Lights Out In California?

New Bill Calls For Banning The Common Light Bulb

(AP)  How many people does it take to change a light bulb? In California, the answer could be a majority of the Legislature.

The electricity-wasting incandescent bulb would be banned — replaced by energy-efficient compact fluorescents — under a bill that Assemblyman Lloyd Levine plans to introduce.

He says the spiral light sources are so efficient that consumers should be forced to use them. The compact bulbs use one-fourth the electricity spent in an equivalent incandescent.

"Incandescent light bulbs were first developed almost 125 years ago, and since that time they have undergone no major modifications," Levine, a Democrat from Los Angeles, said in a news release Tuesday. "It's time to take a step forward."

The bulb bill was not yet on the legislative calendar. Last year, the Legislature passed a Levine bill that requires large supermarkets to recycle plastic bags. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed that bill but has not taken a position on the light bulb proposal.

Assemblyman Jared Huffman, who represents San Rafael, is working on a similar bill.

Critics say people should be allowed to make their own choices about which bulbs they buy, but Levine, who heads the Assembly's Utilities and Commerce Committee, points out that electric utilities give them away.

[legendary240]

I am thinking of going to all-natural candles. Also, I am going to rearrange my schedaule so that I am only active during daylight. Maybe we could all go back to the six hour a day electricity cycle where one block gets the morning today and tomorrow they get the afternoon. That's what they did here about a hundred years ago. AND they used incandescent bulbs too. LED seems to be the front-runner to economically replace the dependable bulb.

[warblitz4]

I have several compact fluorescent bulbs in use at my home. They seem a little bulky and need a minute or so to reach their maximum brightness; if you need bright light quickly, they're not as good as incandescents. I'm more impressed with LED lighting as I've seen in flashlights and nite lites.

[cmp271]

I am thinking of switching to them anyway as they do last longer than the regular bulbs. If it cuts down on my energy bill at least a dollar or two it would be good news.

Is there more mercury in them?

[WatchDog45]

Speaqking of Legislation in California.

Is this also where there has recenlty been talk of making it illegal to spank your children?

ALL these fluorescent bulbs are made in communist China

[WatchDog45]

This sounds on the surface like a wonderful thing. My concern with these bulbs and legislating their use is the dramatic increase in numbers could potentially cause environmental problems and we all know how much Californians love the enviornment. The extremely low usage of these bulbs by consumers has very little environmental impact. These bulbs go out with the regular trash and end up in the landfill. With mandated use, every fixture in California and eventually America will have this bulb. With the increased usage will come increased refuse, the small amount of mercury in each bulb might leach into our water supply and food chain. Has an environmental impact study been considered?

[bigwhtpony]

As an electrical engineer, I think it would be an interesting "thought experiment." Those incandescent bulbs are not that efficient. In a 1 house scenario, it might not make much of a difference.

Multiply it over a few million homes and you might be on to something. If everyone used them in CA, I estimate on overall reduction in demand of approx. 5% - 10%.

Not enough to trade an acceptable form of light for an artificial looking light - IMO. It would be interesting.

[consciousnes]

Ya gotta start somewhere.

[dogband]

Brilliant...force all folks,rich and poor to use the light bulbs of your choosing, while allowing what may be the largest number of Hummers and huge personal SUVs [with horrible gas mileage]per capita to drive your freeways. You guys are absolutely brilliant.

[slclark0029]

We have replaced all our old lightbulbs in our house with the spiral bulbs, and In the last 3 months, our electric bill has not changed one bit.
Never again will I waste that much money on lightbulbs, especially the ones that claim to be "energy efficient".

[suiteo1]

For those that wish to be, "en-lightened", you can read for yourself at this interesting web site where it states:

"PHOLED technology and materials present the potential to combine the power efficiencies of fluorescent tubes with the pleasing color quality associated with incandescent bulbs in a thoroughly new flat form factor."
http://www.universaldisplay.com/white.htm

Mr. Levine, please read!

