Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Feds move to tighten efficiency rules for household lamps
The Hill ^ | April 28, 2014 | Tim Devaney

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.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Extended News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: employment; energy; environment; jobs; manufacturing; nannystate; regulations; unemployment
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-81 next last

1 posted on 04/28/2014 12:33:37 PM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife
The hope is that if they make us energy efficient enough we'll all just give up and die.
2 posted on 04/28/2014 12:35:47 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum ("The more numerous the laws, the more corrupt the government." --Tacitus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

Except for the bulb what is there to make efficient?


3 posted on 04/28/2014 12:35:59 PM PDT by sickoflibs (Obama : 'You can keep your doctor if you want. I never tell a lie ')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs

Not allowing you to have lamps...


4 posted on 04/28/2014 12:36:32 PM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

What a pantload. Any Congress with a pair would simply defund DOE. But that ain’t gonna happen.


5 posted on 04/28/2014 12:36:35 PM PDT by tgusa (gun control: deep breath, sight alignment, squeeze the trigger .......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

Why is it that whenever they talk about how WE are
saving money, WE end up paying more, for EVERYTHING?


6 posted on 04/28/2014 12:36:47 PM PDT by tet68 ( " We would not die in that man's company, that fears his fellowship to die with us...." Henry V.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

Seriously... residential lighting accounts for what, 2%?, of total electricity use in the USA?


7 posted on 04/28/2014 12:37:16 PM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife
The Energy Department estimates the rules will save the public billions in energy bills

Yeah.

We use less energy.

Utility companies make less money.

Regulators raise the rates to make up for the loss.

Just like every other time.

8 posted on 04/28/2014 12:37:51 PM PDT by null and void ( They don't think think they are above the law. They think they are the law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

“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.


9 posted on 04/28/2014 12:38:46 PM PDT by SharpRightTurn (White, black, and red all over--America's affirmative action, metrosexual president.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

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.


10 posted on 04/28/2014 12:39:07 PM PDT by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: null and void

Exactly.


11 posted on 04/28/2014 12:39:37 PM PDT by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

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.


12 posted on 04/28/2014 12:40:23 PM PDT by cuban leaf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: null and void

Unless you have solar. ;-)


13 posted on 04/28/2014 12:40:55 PM PDT by cuban leaf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

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...


14 posted on 04/28/2014 12:40:59 PM PDT by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

Liberals in government know nothing of unintended consequences and could not care less anyway...as history proves.


15 posted on 04/28/2014 12:41:37 PM PDT by EagleUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

It will costs jobs and close down businesses.


16 posted on 04/28/2014 12:42:15 PM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: cuban leaf

I have solar. They’re planning on taxing it!


17 posted on 04/28/2014 12:42:26 PM PDT by null and void ( They don't think think they are above the law. They think they are the law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife
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.

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?

18 posted on 04/28/2014 12:42:35 PM PDT by Still Thinking (Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife
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.

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.

19 posted on 04/28/2014 12:43:42 PM PDT by Quality_Not_Quantity (Liars use facts when the truth doesn't suit their purposes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

That’s what I was implying.


20 posted on 04/28/2014 12:43:44 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum ("The more numerous the laws, the more corrupt the government." --Tacitus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: null and void

I have solar. They’re planning on taxing it!


Yeah, we’ll see how it goes for them in our area. And to be fair, I feel like a bunch of germans in late 1944 worrying about Hitlers laws that will come into effect in 1946.

If you get my drift. :-)


21 posted on 04/28/2014 12:43:46 PM PDT by cuban leaf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: null and void
Regulators raise the rates to make up for the loss.Yep. The City of Albuquerque is going through this now. The Water Authority pushed and pushed for lower water use, the citizens did a masterful job of it, now the Water Authority's revenue is down and they are proposing rate increases.
22 posted on 04/28/2014 12:44:11 PM PDT by IYAS9YAS (Has anyone seen my tagline? It was here yesterday. I seem to have misplaced it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

When will they MADATE cars run on air? Just before then deem Oxygen a pollutant.


23 posted on 04/28/2014 12:45:20 PM PDT by MaxMax (Pay Attention and you'll be pissed off too! FIRE BOEHNER, NOW!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cuban leaf

Yup.


24 posted on 04/28/2014 12:45:29 PM PDT by null and void ( They don't think think they are above the law. They think they are the law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

Will we ever see a smaller fedgov in our lives? Will it never end?


25 posted on 04/28/2014 12:46:36 PM PDT by Geoffrey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MaxMax

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.


26 posted on 04/28/2014 12:47:35 PM PDT by null and void ( They don't think think they are above the law. They think they are the law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: null and void

I’m in Maryland...they tax rain here.


27 posted on 04/28/2014 12:48:09 PM PDT by Ouchthatonehurt ("When you're going through hell, keep going." - Sir Winston Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

“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.


28 posted on 04/28/2014 12:49:12 PM PDT by Oliviaforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ouchthatonehurt

29 posted on 04/28/2014 12:49:15 PM PDT by null and void ( They don't think think they are above the law. They think they are the law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Geoffrey
Will we ever see a smaller fedgov in our lives? Will it never end?

It WILL end. It MUST. It is unsustainable.

However, I do not believe that it will be in my lifetime. IMO we are on the Soviet path of slow decay. Should take approximately 70 years to play out until ultimate, final collapse.


30 posted on 04/28/2014 12:50:27 PM PDT by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: null and void

They are never going to leave us alone. They live and breathe totalitarian control. Nothing but blood and steel will stop them.


31 posted on 04/28/2014 12:51:37 PM PDT by Truth29
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

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?


32 posted on 04/28/2014 12:52:11 PM PDT by grania
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife
These "efficiency" rules might make sense for people living in the sun belt. They make less and less sense, for anyone who ever has to heat their house (shop, office, whatever). That's why I put "efficiency" in scare quotes. Yes, incandescent light bulbs are inefficient emitters of visible light -- but, they are perfectly efficient (i.e. 100% efficient) electric heaters. They can actually save you energy. Most of the energy used by incandescent bulbs is converted to invisible infrared "light". You can't see it, but you can feel it. If you're sitting under a (say) 100 Watt incandescent light, you'll feel a tad warmer than you would otherwise, and voilà you're saving energy.
33 posted on 04/28/2014 12:52:16 PM PDT by USFRIENDINVICTORIA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

What about Toilets? We need toilet regulation now!!


34 posted on 04/28/2014 12:53:32 PM PDT by mylife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

as if free enterprise was highly over rated


35 posted on 04/28/2014 12:54:22 PM PDT by SisterK (behold a pale horse)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tet68

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)


36 posted on 04/28/2014 12:56:37 PM PDT by NEMDF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Truth29

I find those terms acceptable. </Edgar the Bug>


37 posted on 04/28/2014 1:03:37 PM PDT by null and void ( They don't think think they are above the law. They think they are the law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife
Screw efficiency, generate more fossil fuel power!!!
38 posted on 04/28/2014 1:04:18 PM PDT by dalereed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mylife
What about Toilets? We need toilet regulation now!!

*ahem* Senator Al Gore did that.

39 posted on 04/28/2014 1:05:26 PM PDT by null and void ( They don't think think they are above the law. They think they are the law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: tgusa
What a pantload. Any Congress with a pair would...

Most of Congress is a pantload. There in is the problem.

40 posted on 04/28/2014 1:07:47 PM PDT by SampleMan (Feral Humans are the refuse of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife
Well, they already outlawed the regular light-bulb hoping to force usage of a CFL bulb, which contains mercury(talk about pollution - those are really gonna be a problem in the land fills).

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.

41 posted on 04/28/2014 1:10:35 PM PDT by greeneyes (Moderation in defense of your country is NO virtue. Let Freedom Ring.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: null and void

Not surprising.


42 posted on 04/28/2014 1:10:49 PM PDT by mylife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Still Thinking

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.


43 posted on 04/28/2014 1:11:02 PM PDT by lacrew (Mr. Soetoro, we regret to inform you that your race card is over the credit limit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

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.


44 posted on 04/28/2014 1:13:53 PM PDT by Fitzy_888 ("ownership society")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

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.

Not good.


45 posted on 04/28/2014 1:13:57 PM PDT by lacrew (Mr. Soetoro, we regret to inform you that your race card is over the credit limit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: null and void
We use less energy. Utility companies make less money.

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.

46 posted on 04/28/2014 1:20:01 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (The tree of liberty needs a rope.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife
If it was economically advantageous to buy the newfangled bulbs, people would do so without coercion.
The fact that they have to force us, proves all by itself it's a bad deal.

47 posted on 04/28/2014 1:21:12 PM PDT by BitWielder1 (Corporate Profits are better than Government Waste)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

All due respect I replace my light blubs with LED some of them are quick starts


48 posted on 04/28/2014 1:23:46 PM PDT by SevenofNine (We are Freepers, all your media bases belong to us ,resistance is futile)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

The government lies. Every new rule is a coercion for increasing control


49 posted on 04/28/2014 1:27:17 PM PDT by Chickensoup (Leftist totalitarian fascism is on the move.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fitzy_888

So, these regs are not about saving electricity, as we suspected.


50 posted on 04/28/2014 1:28:42 PM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-81 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson