More

South Carolina Lawmakers Take Dim View Of New Light Bulbs

South Carolina Light Bulbs State Rights

JIM DAVENPORT   03/28/11 08:39 PM ET   AP

COLUMBIA, S.C. — South Carolina lawmakers are taking a stand in favor of states' lights.

With incandescent bulbs being phased out under federal law in favor of energy-efficient compact fluorescents, legislators want to exempt South Carolina from the measure, saying Washington has no business telling the state how to light its closets and countertops.

The proposed state law, called the Incandescent Light Bulb Freedom Act, "allows South Carolina to say to the federal government we are going to exercise our rights," said Republican state Rep. Bill Sandifer, a co-sponsor.

The federal government is phasing out incandescent lights starting with 100-watt bulbs in 2012. In 2014, manufacturers will stop making 75-, 60- and 40-watt bulbs, too, under the 2007 Bush administration law. But the squiggly, energy-efficient fluorescent bulbs have drawn complaints that they are too expensive, put out a dim, sickly light, contain traces of mercury and take too long to reach full brightness.

As early as Tuesday, the South Carolina House will begin debating a bill that would allow companies to manufacture incandescent bulbs in South Carolina as long as they stamp them "Made in South Carolina" and sell them only within the state. Supporters of the bill say the federal government would have no authority to intervene because its power to regulate business extends only to commerce that crosses state lines.

South Carolina has only one, small manufacturer of incandescent bulbs, but the hope is that others will set up shop here, too, if the law passes.

Arizona lawmakers tried the same thing a year ago, passing a bill that would have declared incandescent light bulbs manufactured entirely within the state exempt from federal regulation. But Republican Gov. Jan Brewer vetoed it. Texas, Georgia and Minnesota have also considered clinging to incandescent bulbs, but none has passed a law. California embraced the new federal regulations a year early.

The South Carolina bill is expected to win approval in the House, though its fate is far from certain in the Senate, and Republican Gov. Nikki Haley has not offered her support. Even if it became law, it would probably be challenged in court.

And Randy Barnett, a constitutional law expert at Georgetown University, said the state would probably lose, in part because it wouldn't be able to keep people from buying incandescent light bulbs in South Carolina and using them in another state.

California lost a 2005 U.S. Supreme Court case with a similar underlying legal issue. That dispute involved whether medical marijuana grown in the state is subject to federal laws against pot.

South Carolina lawmakers have a long history of going against the federal government. In the past year they have taken up bills to stall federal health care legislation and create their own currency. Before that, of course, came slavery, states' rights, secession and the Civil War, as well as a century of foot-dragging on segregation, seat belts, drunken driving and the drinking age.

Incandescents, the design basically created by Thomas Edison in the late 1800s, create light by passing electric current through a wire filament. But 90 percent of the electricity is wasted as heat instead of light. Fluorescents burn cooler.

The newer bulbs are more expensive – about $3 for a 25-watt fluorescent versus about $1 for a 100-watt incandescent – but supporters of the new technology say the lights last so much longer that they save money in the long run. An incandescent bulb may burn for 750 to 2,500 hours, while a compact fluorescent can last up to 10,000 hours, according to the Energy Department.

If the South Carolina bill passes, it could boost hiring at American Light Bulb Manufacturing Inc., which has a factory in Mullins, in an impoverished, rural part of the state, president Ray Schlosser said from the company's headquarters in Schaumburg, Ill. The plant is in Marion County, the state's capital for unemployment, with one-fifth of the work force jobless.

"The federal government was just trying to shove this down Americans' throats too quickly," Schlosser said.

Before the 2007 law, he had three production lines with 50 workers making the bulbs. But Schlosser said he is down to a single line with 15 workers and a single U.S. competitor, Sylvania. Most of the incandescent bulb business is now overseas. GE made its last incandescent bulb in the U.S. last fall.

Kit Kennedy, energy counsel with the Natural Resources Defense Council, doesn't expect other states to follow South Carolina's lead.

"Most states, whether they're red states or blue states, are interested in promoting energy efficiency," Kennedy said. "We hope that South Carolina sees the light, as it were."

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
COLUMBIA, S.C. — South Carolina lawmakers are taking a stand in favor of states' lights. With incandescent bulbs being phased out under federal law in favor of energy-efficient compact fluoresc...
COLUMBIA, S.C. — South Carolina lawmakers are taking a stand in favor of states' lights. With incandescent bulbs being phased out under federal law in favor of energy-efficient compact fluoresc...
Filed by Elyse Siegel  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 459
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (12 total)
absolument
Debate the policy. But first, LEARN the science.
11:28 AM on 04/04/2011
I'm just glad that the people of South Carolina don't have anything more pressing than this to worry about. Things must be just great in SC to have time to protect the rights of incandescent bulbs.
10:09 AM on 04/02/2011
Yes the ban is wrong.
I'm emigrating to South Carolina, home of the incandescent!
(including the bulbs :-) )


Re the CFLs LED Halogen etc alternatives..
“Expensive to buy but cheap in the long run”?
Battery (Energizer bunny!) and washing up liquid manufacturers can imaginatively advertise and sell such products – if they are good enough.
So can light bulb and other manufacturers, rather than force people into buying overly-expensive inferior products they would not otherwise buy.


How manufacturers and vested interests have pushed for the ban on regular light bulbs, and lobbied for CFL favors: http://ceolas.net/#li12ax
with documentation and copies of official communications

other sections

The Overall Small Energy Savings
USA Dept of Energy data, less than 1% of society energy usage saved
Why Power Plants are not saved, regardless of what the ban savings are

CFL Safety
Home Safety -- Radiation -- Health


The CFL Mercury Issue
Breakage -- Recycling -- Dumping -- Mining -- Manufacturing -- Transport -- Power Plants


LEDs: The Lead and Arsenic Issue
Lead, arsenic and other toxic content, home breakage and disposal concerns

Light Bulb Policies Compared
Free Markets or Taxation or Regulation:
How does one stimulate the manufacture of good - and energy efficient - lighting?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
chrisd3
Inconceivable!
11:01 AM on 04/04/2011
Hmmm. Let's take stock here.

1. New member.
2. No comments about anything other than light bulbs.
3. Three fans, one of whom is also a new member with no comments about anything other than light bulbs.

I smell "agenda."

Do you by any chance have a horse in this race?
05:46 AM on 04/08/2011
?
a new member with few posts would not unnaturally have few topics and few fans, who share that view
(and having few fans in this blog is perhaps hardly surprising, if one is against regulations)
We don't all have the time to become "super users" like your good self :-)
09:42 AM on 04/08/2011
"How does one stimulate the manufactur­e of good - and energy efficient - lighting?"

Simple! California did it with just a label on refrigerators. I switched to CFLs years ago. Why? Because I can't stand the heat. Incandescents are rated in watts. CFLs and LEDs are rated in lumens and watts. You don't have to be Einstein to see where your money goes. I prefer my elctricity for lighting to make as much light and as little heat as possible. I can use the light. The heat is totally counterproductive. My AC doesn't have to remove the waste heat generated by incandescent bulbs.

You don't have to be a greenweenie to be able to do simple math. In my case, less heat equals less AC consumption. It's money I volunteer not to spend.

Final note: CFLs and LEDs will probably outlast most purchasers. I know that's a scarey concept but, it's something to think about if, you can. Put them in your will or trust.
10:50 PM on 04/01/2011
Tribalism. Tea Party folks are just afraid they'll get progressive cooties if they use a CFL.
10:47 PM on 04/01/2011
Save your old incandescent bulbs for a few years. Sell them for a premium price to Tea Party members on craigslist. Then donate the proceeds to the Democratic Party.

Then years later, when you replace your CFLs with LED lights, sell the CFLs to the Tea Party and donate to the Democrats again. By then the Tea Party will have come up with another conspiracy theory implicating LEDs and will have forgotten about the CFL conspiracy.
photo
qwert1234
haha, charade you are
07:53 PM on 04/04/2011
this is actually not a bad idea at all
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
LetsGoSteve
10:38 AM on 04/01/2011
Global warming is pretend! Just like Santa Claus, and the Easter Bunny. Now mercury poisoning is as real as arsenic.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
chrisd3
Inconceivable!
11:24 AM on 04/01/2011
You haven't spent much time looking into just how much mercury is in a CFL as opposed to how much mercury is emitted when coal is burned for electricity, have you?

As to global warming being "pretend", every single scientific association of national or international standing--every single one on the planet--disagrees with you. So do 85-97% of scientists, depending on what kind of scientists you're asking. And the more expertise the scientists have with climate science, the higher the number gets.
11:25 PM on 03/31/2011
Hey South Carolina,
Just so you know, I'm on your side! I mean, two more dollars is a lot to spare for some squiggly light bulbs that, "put out a dim, sickly light, contain traces of mercury and take too long to reach full brightness."
I'm a true American, which means I'm impaitent! I ain't got time to waste waiting on my light bulbs to reach full brightness!
So, one day, when your not busy spewing your political rhetoric at all the other states, why don't you come and sit with me on my couch in my frount lawn, and we'll dip our feet in my daughters plastic pool while sipping on cheap beer. And when it gets dark out, we'll just use our cheap, CO2 emmiting, incandesent bulbs for light.
photo
Wanderland
Barbie arm candy
01:02 PM on 03/31/2011
Look SC voters! A shiny object to distract you from the criminality of those you elected!
11:26 PM on 03/30/2011
Anything to keep running that creaky Savannah River nuclear plant until it blows up, I guess.
11:14 PM on 03/30/2011
Now their license plates can say "The Dim Bulb State".
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Malcolm Hensley
Last of the Reagan Republicans
12:35 PM on 03/30/2011
Let's see mercury poisoning or CO2 emissions?

Call me crazy but I feel more comfortable inhaling CO2 as opposed to getting a large dosage of mercury every time I eat fish!

Think we should move to a third choice!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
chrisd3
Inconceivable!
01:31 PM on 03/30/2011
The amount of mercury in CFLs is minute. Burning the extra coal required to power an incandescent puts 5x as much mercury into the environment. And that's where most of the mercury in your tuna is comng from.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
LetsGoSteve
10:41 AM on 04/01/2011
We do not know that. Please source your information.
09:56 AM on 04/14/2011
CFL mercury is worse than coal power mercury from incandescent use

Clearly, power plant mercury needs to be dealt with too (2 wrongs don't make a right!) - but that is already being done under EPA admin Lisa Jackson, with new regulation­s
and new technology -see below reply to Robco
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
dawgspiel
02:26 PM on 03/30/2011
LED lights are coming. They use even less power and are already available for areas such as kitchens.

We've replaced all but a couple of our incandescents with fluorescent bulbs. Our power bill has declined about $20 per month. We also added low e windows to the top floor to see how they worked. This Monday, we signed a contract to install two large low e picture windows and two regular sized windows.

Now, why are we doing this? This is what we've found:
1. Fluorescent bulbs last a heckuva lot longer. The higher purchase price is more than made up for in longevity. It does take them a couple of minutes to reach full brightness, that criticism is true, but it's no big deal. I do know we spend a heckuva lot less on light bulbs than we used to on incandescents.
2. As for Low e windows, we couldn't be more thrilled. They're difficult to break, you can toss a 2x4 at one and it will just bounce off. They're easy to clean inside and out.

Low e windows make your house a lot quieter because they deaden noise coming in from outside. The state is expanding a bridge near our home and the pile drivers for the supports were going day and night for several weeks. Our neighbors complained that it was keeping them up at night. We never heard a thing.

VInyl is great. It doesn't rot. We live in a wet climate and have had to replace windows, some 2 to 3 times since we've lived in our present home. The pine used in modern wood windows isn't very dense and doesn't last long. The vinyl windows we've bought carry a lifetime guarantee and are even transferrable to the new owner if we ever decide to sell. All materials are guaranteed for replacement free of charge. The company we hired to install them will do the labor for free as long as they're in business.

We bought 2-tone windows that are one color inside and another outside. They do not require painting so we save money there. If we decide to change the color scheme inside or outside, vinyl accepts paint so that's taken care of. 

IOW, going green offers many advantages.
12:23 PM on 03/30/2011
Incandescent bulbs used indoors are only inefficient for half the year in the North When the house needs to be heated) and that is the half of the year when they are most likely to be used. I've never seen this taken into account when calculating their cost. Is it not also the case that incandescent bulbs are totally recyclable rather than having to be disposed of into landfill sites that they then intoxicate? Is this promotion of alternative bulbs not a stupid and ill conceived as the insistence that gasoline contains ethanol?
12:31 PM on 03/30/2011
Sorry that should have read "only inefficient for half the year in the North (when the house does not need to be heated) and that is the half of the year when they are least likely to be used."
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
02:23 AM on 03/31/2011
However, the 1/2 of the year your house needs to be cooled you have a multiple affect from the bulbs creating heat while running fans or the A/C to cool the house. While not perfect I find the fluorescent bulbs cheaper & much longer lasting. If LED works better & is less expensive...bring em on.
11:11 AM on 03/31/2011
That would still depend on other factors. Geothermal would use the electricty to heat your home more efficiently than the element in the bulb. Depending on what the source of your electricity comes from, your gas furnace may also be more efficient. The bulbs in ceiling fixtures are in a poor location for a heat source.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
chrisd3
Inconceivable!
01:46 PM on 03/30/2011
"Is this promotion of alternativ­e bulbs not a stupid and ill conceived as the insistence that gasoline contains ethanol?"

No, it's much less stupid than that. In fact, it's not stupid at all. The legislation doesn't require CFLs, it just requires bulbs to have a higher lumens per watt efficiency rating than incandescents can reach. LEDs work just as well for the regulations. Most people think of CFLs as a transitional technology until other technologies (like LEDs) become price competitive.

"disposed of into landfill sites that they then intoxicate­?"

I think you mean toxification rather than intoxication, but, no. Many communities have some sort of recycling facility for CFLs, and, if not, you can recycle them at both Lowes and Home Depot.

Furthermore, as I have pointed out here numerous times, the extra coal burned to light an incandescent bulb over its lifetime puts 5x more mercury into the environment than is contained in a CFL. And, unlike a landfill, that mercury can't be cleaned up.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
02:24 AM on 03/31/2011
Agreed...New bulbs=Good.

Gasohol=Bad.
05:51 AM on 03/30/2011
I admit I'm not a fan of CF bulbs. Where I can I use LED bulbs, some of which have been one non-stop for more than 3 years. As for the CF bulbs, I replaced all of them with incandescent bulbs after three of the CF literally caught fire. Luckily someone was in the room when this occurred. But it was somewhat disconcerting to come home to find a table lamp lying in the front yard where the kids threw it when it flamed.....since my average electric bill is $2.82/day, it does not appear I would actually save much electricity but would have an extremely high risk of burning my house down.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
chrisd3
Inconceivable!
08:22 AM on 03/30/2011
"three of the CF literally caught fire"

I'll bet that one of the folowing is true:

a) this was a long time ago, or
b) you bought cheap off-brand bulbs, or
c) you were using defective CFLs that had been recalled for exactly this reason, or
d) you used them in a dimmer or three-way application and they weren't labeled for such use.

Current, good quality CFLs pose less of a fire risk than standard incandescents because they don't get nearly as hot. A daycare center around the corner from my house burned down when a 100-watt incandescent in a closet was left on overnight and touched off materials in the closet. This would never have happened with a CFL.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Malcolm Hensley
Last of the Reagan Republicans
12:41 PM on 03/30/2011
Hey, I bet more than than Yamabushi has had problems with CF bulbs catching fire!

I had several catch fire, nothing major but the arcing scared the kids! Come to think about it they were imports.
01:20 PM on 03/30/2011
nope-
a) Last time it occured was 6 months ago, that is when I got rid of all of them (with the exception of my old tube/circular lights.
b) Bought them from Lowe's and they were all name brand.
c) If they had been recalled,they should have been removed from the stores....right?
d) No three way switch or dimmer. noting of course that a three way application (switch) doesn't do anything a "regular" switch would do....

The problem I was noting isn't that they get hot. My comment reflects that they failed, i.e., stopped working by burning up starting at the base of the CF. I reported the first to CPSC but couldn't send them the bulb since the kids had already tossed it and trash pick-up had occured. As for the next two, I had pretty much decided the CF wasn't for me but was hoping not to have any more flaming bulbs but to get my money's worth. But then decided they were patently unsafe. Also, the problem occured with 2 separate lamps and an overhead fixture (that one was a real joy to deal with and a real surprise)

On the other hand, I just wish LED lights came with a higher lumen output equivalent to the old bulbs. I have yet to have any issue with them, other than high cost and less (dimmer) light output.
photo
FeloniousBush
Not empty, just devoid of content.
01:30 PM on 03/30/2011
Do not buy cheap CF bulbs. You probably can guess the country of manufacture.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jimboy71
Hen Diapheron Heautoi
02:06 PM on 03/30/2011
Because we all know that no American product ever caught fire, exploded and ki//ed its occupants...

Oh, no, wait, that counts for both Fords and Space Shuttles.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
pita143
Virtue mine honour
09:14 PM on 03/29/2011
We are our own worst enemy. We don't want to switch to more efficient light bulbs because someone tells us we should. We don't insist that Automakers make cars that get 100 Miles Per Gallon, instead of 100 Miles Per hour. We complain about having to import Oil from Arab Countries, YET we will drive our cars 2 blocks to the store. We allow zoning laws to be passed that block the usage of Alternative energy because we want the ILLUSION of being wealthy and not having to worry about such things as Solar or Wind generators. The GOP complains the loudest about Foreign Oil, yet they are also the ones leading the charge AGAINST Alternative Energy that could help cut our dependency on Foreign Oil.

We are our own worst enemy. I sold my small truck 4 years ago. I am a Disabled Vet and I get out and walk each and every day. While I have a neighbor who takes his car to the store 2 1/2 blocks away, or drives his kids there, I walk to that very same store and walk home. My neighbor is 1/2 my age and in good physical condition.

A friend owns property in the NY State Adirondack Mountains. He had to take the Town to Court TWICE to get the authority to put up a vertical wind generator on his property. He now is almost completely off the grid.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
StephenDedalus82
08:37 PM on 03/29/2011
They obviously don't think the federal government should do anything but bomb people.
11:23 PM on 03/30/2011
And snoop in their uteruses.
JoeMar
My Pet Goat
08:19 PM on 03/29/2011
Isn't this kind of like how the Civil War started?