Don't Dim the Lights on California: Tell Congress Not to Repeal Energy Saving Lighting Standards!
Posted July 8, 2011 in Curbing Pollution, Solving Global Warming
On Monday, the House of Representatives is expected to vote on a measure to repeal federal lighting efficiency standards that benefit consumers by requiring that the common light bulbs we use in our homes use about 30% less energy. These lighting standards which are already in effect in California would be preempted by this House proposal– taking about $100 per year out of the checkbooks of every U.S. household. We need to stop them in their tracks.
True to form, California has been leading the way on clean energy. This time, California implemented federal energy standards a year early- and getting the jump on savings for California households. Once fully implemented, the standards will save Americans about $12.5 billion a year – that’s equivalent to reducing the need to build as many as 33 new power plants.
Of course, California has a long history of leading the nation in energy efficiency- and there is a reason why: these policies have brought about billions of dollars in benefits and millions of jobs. While the popularity of efficiency has ebbed and flowed in Washington, California has kept pace of energy efficiency progress-- and the benefits have kept coming.
Leading in lighting efficiency is no different- Californian are already saving money on their energy bills and Californians are at work innovating next generation, highly efficient lighting products.
Recently, a few politicians in Washington have gotten the idea that common sense energy efficiency standards for lighting make a good political football. And that the Federal energy efficiency standards passed in 2007 (with bipartisan support- and signed by President G.W. Bush), should be repealed before they can start saving any more people money. Those behind the bill falsely claim that the standard would “ban” incandescent light bulbs or force people to use CFLs- neither claim has any merit.
But they don’t stop there! The legislation would also force California to roll back its successful implementation of this standard and preempt any state action to tap the benefits of more efficient lighting. California’s success is a thorn in the side of these politicians- since we are already saving money and, remarkably, no one here seems to mind.
Congress has better things to do than keeping California from lighting the path to a more efficient economy. Californians and all Americans should tell their congressperson on Monday not to roll back efficiency standards — and not to put the lights out on California leadership.
Comments are closed for this post.
Comments
Susan Eisen — Jul 9 2011 04:27 PM
Dear Congress: Please do the right thing for us and America. Sincerely yours, A Constituent
Nicholas Kaat — Jul 10 2011 02:36 AM
Please vote responsibly, so that we may all have a better and brighter future (ahh? Get it?). This is such a small step towards helping our country fix it's energy problems. We need to do this first on our way to more aggressive measures.
Kerry — Jul 10 2011 03:56 PM
This is a prime example of industry tricking our government into behaving badly.
This issue isn't about energy savings, it's about protecting an industry. CFL bulbs may save us a few hundred dollars in direct energy savings each year, but for every dollar they save us, they cost us ten dollars in physical ailments and an inefficient workforce.
The American people have been falsely led to believe they are doing themselves and their environment a favor, by using a product rife with toxic effects. In addition to the uncontrolled widespread release of mercury into our environment (this legislation does nothing to mandate recycling of toxic CFL bulbs), the larger issue is that humans cannot see properly under fluorescent lighting.
Compact fluorescent bulbs (CFLs) are slowly killing us.
Our eyes are designed to absorb a full spectrum of light wave lengths. We need that full range of wave lengths to make our brains function properly when using our eyes, just as our bodies need a full range of nutrients to survive. Unlike incandescent light, fluorescent light is not full spectrum, instead giving off a few small spikes of different wave lengths with huge voids in between. Over time, this leaves our brains in pain trying to process information under fluorescent light, especially when reading or doing any activity which requires our brains to make sense of what we are looking at. Think of it as trying to understand what a 1000 piece picture puzzle looks like when you are only allowed to see 100 pieces: You might have a general idea for what the puzzle is about, but if asked to describe what it looked like, you wouldn't have a clue. Now try living every moment of your day that way and you can begin to understand how CFLs are enormously bad for us. (especially general use, low-cost CFLs, which make no attempts to provide a wider spectrum of light.)
Extensive research has demonstrated repeatedly the negative health effects of living under the strain of this type of lighting, yet both the government and industry have ignored those facts in favor of energy savings and profits, going so far as to offer tax rebates to anyone who chooses to live in a toxic waste dump of CFLs.
