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