GlobalWarming.org » cfl

Another Year of Incandescence

Brian McGraw — Tue, 20 Dec 2011 17:40:40 +0000

Buried deep in 2012 budget legislation was a paragraph or two that prevents the federal government from spending any funds enforcing the 2007 light bulb efficiency standards/ traditional light bulb “ban” through the end of September 2012. While this isn’t a technical repeal of the ban/efficiency standards, it will allow traditional 100 watt incandescent bulbs to continue to be sold through most of 2012 by those companies who aren’t put off by the negative public relations (green groups may well go on the offensive if national retailers continue to sell them) or potential legal liabilities. It isn’t clear yet the extent to which 100 watt traditional incandescent bulbs will be available for consumer purchase in 2012.

The delay/temporary repeal of the ban has some on the left angry, as Tim Carney notes, though I suspect they’d be angrier if this budget rider had been swapped for delaying implementation of some of the more expensive 2011-2012 EPA regulations, which certainly seemed like a possibility.

An actual argument over the pros/cons of this legislation has been had numerous times and neither side has budged (nor have sides budged over whether or not its okay to label this legislation a ban), so any continuation of that seems sort of pointless. However, I’d like to look at the Politico article that attempted to ding Republicans because “big business” is really upset about this recent turn of events:

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.

As most of us know, a non-minority of conservatives in Congress will give lip service towards free markets when their constituents want to hear it (when we’re condemning Solyndra, etc.) but then turn around and quietly support all sorts of corporate welfare. Consider the fight over T. Boone Picken’s Natural Gas Act as an example.

However, true defenders of economic freedom shouldn’t care about what “big business” wants, and if anything, should look on their desires with skepticism. Some large businesses may prefer the government to set rules and get out of the way (and some would argue that this legislation is an example of that), but there are obviously thousands of examples of businesses or industries lobbying Congress in order to secure advantages at the expense of consumers and their competitors. Left leaning blogger Kevin Drum realizes this:

On the other hand, I confess that the unanimous support for these standards from the lighting industry gives me pause. Industries only support laws that will improve their profitability in one way or another, so I assume that this law does exactly that. This is, obviously, not inherently good for consumers.

It’s widely known that General Electric, et. all lobbied heavily for this as it would increase their profitability. The new bulbs are more expensive up-front, meaning a large initial profit for producers, with consumers making up the savings in energy efficiency over time. This assumes the bulbs last as long as predicted, which so far has not been the case with compact fluorescent bulbs.

One good argument that the industry people quoted in the Politico piece make is that changing the rules after they’ve been implemented is bad for the economy, as some of these investments might not pay off if consumers continue to buy the old bulbs. Though this is a case against repealing the legislation, its also a case against passing similar legislation (in the first place) in the future if its wildly unpopular and may be overturned in the future. Finally, it should reduce our confidence in industry’s assertion that the new bulbs are better and will be preferred by consumers. It’s clear that many consumers object to the light given off by CFLs, and it remains to be seen if the new energy-efficient incandescents will be widely adopted by consumers. Assuming they provide similar lighting and save energy, I see no reason why consumers wouldn’t slowly begin to purchase them voluntarily.

Addendum: Tim Carney’s newest post makes a very good point regarding those who mock those who oppose this legislation:

Wogan [link to Wogan's post] also plays the obnoxious condescending mockery game, as if resisting petty tyranny is petty: “Somehow, through the absurdity of American politics, incandescent light bulbs have attained the same fervor-inducing status as assault rifles and extended magazines.” As I wrote about this a few months back: “It’s a great tactic for those wanting more state power: pass regulations controlling piddling details of people’s lives, and when anyone complains about these restraints, mock them for worrying about such piddling details.” If Wogan thinks light-bulbs aren’t important enough to get upset about, he should let us buy the kind of light bulbs we want to buy as long as there is someone willing to sell them to us

Banning Incandescents: What Could Go Wrong?

Brian McGraw — Mon, 19 Sep 2011 16:41:14 +0000

Via JunkScience.

China has tightened its grip on rare earth metals which has sent the price of compact fluorescent light bulbs through the roof, up 37% this year:

But with light bulbs, especially, the timing of the latest price increases is politically awkward for the lighting industry and for environmentalists who backed a shift to energy-efficient lighting.
In January, legislation that President George W. Bush signed into law in 2007 will begin phasing out traditional incandescent bulbs in favor of spiral compact fluorescent bulbs and other technologies. The European Union has also mandated a switch from incandescent bulbs to energy-efficient lighting.
Representative Michele Bachmann of Minnesota is running for the Republican presidential nomination on a platform that includes strong opposition to the new lighting rules in the United States and has been a leader of efforts by House Republicans to repeal it.

The prices are not likely to go down anytime soon, as efforts to diversify the global supply of rare earth metals will not be completed overnight. In the meantime, can we revisit the cost-savings calculations (predicting net savings for non-incandescent bulbs) that were predicated upon lower prices for compact florescent bulbs (as well as optimistic projections of how long the bulbs last)? It will be interesting to see what happens to the price of CFLs when incandescent bulbs are no longer for sale.

This issue has fallen out of the news, but it seems that even some on the left are questioning this move by the government, even daring to suggest that Michele Bachmann might have been right.

More Common Sense on Incandescent Lighting

Brian McGraw — Wed, 20 Jul 2011 18:15:33 +0000

From Bobby McCormick at PERC:

Starting in January, the common incandescent light bulb becomes illegal, well maybe, in most of the United States. (Some recalcitrant states, SC and TX to name two, seem hell bent on reminding the federal government of the long forgotten 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, but wasn’t that fight settled a long time ago?) Advocates of this law say that it encourages the use of more energy efficient lighting sources such as CFL and LED lights. It has been noted that a large fraction of the energy consumed by an incandescent light bulb goes to create heat and not light, and that the newer, high tech devices produce an equal amount of light using less energy.
However, those of us who aren’t lucky enough to live in AZ, south FL, or San Diego, demand a LOT of heat many months of the year. In Montana, I use natural gas to heat my home about 7-8 months of the year. In South Carolina, I heat my home about 5-6 months of the year using wood and electricity, not every day, but most of them from November to April.
The energy that creates heat, not light, in a regular incandescent bulb is NOT wasted during those months. It is a nearly perfect substitute for the alternative heat in my home. The same electricity that heats the filament in my incandescent bulb in my living room in my South Carolina home in winter will be used by my heat pump to reproduce the heat lost when I convert to CFL or LED lights when my woodstove runs low. There is NO energy savings of any important degree. (It bears noting that my heat pump is a more efficient producer of energy than my incandescent bulbs, but that is not my main point as is explored more below.)

He makes the point that for many areas of America, the heat energy emitted from incandescent light bulbs is not ‘wasted’ as it serves the function of heating your home. Yet another reason why top-down efficiency standards are not the correct way forward, as different consumers have vastly different uses for these products. If companies are truly capable of producing similar lighting products that use less energy, consumers will switch to these as they will save money on electricity.

When you hear light bulb manufacturer’s such as General Electric get anxious about the potential to overturn this law, it makes you wonder, are they worried that no one will purchase the new bulbs without the ban on traditional incandescents in place?

Read Tim Carney on the left’s odd abuse of language employed attacking those who are against the ban. Read about the Department of Energy’s ad campaign to convince you to support their agenda.