Feds move to tighten efficiency rules for household lamps

The Hill ^ | April 28, 2014 | Tim Devaney

[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.

[greeneyes]

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.

[mylife]

Not surprising.

[lacrew]

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.

[Fitzy_888]

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.

[lacrew]

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.

[Carry_Okie]

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.

[BitWielder1]

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.

[SevenofNine]

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

[Chickensoup]

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

[MrB]

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

[Paladin2]

Libtards running UN Agenda 21.

I want to keep my heat balls and reflector heat throwers.

[Oldeconomybuyer]

I looked at the referenced proposed regulation file. 457 pages on ... light bulbs ... Our government at work.

[rlmorel]

I did this analysis a couple of years back, but I'm not sure anyone even cares about this anymore. A lost battle not worth fighting. And liberals of all stripes (including many non-democrats who wanted an environmental feather to put in their "I'm Green too" hat, emboldened by that victory, turn the screws tighter.

I don't have an issue with the lights themselves. If people want to use them, that is their business if they want to pay the money and a manufacturer thinks they can make money by producing them. What I take issue with is government bureaucrats taking my money via confiscatory taxes, TELLING me how to spend the money they leave me, then passing legislation to DRIVE up the cost of energy so we are FORCED to spend more money to drive our cars, heat our homes and turn on our lights, whether they be incandescent or CFL. These bastards think they are doing us a big favor because they think they know best, and are trying to twist our arms to accept their utopian crap. They think if energy costs go up high enough, their plans to harness unicorn flatulence or whatever will become economically viable.

Well I don't care to take part in their damned experiments. If my town wants to purchase LED based traffic and street lights because it saves the town money and is a guaranteed return on investment, then power to them.

If people want these CFL lights in the marketplace as an alternative to make their homes more energy efficient, then I think is is fine and would never say boo to anyone so inclined.

Actually, my issue is not even residential lighting. Making citizens purchase stuff we don't want and don't need is NOT going to solve any kind of energy shortage. It is the equivalent of selling carbon credits or putting a magnetic sticker on the back of a car. It is Jimmy Carter wearing sweaters and telling us to turn our thermostats down.

So to make my point that forcing all of us to use these things, have to pay MORE money to buy them (even though most of us have found they don't last nearly as long as the government says they do)

Here an the original unaltered graph from Livermore Labs/DOE which I think is a very, very good graphical representation (reflecting the situation in 2009):

As shown below, I cut out a part of that graph and marked it up. Of the four major sectors, residential is the second smallest using just 4.65% of generated electrical power as shown by the graph. Government statistics say lighting consumes 12% of 4.65% of electricity flowing into a house. In the inset (enlarged) part shows the 4.65% pipeline with the red stripe on it showing the lighting share, and the green stripe showing what it would be if we assume 10% efficiency compared to CFL for incandescent bulbs. (The orange pipe leading into the box signifies the RESIDENTAL SECTOR of the energy grid and is representative of energy generated from all sources)

I didn't get this image from some anti-enviroweenie website. I made it myself after analyzing the data on the graph and government data such as estimates of how much lighting uses. And it illustrates the point I make, backed up with the government's own data, that forcing us to do this via statist legislation is basically ANOTHER camel nose in the figurative tent...BECAUSE THEY CAN.

If the market really wanted these lightbulbs, they would have made it on their own without government legislation. But, in my opinion, buying into this without a fight just exacerbates this statist mess we are in covering everything from legislation against transfats and salt in the diet to the amount of water we can flush down our toilet. Liberals think this is great because it is their pet thing that they have bought hook, line and sinker, running around screaming that we are running out of energy. Surrendering to this just invites the government to intrude into EVERY facet of our life.

I don't disparage people for choosing CFL's as a stand to take. I believe I have the data (shown graphically here) to indicate that using CFL's in houses isn't going to save us from anything. It is just a piece of do-gooder legislation that only does just that...makes guilty people feel good. I readily admit that one can make an argument for commercial/industrial building codes and so on, and I might buy into it and agree, the same as I agree with towns purchasing led-based traffic lights. However, building codes are so top heavy with bureaucracy now that I would fight against mandating these in commercial use on those grounds alone.

By my home is my home. And we have gone far too long allowing the government to dictate what we can and cannot do on our own quarter acre of land, small as it is. I am sick to death of it.

[ElkGroveDan]

First damn thing Congress needs to do in the event the Senate flips is repeal this light bulb insanity.

[Fitzy_888]

Marginal savings. It’s about control and propagandizing. They’ll be happy when we’re sitting under some visually caustic fluorescent light and eating the government approved algea based goop. That’s what it will take for them to feel good about themselves, except they won’t. Hegel’s paradox.

[TurboZamboni]

next thing you know some nutjob from the feds will be telling us to check our tire pressure more often to save the planet.

[Fitzy_888]

Great post, this was my point in post 44.

4.65% x 0.12 = 0.558% of all electricity is spent on residential lighting.

In other words, one half one percent of all electricity is consumed by residential lighting currently.

What pigs we are with our vain pursuit of comfortably seeing what we’re doing! /sarc

[rlmorel]

Hahahaha! OMG, I feel shamed...you got the point across in a bare minimum, and I used big, gigantic paragraphs of text and graphics to say the same thing!

I read Elements of Style, but you took it to heart!

Well Done!

[unixfox]

Start with turning out all the lights in Washington!

Hell, just turn off all the electricity and let them starve to death in the dark.

[Fitzy_888]

No the graphics are great, else it would be me accused of pulling numbers out of my arse.

Lighting IS a quality of life issue, I know this well. I’m an engineer (structural), I’ve run CAD machines and done calculation 10-12 hours per day. Quality lighting tone, reducing screen glare, these are real issues when your toiling away.