House Republicans Delay Light Bulb Rule

WASHINGTON — Republicans in Congress are flipping the dimmer switch on a law that sets new energy-savings standards for light bulbs.

They've reached a deal to delay until October enforcement of standards that some fear will bring about the end of old-style 100-watt bulbs. GOP lawmakers say they're trying to head off more government interference in people's lives.

But environmentalists and the light bulb industry say the move is not too bright.

Language postponing enforcement of the light bulb law – it was set to take effect Jan. 1 – was included in a massive spending bill that funds the government through September. The House passed the measure on Friday, with approval expected Saturday in the Senate.

Rep. Fred Upton, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said the light bulb delay shows Congress is listening to the American people.

"We heard the message loud and clear," said Upton, R-Mich. "Americans don't want government standards determining how they light their homes."

Upton said he was not opposed to the more efficient – and expensive_ curlicue fluorescents that have become increasingly familiar in recent years. But he said government should not penalize those who prefer traditional, incandescent bulbs.

"New lighting options are great news for the public, but the lesson is that markets and consumer demand are the best drivers of innovation and new choices," Upton said.

Sen. Jeff Bingaman, chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, said the move would have little practical consequence, since it does not affect a 2007 law that requires manufacturers to produce or import more efficient bulbs. The five largest light bulb manufacturers have already switched to making and selling the more efficient bulbs, Bingaman said, so the enforcement delay only serves to confuse the public.

"Blocking funds to enforce minimum standards works against our nation getting the full benefits of energy efficiency," said Bingaman, D-N.M., a key sponsor of the 2007 law, which was signed by President George W. Bush.

A group representing light bulb manufacturers spoke out against the delay, which applies only to 100-watt bulbs. Tighter standards for 75-watt bulbs take effect in 2013, and lower wattage bulbs must be more efficient by 2014.

"American manufacturers have invested millions of dollars in energy-efficient light bulbs," said Joseph Higbee, a spokesman for the National Electric Manufacturers Association, which represents 95 percent U.S. light bulb makers.

Delaying enforcement of the standards "undermines those investments and creates regulatory uncertainty and consumer confusion," he said, adding that a lack of federal enforcement "allows bad actors to sell noncompliant products" to consumers who may be unable to tell the difference between an energy-efficient bulb and one that isn't.

The new law blocks the Energy Department from enforcing efficiency standards, but it does not prevent states from enforcing their own standards.

Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, called the light-bulb provision "an early Christmas present for all Americans" and said it strikes a blow against expensive fluorescents that he said are not as reliable as the old-style incandescents that have changed little since Thomas Edison's day.

"This means Americans can continue to flip the switch on an affordable and reliable product, instead of turning to one that costs five times more and may not live up to manufacturers' promises," said Barton, a former House Energy chairman who opposed the 2007 law and has worked to overturn it ever since.

Jim Presswood, federal energy policy director for the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group, called the GOP-backed delay dimwitted.

"It's just a completely ridiculous move by Congress," Presswood said. "It undermines the ability of the Energy Department to enforce standards that are going to give consumers tremendous savings as well as reduce pollution."

___

Follow Matthew Daly's energy coverage at http://twitter.com/MatthewDalyWDC

Also on HuffPost:

Comments

[LightningJoe]

12:50 PM on 12/26/2011

What a bunch of dinosaurs. In fact, the current batch of Republican lawmakers are the BEST argument I've ever seen, why life should NOT be extended indefinitely. Can you imagine the mess we'd get into, if the Rich Reich could nail down their power politics, and then NEVER die to open it back up?

In fact, that would be the SAME problem we now have with Corporations, following the Citizens United decision. No death, plus unlimited opportunity to build wealth/power, MUST equal an ever-increasing grip on power, an ever-increasing sequestration of opportunity -- to the detriment of ordinary citizens. Giving corporations the rights of ordinary persons MUST eventually result in corporations that are simply NOT subject to ANY form of ordinary (non-VIOLENT) oversight.

That is the sort of power that would reside in the Senate, if the human lifespan were indefinitely extended.

Thank GOD, that dinosaurs eventually die.

[Tony Press]

11:10 PM on 12/22/2011

Just another socialist idea signed into law by that socialist George W. Bush.

