House votes down "light bulb ban" bill

CBS

A bill to beat back what critics are calling a ban on traditional light bulbs failed in the House of Representatives Tuesday.

The "Better Use of Light Bulbs Act," or BULB Act, would have repealed the efficiency standards set under the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007.

That legislation - signed into law by President George W. Bush, with bipartisan support - mandates that light bulbs be 30 percent more efficient in 2012. It then imposes increasingly strict efficiency standards through 2020. The standards were devised as a way to save energy and cut pollution.

Backers of the BULB Act, sponsored by Rep. Joe Barton, say that because traditional incandescent bulbs cannot meet the strict standards in a cost-efficient way, they will be phased out in favor of more energy-efficient - and less desirable - options like curly florescent bulbs and LED bulbs. Florescent bulbs are more expensive than traditional incandescent bulbs, though the gap is closing as the newer bulbs become cheaper.

The so-called "light bulb ban" has become a rallying point for conservatives and libertarians, who complain of excessive government regulation of the market. They've found a champion in GOP presidential candidate Rep. Michele Bachmann, who vowed earlier this year to "allow you to buy any light bulb you want" if she becomes president. Talk show hosts Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck have also championed the issue, with Limbaugh saying on the air, "Let there be incandescent light and freedom -- that's the American way."

Rep. Michael Burgess, a Texas Republican who co-sponsored the bill, complained on Fox News before the vote of Congress wading "into an area where it doesn't belong, picking winners and losers in the light bulb manufacturing process."

"When I go home at night, the federal government does not have the right to dictate to me the wavelength of light that I use to read my newspaper," added Burgess, who said the new bulbs are more expensive, more dangerous and less effective as traditional bulbs. The coming standards have caused a run on traditional incandescent bulbs in some home improvement stores, with some consumers stockpiling them before the standards go into effect.

Bachmann introduced her own bill to repeal the Energy Independence and Security Act standards, but the House took up the BULB Act instead. (Barton, unlike Bachmann, is on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which has jurisdiction over the issue.)

Though Barton's bill got a majority in the GOP-led House - the vote was 233 in favor to 193 opposed - it failed because it was brought to the House floor in a way that required a two-thirds majority. Even if the bill had passed it would have been extremely unlikely to get through the Democrat-controlled Senate.

Democrats say the 2007 law does not ban incandescent bulbs, since they have become more efficient, and note the standards were backed by nearly 100 Republicans. Citing the Natural Resources Defense Council, they say the standards will save Americans more than $12.5 billion annually in energy costs, or an average of $85 per household each year.

Democrats also criticize Republicans for being interested in little more than political posturing, noting that the Energy and Commerce Committee has approved just a dozen bills in the current Congress, none of which have reached President Obama.

[ScottyBoman]

When you go to the store and discover that your preferred light-bulb has become contraband, remember who the Nazis were that did this. Better yet, contact your Congresspersons now and demand that they repeal the light bulb ban!

[slatep]

Of course it failed in the House of Representatives.!!

If it had passed, everybody who took the bribe from the manufacturer of these light bulbs might have to give it back.

BTW these light bulbs are far more hazardous to your health than incandescent bulbs if you break one.

Have you ever tried to pick up mercury off of any surface.?

Did you know that they constantly emanate radiation and that you are supposed to sit or stand a certain distance away from them if used for a long period of time.

They also give off an almost indiscernible flicker that contributes to more migraine headaches than usual.

To Congress: Get the hell out of my house and start trying to solve the real crises we have in the US.

[EvilLibs]

YEAH...I agree- "TO CONGRESS: Get the hell out of my house and start trying to solve the real crisis we have in the US!" Create jobs and secure our BORDER along MEXICO! GET THE ILLEGALS sucking our tax dollars through free food, housing and education!!! OUT OF THIS COUNTRY. STOP handing out condoms in school and wasting my tax money to show KIDS how to put them on. STOP wasting my tax money on free day cares for the KIDS in school who have BABIES UNLESS YOU are going to also STERILIZE them when they get the hand out! TEACH my kids the HISTORY of our GREAT COUNTRY! STOP creating new LAWS EVERY DAY that take away our freedoms little by little!!! I SEE IT!

[jgallasphd]

Amidst the debacle surrounding recent legislation and debates over the incandescent bulb, there is some science and technology to illuminate a rational position. While the current government legislation could cause extinction of the photo-benign incandescent light bulb, a corresponding increase in the fluorescent lighting market could increase the threat of photo-damage to the skin and eyes and cause additional glare.

Many of the current fluorescent lights, e.g. CFL's emit extra violet and blue, also called high energy visible, or HEV light. This HEV light causes both glare and unwanted photochemistry in the skin and eyes (like wrinkles). CFL's also emit much less near infrared (near IR) than the incandescent bulb; current science indicates this near IR is therapeutic (it repairs tissue).

So, the incandescent bulb is, indeed, wasteful in the sense that it emits significant amounts of near IR that is not useful for 'seeing things;' but it is less damaging, more therapeutic and provides better perception of color for the objects it illuminates.

The science and technology might offer some guidance to the not-so-well informed lawmakers and to the over-zealous ideologues responding to the legislation.

[lighthouse10]

Moreover:
Consumers as a whole will 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 taxpayer CFL
programs)
- but also because electricity companies are being taxpayer subsidised
or allowed to raise Bill 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
See http://ceolas.net/#californiacfl
.

[lighthouse10]

It is a BAN: All known - and New Incandescents - banned by 2020,
see the Energy Act 45 lumen per watt minimum specification, which incandescents simply can't meet, and which the profit-seeking CFL pushing manufacturers behind the ban would be unlikely to pursue anyway.


The supposed amount of ENERGY savings are also not there
(only c2% grid electricity savings, see the DOE etc data http://ceolas.net/#li171x ),
and even they were,
there are much better and more relevant energy savings in electricity
Generation and Grid Distribution as well as Consumption, as described.

[Progress4U]

You repubs got you Bush tax extension after you extorted it out of our President! Where are the jobs you promised would come from the filthy rich you said were poised to pissss prosperity on us!!!

[jimbom121]

I'm glad that the Republican led House is focusing on the issue of jobs. How many jobs bills have they brought up since January?

[Progress4U]

Repubs promissed they would take us back to the last decade...and they're still trying.

[jschamberlin]

Just go for the LED bulbs. I've replaced almost all of my bulbs in the house now with LEDs (save for the little ones in the ceiling fans and my outside lights), and saved quite a bit of money on the electric bill. There is even a version that works with a dimmer - so if you have a light sensitivity, you can adjust them with a dimmer switch just like regular ol' incandescent bulbs.

Oh, and will they may be a little more pricey (for now), they last a heck of a lot longer.

[A_Canadian_Opinion]

I don't know anything about the politics behind light bulbs, but I have to say I absolutely HATE the light that the new bulbs give off. They bug my eyes, and they make a room look cheap and institutional. One of my kids has Irlen Syndrome and the new bulbs give her bad headaches and make reading difficult. If Canada eventually bans the traditional bulbs, at least I'll be able to smuggle them in from the US. Good job Republicans! But I still agree with the Dem's that the US needs to tax its rich a little harder (like we do in Canada, where the economy is good compared to the rest of the world).