Geesh, Republicans Don't Like Efficient Light Bulbs Either

Is there anything Republicans won’t go after? Now, it’s efficient light bulbs!

On March 10, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee will consider a bill (S.395) introduced by Sen. Mike Enzi (R-WY) that would repeal efforts to expand the use of energy-efficient light bulbs. It would limit consumer choice to the same type of bulb that’s been left virtually unchanged since Thomas Edison helped invent it more than 125 years ago.

In the House, Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) has introduced a companion bill (H.R. 91) and Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) has sponsored similar legislation (H.R. 849) that is just as backward-thinking.

The proposals would roll back energy efficiency standards signed into law by President George W. Bush that are designed to increase the efficiency of light bulbs by at least 25%.

New, more efficient light bulbs are already on the market – including advanced incandescent bulbs that look just like the old bulbs. 

These bills would push aside innovation, derail plans for new job-creating lighting factories and eliminate an estimated $10 billion in annual energy costs savings.

It’s funny – opponents say the government wants to tell consumers which types of light bulbs they can use, limit their choices to swirly compact florescent lamp bulbs and ban incandescents that have been a consumer staple for more than century.

But that’s exactly what the Republican bills would do – limit consumer choice to just the most inefficient bulbs.

Besides, the new standards don’t force any type of bulb on consumers, and they don’t ban any type of bulb.

You can still stick with incandescents – the new ones look the same but use 28% less energy. You also have the CHOICE of buying compact fluorescents, which use 75% less energy. 

A February USA Today poll found that nearly 75% of Americans have recently purchased new, more efficient light bulbs and 84% say they’re "satisfied" or "very satisfied" with them.

With the new standards, consumers get more choice, not less.

They’ll continue to get even more choices in the future as light bulb makers continue to innovate – as long as competition isn’t stifled by bills like these. 

When fully implemented, the new light bulb standards are expected to reduce the nation’s power bill by $10 billion a year – an amount equal to the annual electricity bill of all the homes in Texas.

The standards will also eliminate the need for up to 30 new power plants while cutting greenhouse gas pollution by 100 million tons – the equivalent of taking 17 million
cars off the road.

New lighting standards are driving R&D investments in the US  and creating new jobs. For example:

*Sylvania recently retooled its St. Mary’s, PA. incandescent bulb plant to make new incandescents that meet the new standards.

*Philips Lumiled in California, Cree Inc. in North Carolina and Lighting Science Group in Florida are creating thousands of new jobs at factories that make new LED bulbs.

*Bulb maker TCP Inc. used to do all of its manufacturing in China. But in 2009, the company announced plans for its first U.S. plant, in Ohio, to help meet the growing demand for CFLs because of the new standards.   

Health Concerns? 

When all else fails, opponents to the new lighting standards use scare tactics about health concerns. CFLs contain mercury, they point out, that can kill you.

Today’s CFLs contain an average of four milligrams of mercury. There’s more mercury in your watch battery than in a CFL bulb. The thermometers many of us grew up with in
our mouths contained about 500 milligrams of mercury – the equivalent of about 125 CFLs.

In contrast, U.S. power plants pumped nearly 90,000 pounds of mercury in to the air in 2008, much of it to generate power for outdated light bulbs!! 

Fact sheet on the new light bulb standards: