The age-old question: How many republicans does it take to change a light bulb?


Battle of the bulbs: more life for incandescents?
A senator wants to overturn coming ban on energy-wasting bulbs
Sunday, March 13, 2011
By David Templeton, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

With apologies to Thomas Edison, the light bulb he made famous in 1879, the one that turns 90 percent of its electricity into heat rather than light, soon will be a relic of history.

That is, if a Republican-led effort fails to save the traditional incandescent bulb from planned obsolescence.

The Senate Energy Committee heard Republican arguments at a hearing Thursday to overturn the federal Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, which would ban production of energy-wasting incandescent bulbs beginning in 2012 with the 100 watt. This would be followed by a ban on the 75-watt bulb in 2013, and ending in 2014 with a ban on 60- and 40-watt incandescent bulbs.

The lighting industry notes that the act only sets energy-use rules that traditional incandescents cannot meet, prompting the ban. But halogen incandescents do meet the standard.

California's ban on the 100-watt incandescent began already, Jan. 1.

Republicans in Congress are upset that the government, rather than market forces, is deciding the fate of the incandescent.

"Thomas Edison wouldn't be happy if he knew that Congress was essentially banning his invention," said U.S. Sen. Mike Enzi, R-Wyo., who has introduced the Better Use of Light Bulbs Act to repeal the section of the 2007 act that would ban incandescents save for low-wattage bulbs used in niche or specialty devices.

"I think it's fine if someone wants to fill their home or business with the light from the new bulbs," Mr. Enzi said in a news release. "I also think it's fine if someone wants to buy an old-fashioned bulb because it works better for them. If left alone, the best bulb will win its rightful standing in the marketplace. Government doesn't need to be in the business of telling people what light bulb they have to use."

Mr. Enzi said compact fluorescent lamps, one of the more energy-efficient options available to consumers, contain mercury that could pose health problems if the bulbs break indoors. For that reason, proposed legislation also would exclude schools, day-care centers and nursing homes from federal light-bulb requirements if the alternative lighting contains mercury.

Other alternatives on the market -- halogen incandescent, light-emitting diode and even Electron-Stimulated Luminescence -- contain no mercury.

The Senate version of the Bulb Act has a companion version in the House that was introduced by U.S. Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas.

"This is about more than just energy consumption; it is about personal freedom," Mr. Barton stated in his own news release.

Mr. Barton said 12 other Republicans co-signed his House bill to lift the ban.

At least one major environmental group has mounted countering action to preserve the ban.

The Natural Resources Defense Council, a nonprofit environmental group with 1.2 million members, is hoping the Republicans' high-watt action to save the incandescent will burn out once reason is applied.

Saving the incandescent is akin to surrendering the refrigerator for an ice box, it said.

The council also notes that the 2007 act was signed by President George W. Bush, a Republican, with previous Republican presidents having signed energy standards into law for appliances and automobiles.

The bills from Mr. Enzi and Mr. Barton, with the support of U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn. [the crazy tea party lady], "would push aside innovation, derail plans for new job-creating lighting factories and eliminate an estimated $10 billion in annual energy costs savings -- taking as much as $200 a year out of the checkbooks of every U.S. household," an NRDC release stated.

New standards, it said, give consumers "more choice, not less," and will inspire light-bulb manufacturers to continue making innovations.

Jim Presswood, the council's federal energy policy director, said new light bulbs reduce energy usage without affecting light quality or output. Cutting demand for electricity also reduces pollution and improves health.

"We expect the standards to reduce carbon-dioxide pollution by 100 million tons per year, which is the equivalent of the emissions of 17 million cars," Mr. Presswood said. "The best way to reduce pollution is to reduce the need to run power plants."

Mr. Presswood said he's heard no notable complaints resulting from the ban under way in California. Yet, he said, the repeal action must be taken seriously.

"This is an excellent market rule spurring innovation, reducing pollution and saving people money," he said. "The only freedom it prevents is the use of an old light bulb. But what a difference there is between the old bulb and the new, with the advantages all on one side."

The only reason to buy an incandescent nowadays, he said, is as a collectible in hopes of having it appraised someday on the television show, "Antique Roadshow."