the Alliance to Save Energy.

Congressional energy aides on both sides of the aisle say they haven’t heard from any industry groups seeking a repeal of the lighting standards.

“The only people we are aware of who have opposed the bulb standards are some politicians and some conservative commentators,” said Bill Wicker, a spokesman for Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.).

Conservative groups and tea party favorites in the House, including GOP presidential candidate Michele Bachmann, have accused the government of a heavy-handed attempt to ban incandescent bulbs and limit consumer freedom.

“This wasn’t a light bulb manufacturer to me; this was an issue of the fundamental freedom of the American people and one more area where the federal government was encroaching in a place where it didn’t belong,” said Texas Rep. Michael Burgess, who has backed multiple efforts to block the standards.

The rules — authorized under a 2007 energy law signed by President George W. Bush — call for incandescent light bulbs to be 30 percent more energy efficient. They’re still slated to take effect Jan. 1, but the rider blocks funding for the Energy Department to enforce the rules through Sept. 30.

Post to Twitter Post to Bebo Post to Yahoo Buzz Post to Delicious Post to Digg Post to Facebook Post to Google Buzz Send Gmail Post to LinkedIn Post to Ping.fm Post to Squidoo Post to StumbleUpon

Posted in Legislation and Legal Issues, Light Bulb Ban, Light Bulb Industry | Tagged | 1 Comment