Republicans Seek Repeal of Incandescent Bulb Ban

[spanone]

oy......


Senator Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.) has announced that he plans to introduce legislation to reverse the ban on incandescent light bulbs which is scheduled to go into effect January 1, 2014. The ban was included in a comprehensive energy bill that President George W. Bush signed into law in 2007 as an amendment, and was intended as a means of saving energy and limiting pollution.

Senator Enzi’s repeal legislation, the Better Use of Light Bulbs Act (BULB), S. 395, has 27 co-sponsors, including Senator John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) and Senator Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), the latter of whose office issued the following statement on the legislation:

The ban was intended to save on electricity costs and limit pollution by replacing traditional incandescent light bulbs with energy-efficient compact florescent light bulbs (CFLs).

However, CFLs are more expensive, many contain mercury which can be harmful even in the smallest amounts, and most are manufactured overseas in places like China. In September 2010, the last major GE manufacturing plant for incandescent light bulbs in the U.S. closed in Winchester, Virginia and 200 jobs were lost.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/tech-mainmenu-30/environment/6392-republicans-seek-repeal-of-incandescent-bulb-ban

[rurallib]

1. not that it will create any jobs

any jobs created would be in China or VietNam.

[bluestateguy]

2. Oh, you mean Bush's light bulb law?

nt

[peekaloo]

5. Ha! The Dim Bulb legacy. nt.

[Curmudgeoness]

3. I may put myself in a position to be ridiculed here, but

I do not believe that this law should ever have been enacted. I believe that the incandescent bulb should have been left to die its own death if and when there was a better option. No one banned VHS tapes, but the technology for DVDs just put them in the grave.

At this time, I do not personally think that the florescent bulbs are a good substitute for the incandescent bulb in many cases. For example, my basement is at about 50 degrees in the winter. I had a florescent bulb down there that would hardly come on when I had to go down there. I don't want to use a CFL, it does not work well. Also, CFLs do not save any energy as opposed to an incandescent unless it is on for at least 15 minutes. I use CFLs in places where I have a light on for a long period of time. I do not want to use them in places like my bathroom, where the light is on and off before it can warm up. I do not want them in my basement. I want options.

I understand the need to save energy. But this technology is not there yet to work in all circumstances, and should not be pushed on the consumer. This law was a bad idea.

[lighthouse10]

4. Why Light Bulb Regulations are Wrong

All lights have their advantages, including ordinary incandescents over halogens,
and even if there are electricity savings,
citizens pay for the electricity they use:
There is no energy shortage, including of future low emission electricity,
that justifies a limitation on what citizens can use.

Even if if there was a shortage of the finite
coal/oil/gas sources, then their price rise limits their use anyway -
without legislation.

Moreover: light bulbs don't give out any CO2 gas - power plants might.
If there is an energy supply/emissions problem - deal with the problem!

Why overall society energy savings are not there anyway:
http://ceolas.net/#li171x
with US Dept of Energy references = Under 1% overall energy savings
from energy efficiency regulations on incandescent lights.

[66 dmhlt]

6. It does NOT ban all the bulbs. Read the bill!

The Energy Independence and Security Act was passed in 2007 - and signed by DUBYA - and now right-wingers claim that it will outlaw incandescent light bulbs. In fact the bill only sets standards for light bulbs and does NOT ban all incandescent bulbs, only inefficient ones.

Act Allows For "Energy Efficiency Standards" For "General Service Incandescent Lamps."

Under Title III, Subtitle B of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, according to the Library of Congress:

Title III: Energy Savings Through Improved Standards for Appliance and Lighting

Subtitle B: Lighting Energy Efficiency - (Sec. 321) Amends EPCA to prescribe energy efficiency standards for general service incandescent lamps, rough service lamps, and other designated lamps.

Directs the Secretary of Energy to: (1) conduct and report to the FTC on an annual assessment of the market for general service lamps and compact fluorescent lamps; and (2) carry out a proactive national program of consumer awareness, information, and education about lamp labels and energy-efficient lighting choices. Authorizes appropriations for FY2009-FY2012.
(...)
Instructs the Secretary of Energy to report to Congress on: (1) federal measures to reduce or prevent release of mercury during the manufacture, transportation, storage, or disposal of light bulbs; (2) whether specified rulemaking deadlines will be met; (3) an NAS review of advanced solid state lighting R&D and the impact upon the types of lighting available to consumers of an energy conservation standard requiring a minimum of 45 lumens per watt for general service lighting; and (4) the time frame for commercialization of lighting to replace incandescent and halogen incandescent lamp technology.

(Sec. 322) Sets forth minimum energy efficiency standards for incandescent reflector lamps.
(...)
(Sec. 324) Amends EPCA to include within its regulatory oversight: (1) metal halide lamp fixtures; and (2) energy efficiency labeling for designated consumer electronic products.

Sources:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HR00006:@@@D&summ2=m&

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/22/business/22light.html?_r=1&scp=3&sq=bulbs%20U.S.&st=Search

http://www.startribune.com/blogs/90608939.html