Can we stop with the repeal of the bulb ban…PLEASE?

January 10th, 2014 | Posted in Blog, Government | 6 Comments »

LED-Bulbs-VS-CFL-Bulbs-VS-Incandescent-BulbsEven though the bill was passed in 2007, signed by President George W. Bush, has widespread support by the lighting industry and will save consumers millions on energy costs,  there are still some members of the GOP who think that energy efficient bulbs are bad for Americans. Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-S.C.) on Wednesday proposed legislation to repeal the ban on incandescent light bulbs, just weeks after a a ban on the most common traditional bulbs took effect.

Let’s take a stroll down memory lane. The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 phased in a ban on bulbs that don’t meet new energy efficient standards. As a result of that law, the 100- and 75-watt bulb are already banned, and the 60- and 40-watt bulb were banned as of this month. Stores can continue to sell off their stock, but after that, they’re gone.

Republicans in particular have said the light bulb ban is an example of the nanny state that needs to be repealed. The GOP had some success delaying elements of the new policy, but it now appears likely to take hold for good.

Duncan’s bill, H.R. 3818, would repeal the entire section of the 2007 ban dealing with energy efficiency standards for bulbs. Luckily, GOP leaders have so far given no sign that they would consider the bill in the coming weeks.

Rep. Ted Poe (R-Texas) on Wednesday highlighted the problems related to ending the sale of incandescent bulbs, and requiring consumers to buy compact fluorescent bulbs. Poe said the new bulbs are much more expensive and contain mercury, and thus pose possible health risks and must be disposed of very carefully. If Rep. Poe actually knew the facts, he would realize that new bulbs will cost the consumer much less over the lifespan of the bulb and that the amount of mercury in a CFL can fit on the head of a pin. Actually, there is more mercury in a can of tuna than a CFL!

In a pithy statement, he said on the House floor, “You are supposed to take them to a local recycling center. Yeah, right.” (So I guess he does not separate his glass and plastics at home either.)

Poe also complained that the law effectively tells Americans what they must buy, and said that shouldn’t happen “whether it is health care, a box of donuts, or even CFL light bulbs.”

“As Willie Nelson has said: ‘Turn out the lights, the party’s over. They say that all good things must end. Turn out the lights, the party’s over,’ for at least Thomas Edison’s light bulb.”

We are Americans and constantly innovating to make the products in our daily lives more efficient so they cost us less to use. It’s called the American way Mr. Poe.





Tags: , , , , , , ,
  • Pauly

    1. RE “save consumers millions on energy costs”
    Money saving is not the ONLY reason to choose a light bulb.
    All light bulbs have different advantages.
    Switch all your bulbs and save money is like saying “Eat only bananas and save money”

    Besides, no money saving,
    on rarely used expensive bulbs in 45 light households, or when utility companies are taxpayer subsidised and can raise rates for any reduced sales.

    Progress is not drooling over pointless unubsidised high cost LED clones of simple incandescents.
    Progress is increasing – not reducing – competition, using different technology advantages,, basically bulbs- incandescents, tubes – fluorescents and sheets – LEDs,
    the latter two as also originally developed.

    • Pauly

      Looking at your site, this is exactly the point =

      Your T5 fluoro Tubes (I assume) = great idea and energy saving,
      BUT fluoro Bulbs = dimmer and less energy saving and far more technologically questionable in competing with incandescent technology, incandescents which of course themselves are hardly possible as long tubes

      There is therefore a bigger picture that both Republicans and Democrats miss in just focusing on narrow political agendas:
      One can be for *ALL* lighting technology,
      rather than hating fluoros or incandescents, respectively!!!

      And – yes, incandescents for general service are regrettably “banned” in effect if not in word, as per the EISA tier 2 2014-2017 45lm/W final rule banning “similar allowed” 72W for 100W halogens etc

  • Pauly

    2. Apart from the Free Choice arguments and that all light bulbs have different advantages, it is odd to ban a popular product for
    consumption rather than usage safety reasons
    (tax would be more common with other products, at least outside the USA).

    Dept of Energy grid data, Coal plant references, etc
    (Freedomlightbulb org):
    Incandescent use is mainly off-peak evening surplus electricity –
    which is why those rates are cheaper on time based pricing – in
    particular coal plants, the main worry, effectively burn the same coal
    on minimum night cycle operation.
    So, little if any society energy/emission savings – especially if one
    goes into the life cycle (mining to recycling, and all transport) of
    complex CFL-LED replacements, remembering that simple patent-free
    generic bulbs are much easier to make locally by small/new outfits
    – now understand why major manufacturers don’t voluntarily stop making
    them, but want to stop any competition to the patented expensive complex alternatives, and as NEMA sub-committee (Philips, GE, Osram, referenced) lobbied for and welcomed this pointless ban.

  • Pauly

    re the last comments,
    14 referenced points how light bulb regulations are wrongly justified

  • Anonymous

    When are people going to figure this out. It’s not about savings, it’s about larger corporate profits. They could not turn huge profits from selling 4 pack incandescent bulbs at $1-$2 a package. They can, however, turn a huge profit when they can charge you $10 for a single bulb like a CFL. It was never about being more environmentally friendly or energy saving, it was about greed. Also, those CFLs aren’t what they advertise. They rarely last as long as the purport, they have mercury in them, and they also emit UV rays. So now we have to worry about the mercury and what effect those UV rays they emit might have on our skin.

    Then there is the factor that China makes nearly all of them. So want to bet that China WON’T follow the guidelines for safe levels of mercury in those bulbs? Why would they. They haven’t exactly been doing a great job of producing safe products in the past 10 years. Did we forget about all the lead painted toy recalls or the more recent 2013 pet treat recall where pets were dying from an unapproved anti-biotic that was in the dog and cat treats? I know I haven’t.

    Let’s not mention the fact that people lost their jobs over this when those corporate pigs sent all the jobs to China for those so called wonderful CFL bulbs. Let’s also consider the China quality issue. I bet those bulbs get even worse in reliability in years to come. But you won’t see GE, etc complaining when you have to go to the store monthly to buy a new bulb. it will just be endless profits for them while we pay the price for their greed as usual. As for Congress, they will just get their cut of the contributions these pigs gave to them to pass that draconian bill the start with.

    If people wanted to save, the market would have decided on this. People went for energy saving appliances themselves, as well as more fuel efficient cars. It wasn’t a government mandated ban that caused the shift. If these items were better then I say let the public decide with their wallets. But this isn’t the case. People did not want dangerous mercury filled CFLs in their house, with good reason. So, as a result, these greedy light bulb companies got Congress to pass a ban to FORCE you and me into buying their more lucratively higher priced bulbs.

    • greensavingsnetwork