[edjohn66]

The other option for encouraging conservation would be to let the energy prices in California float. So the next time there is a shortage, consumers would pay 2, 3, or even 10 times or more for power. The California government kept a cap on prices during the last major shortage and broke their budget doing it.

My question to people who are aginst this proposed law: would you rather have uncapped energy prices? (Although I'm sure those who make a millon dollars a year would answer yes, the rest of us might see a problem.)

This bill may not be the best idea, but I think California needs to do something to promote conservation.

[suiteo1]

It should be obvious by now that the only reason anybody, like the uninformed Levine, would mandate legislation to use fluorescent lighting would be, um let%u2019s see, what's the word I'm looking for, %u201Ceconomy%u201D? No, no that's not it. %u201CEnvironment%u201D? No, hmmmmmm, ah yes; KICKBACK! Now it all makes sense!

[gangesdak]

I have used the spiral bulb too. They were the gift from the State Government. Enthusiastically I installed them in my home. But they were too dark. I took them down.

[mdc76082]

I have the spiral bulbs here throughout my Texas home and I haven't seen a significant savings by consumption difference in energy use. Usage is still the same as when we used incadescent bulbs and our kilowatt usage is still the same. They don't work period! I even use the outdoor spot light spiral bulbs. It takes them at least 3-5 minutes to burn at peak lumes. All I get is complaints at how "dark" it is in the rooms. And they do not work with dimmer switches. Also, the spirals emit considerable interference noise when trying to use Wifi, Bluetooth, AM, etc., electrical devices. So, you are actually polluting the airwaves with NOISE! This coming from California, doesn't surprise me in the least. Well California, there's your government telling you what to do...AGAIN. They must love to be under the crack of a whip and told what they can & cannot do, have, say, drive, drink, eat, smoke, sell, buy, Wow! let's move to communist California!!!! Yea. This is just a STUPID idea from a VERY STUPID Levin. Oh well what do you expect from the land of fruits & nuts???

[eggy1620]

In addition to the drawbacks stated by newster1, the new bulbs do not work well on variable voltage, i.e. dimmer, switches. They flicker and humm. I have not tried them in 3-way lamps yet, but they probably don%u2019t work in those either. This CA legislator needs to put his jerking knee back under his desk and do some research.

[rikedoid]

Generally speaking cfls are a good idea. It's only a matter of time before LED technology becomes viable also. Legislating something like this is ridiculous. Use incentives instead. Also make sure the facts are available to people.
hxxp://members.misty.com/don/cfbest.html

[arashigarou]

It seems the legislators in Cali have not looked at all the issues. Just from reading these comments, it's obvious that forcing the people to use a certain type (and I'd bet a million dollars a certain BRAND) of light bulbs will be harmful to the health of some, and possibly harmful to the environment. Doing a little research has bolstered these claims.

Personally I use a mixture of incandescent and fluorescent lighting in my home. I've learned the hard way that fluorescent lighting tends to disrupt some electronic devices. I've had to remove the fluorescents from my home office because they were interfering with my DSL modem and causing dropouts.

As for banning the old technology, well look what happened in the 1920s when they banned alcohol. It didn't take long for that to be repealed. Banning is not the answer; education and possibly a different tax schedule would be a more positive and less intrusive approach. I dare say that the health hazards and interference issues with fluorescents far outweigh the energy inefficiency of incandescents. As others have said, LEDs may be the best solution, perhaps with tax breaks for those who move to LED light sources.

[getserious1]

Why not simply inform the public of the facts about the different bulbs, their total costs to the consumer and let folks make their own decisions. This stuff of trying to legislate morality of any type is pathetic and belongs in some other country, not ours.

[sam12341234-2009]

Tax and Win

Instead of banning the bulbs, there is a better alternative, where the government can make money and also induce people to start using more efficient light sources.

Tax them differently, just like tobacco or gas, taxing differently will make more money to government in short term and help consumers decide the bubs they want to buy in future.