Thankfully, LEDs replacements are beginning to hit the market and may make this argument moot. They are full-wavelength, brighter, more energy efficient, have a much lower failure rate, and last 8 times as long as CFLs. Best of all, they won't make you sick. For now, they are expensive, but as they gain acceptance, their costs will come down quickly.
http://www.slate.com/id/2298444/
There is a place for fluorescent light bulbs, but putting them in every socket in every home and business in America before we paused to evaluate the dangers was foolish beyond words. Please so no to this piece of legislation, giving us time to evaluate the negative health effects associated with this sudden and foolish abandonment of all incandescent lighting.
peter dublin — Jul 10 2011 04:30 PM
There are many good ways to save energy and emissions.
California can take great credit for its many innovatory policies in the area.
Not least in leading the way in reducing auto emission pollution (whatever about CO2).
However,
light bulbs don't burn fossil fuels, and they don't release any gas emissions.
Where there is a problem - deal with the problem.
There are much more relevant -and significant- ways to improve energy efficiency in electricity generation and distribution, as well as consumption,
than in defining what products people can or can't use in their homes.
See New Electric Politics, http://ceolas.net/#li171x with DOE and other references,
showing how, in contrast, only around 2% grid electricity savings arise from light bulb regulations, regulations which will effectively ban the useful and popular incandescent technology by 2020, as covered on the Kit Kennedy NRDC blog post comment.
You say consumers save money from the regulations and programs.
Relevant California programs, and link references, are covered here:
http://ceolas.net/#californiacfl
Consumers as a whole hardly save money – regardless of what the energy savings are.
That is not just in having to pay more for the light bulbs as an initial cost
(or being forced to pay for them, via your taxpayer CFL programs)
but also because electricity companies are being subsidised or allowed to raise rates to compensate for any reduced electricity use, as already seen both federally and in California, Ohio etc, and before them in the UK and other European countries.
If you really wanted to have energy efficiency in California,
you would encourage competition between utilities and industries
- because that way they would THEMSELVES want to keep down their costs, including energy costs, so as to make more profit.
And light bulbs?
Light bulbs people actually wanted to buy would be made, including energy efficient types, that save people money and can be marketed as such (compare with "Energizer Bunny" batteries, washing up liquids etc that "cost more to buy but are cheaper in the long run") - start-ups might be supported in the cause.
People pay for the electricity they use, of which there is no shortage, and if there was a shortage, the price rise would reduce the use anyway.
Still not happy Annie?
Alright.
Let's see how Bankrupt California can make money and yet save energy and keep choice for the people...
peter dublin — Jul 10 2011 04:42 PM
(continued...)
Let's say all of the above is rejected.
Regulations are still wrong.
Why?
Well, what is this all about?
Saving energy.
If energy use is such a problem - then simulate a shortage:
Government can simply put an import duty on oil (also for national energy security reasons) or tax oil, gasolene, coal, electricity as required, to raise the price and reduce the use - instead of running round telling citizens what buildings, cars or light bulbs they can or can't buy and use.
"Hey Man, we Americans hate taxes!"
"Hey Man, that means the rich can pay and pollute, unlike the poor folk!"
People are not necessarily just "hit by taxes",
since the taxes help fund subsidies for alternative (and low polluting) energy sources - making them cheaper than before.
A bankrupt state like California,
or a near bankrupt country like the USA,
can't just go on with massive upfront costs for "supposed energy savings down the line"
(savings arguably not there anyway, for reasons described on http://ceolas.net)
"Hey Man, still no way that a politician can tax gasolene, or electricity use!"
Well, then one can move on to product taxation alternatives:
While being petty and with similar disadvantages to product regulations,
importantly it keeps choice yet gives Government valuable income at the same time:
Remember that energy demanding products are often cheaper to begin with,
and (as with light bulbs) may be replaced more often, giving high tax revenue even on decreasing sales.
2 billion annual US sales of relevant light bulbs shows a massive Federal or State Government tax income potential - and that is just light bulbs.
Such taxing, rather than banning, of certain building construction or certain pick-up trucks or certain electrical products - all which may have usage advantages for consumers -
can then again allow for cross-financed energy saving alternatives (eg CFLs, LEDs) to be sold cheaper,
equilibrating the market, so "people are not just hit by taxes" in keeping their freedom of choice.
Even if one accepts "a great need to save energy",
pro-regulation Government politicians and bureaucrats therefore lack
not just understanding,
not just imagination,
but also consideration, for the citizens they serve.
As said,
If there is a Problem: Deal with the Problem...
Daniel Corbin — Jul 10 2011 05:35 PM
We need these energy saving light bulbs.