Skip to comments.Feds move to tighten efficiency rules for household lamps
Posted on 04/28/2014 12:33:37 PM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
The Department of Energy is looking to regulate two types of household lamps.
The Energy Department's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy announced Monday in the Federal Register it is considering new energy conservation standards for general service fluorescent lamps (GSFLs) and incandescent reflector lamps (IRLs).
The Energy Department estimates the rules will save the public billions in energy bills over the next three decades and have substantial environmental benefits. But the agency also expects the rules will cost manufacturers more than $90 million, which could lead some to close up shop and cut jobs. It is weighing the costs with the benefits.
"The (Energy Policy and Conservation Act) requires the U.S. Department of Energy to determine whether more-stringent, amended standards would be technologically feasible and economically justified, and would save a significant amount of energy," the agency wrote.
This is the Energy Department's latest effort to reform the lighting industry. In January, the agency began enforcing new rules that effectively ban the most popular type of incandescent light bulbs, which Thomas Edison made famous in the late 1800s.
The proposed rules would apply to general service fluorescent lamps and incandescent reflector lamps, which fall under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act.
They would establish more stringent requirements for these types of lamps.
The incandescent reflector lamps would be the most affected by the new rules. The agency estimates the industry could lose nearly 30 percent of its value, or about $52 million, because of the rules.
"Additionally, manufacturers of IRLs stated in interviews with (the Energy Department) that there is the potential for IRL manufacturers to close existing U.S. manufacturing plants or for a potential loss of domestic IRL manufacturing employment based on the energy conservation standards proposed for IRLs," the agency wrote.
The general service fluorescent lamps are more widely circulated, so the rules are not expected to have as big of an impact on this industry and no job losses are anticipated. But the industry could still lose nearly $40 million, the agency estimates.
On the flip side, the proposed standards for the general service fluorescent lamps would save consumers between $3.1 billion and $8.1 billion, while the incandescent reflector lamps rules would save the public between $180 million and $280 million, the agency estimates.
Furthermore, the rules would have significant environmental benefits. Carbon dioxide reductions from the GSFL standards would save the government between $1.3 billion and $17 billion, the agency estimates.
The Energy Department will hold a public hearing on Thursday to discuss the proposed rules. The public has 60 days to comment.
Except for the bulb what is there to make efficient?
Not allowing you to have lamps...
What a pantload. Any Congress with a pair would simply defund DOE. But that ain’t gonna happen.
Why is it that whenever they talk about how WE are
saving money, WE end up paying more, for EVERYTHING?
Seriously... residential lighting accounts for what, 2%?, of total electricity use in the USA?
We use less energy.
Utility companies make less money.
Regulators raise the rates to make up for the loss.
Just like every other time.
“The Department of Energy is looking to regulate two types of household lamps.”
The fact that a Republican president and Republican congress not only did not eliminate this department, but instead outlawed the incandescent bulb, tells you all you need to know about these “conservative” jerks.
With all the problems facing our nation, THIS is what they spend their time on.
It’s malfeasance in office...
Anyone signing on to this should be sent home on a one way ticket.
I ignore them. I do not suffer fascists lightly. As long as they are an irrelevance to me, no harm, no foul.
I pray it stays that way.
Unless you have solar. ;-)
crap....I only got a B-minus on the lamp I made in tenth grade metal shop BEFORE all of these new environmental regs came in...
Liberals in government know nothing of unintended consequences and could not care less anyway...as history proves.
It will costs jobs and close down businesses.
I have solar. They’re planning on taxing it!
What??? He's claiming that if you emit a harmless gas, it costs the GOVERNMENT money?? And since when do you gauge "economic benefit" of an action by it's impact on the government anyway, rather than on the good people, you know -= the ones with jobs?
I call BS all around on this one. First, let's work out just how much an average consumer will save per year over 30 years just to pay for this wet dream. I'd do it myself, but I don't have the patience.
And the $90 million - yeah, right. Nothing the brown-shirted folk at the EPA have ever done has cost so little.
That’s what I was implying.
I have solar. Theyre planning on taxing it!
If you get my drift. :-)
When will they MADATE cars run on air? Just before then deem Oxygen a pollutant.
Will we ever see a smaller fedgov in our lives? Will it never end?
The first ecological disaster on earth was when green plants polluted the Earth’s atmosphere and wiped out nearly all other life with that deadly poison, oxygen.
I’m in Maryland...they tax rain here.
“The Energy Department estimates the rules will save the public billions in energy bills over the next three decades...”
In other words, Obama wants to deny American utility companies $3 billion in revenue.
They are never going to leave us alone. They live and breathe totalitarian control. Nothing but blood and steel will stop them.
Assume that there might be people who stockpiled a lifetime supply of 100 watters. Will those people now have to stockpile lamps that will let them shine?
What about Toilets? We need toilet regulation now!!
as if free enterprise was highly over rated
Well, you know, first they have to pass the law. Then they have to establish some new department and about 15 new agencies to figure out how to enforce the law. Then those agencies will need “field” people to check all the retailers to be sure they are not carrying illicit lamps, and then they will need some inspectors to go house to house, to be sure we are not using illicit lamps, then there will be people needed write the computer programs needed to keep track of all of this. You cannot expect these things to be free, can you? (/s)
I find those terms acceptable. </Edgar the Bug>
*ahem* Senator Al Gore did that.
Most of Congress is a pantload. There in is the problem.
They ignored the fact that the bulbs were more costly. I know people who started using candles picked up at yard sales, because they couldn't afford light-bulbs for all there rooms. Betcha that's some more pollution they ignored.
It's really all about enriching some crony company or person. Then they just make stuff up to make it sound good.
I plan to stock up on the lights I want. There's probably not going to be a return to sanity in my lifetime. I also have lots of antique type oil lamps, alcohol lamps, and candle holder lamps.
It could actually be the reverse. Our co2 spewing power plants may actually be increasing crop yields. Reduce it, and it could actually cost money.
Lighting is a product of electricity you can see, hence the simpleton’s fixation with bulbs, lamps, etc. Otherwise, as a percentage of electricity use, that spend for lighting is very-very low.
I know somebody who accidentally installed these lower rated lamps in his basement, with regular bulbs.
The wiring in the lamp melted faster than the circuit breaker could activate. Unless you install some 5 amp breaker (do those exist?), the filaments of wire in the new lamps will be rated lower than the breaker.
That's not how it works. Electrical demand is going up, particularly as more electric cars come online. The utilities want to make more money on the same capacity. Making energy cost more means that utilities make their fixed returns on a higher dollar volume without having to invest in new equipment. The PUCs create rebate programs, and pricing structures with severe penalties for consumption over a set baseline to make a profit on reduced consumption. PG&E has done very well off this little gambit, "investing" in everything from "clean" trucks to education programs, all with a guaranteed return.
All due respect I replace my light blubs with LED some of them are quick starts
The government lies. Every new rule is a coercion for increasing control
So, these regs are not about saving electricity, as we suspected.