[GG NV]

07:51 PM on 12/22/2011

No GOP its about america becoming energy independent. As the old light bulbs suck a lot of energy in which requires more fossil fuels and big oil hates when the demand of their fossil fuel goes down.

[l monroe]

06:46 PM on 12/22/2011

Here is a simple idea. Set price supports like corn being planted per acre, if the domestically produced light meets code, those lights get the price lowering bonus which in turn will make bad actors go out of business period. Pass the savings onto the consumer, which will then lower the overall need for new power generation. when certain lights are outlawed, easy bake ovens and old fashioned auto paint baking booths will be obsolete.

[Moabkid]

05:18 PM on 12/19/2011

This reminds me of growing up in Utah and how back in the 70's the conservatives defeated a proposal for adding flouride to the drinking water simply because they felt it was an intrusion on their rights. No government was going force them to drink water with flouride. Forget that it would have helped fight cavities. Today, forget that banning incandescent light blubs with their 100 year-old inefficient technology will save everyone money and reduce energy consumption. No, everyone has to have the right to be as pigheaded as they possibly can. Where has all the rational thinking gone? Long time passing.

[sdanca4]

04:25 PM on 12/19/2011

Lightbulbs. Why not something for our returning Veterans. Not a "peep" from them. Telling isn't it?

[macrose83]

04:13 PM on 12/19/2011

Why are we wasting time on light bulbs? Seriously, the old way is no longer the best way. The new bulbs are more cost effective for everyone. WHAT IS THE PROBLEM

[rysagr]

11:07 PM on 12/29/2011

people don't want their living room to look like and eastern block stairwell fight scene from the bourne ultimatum

[reynoljh]

02:58 PM on 12/19/2011

I think it's time to flip the switch on the Republican Congress that has not lived up to the party's promises.

[dan90254]

12:36 PM on 12/19/2011

Why is the GOP on the wrong side of EVERY issue. Seriously, why? The hate the environment, hate the poor (which now includes most of the middle class), hate public infrastructure, hate fairness, hate minorities, hate gays, hate human rights... And the list goes on.

[fiddler3]

11:22 AM on 12/19/2011

If fluorescent bulbs are more cost efficient, then the producers should use that argument to win in the market. The government doesn't need to outlaw incandescent bulbs. Let their position be determined by the market.

In fact, if the government stopped subsidizing energy costs (for wind, photovoltaic, and to some extent oil) the costs would be more apparent to the consumers. Efficiency is a nice goal, but price fixing and bans are poor solutions.

[jcabowers]

12:07 PM on 12/19/2011

When the market rules the result is the most inefficient and most polluting alternative because it is usually the most profitable. Unfortunately, most companies and some individuals need incentives to make choices that are not short term in their thinking and limited in scope.

[fiddler3]

01:45 PM on 12/19/2011

The concept of 'inefficiency' includes cost inefficiency. If the long term costs of incandescents are of sufficient magnitude they will determine buyers' behavior. If they are not, then buyers will decide based on purchase price. There is no need for the government to decide for the consumers. It is not a question of company behavior, it is consumer behavior that matters. If people buy fluorescents it is because they find the value proposition for them more appealing -- not because they like giving producers more profits.

[traceymarie]

01:41 PM on 12/19/2011

this is a repub law they are now against because Obama is for it. Why only to a 'some extent" should we cut back on multi billion welfare to oil/gas.

[fiddler3]

02:37 PM on 12/19/2011

I would prefer there are no subsidies to the costs of energy production -- oil, gas, solar, wind, whatever.

I do think the government should be supporting basic research by academia in the underlying science and technology.

My comment about 'some extent' referred to the nature of the subsidies given to industry. Government directly subsidize production rates for alternative source much more often than for oil/gas/coal. Note there is a difference between the power companies and the oil/gas drilling companies. But I am absolutely in favor of ending all subsidies to the companies.

[Democrab]

09:47 AM on 12/19/2011

These people really are a pathetic bunch. Joe Barton's talking about how thrilling this is going to be when people "flip the switch." What about the people that don't even have a switch thanks to people like Joe Barton.

[rjhuntington]

07:22 AM on 12/19/2011

Edison gave us DC power and incandescent lights.

Tesla gave us AC power and fluorescent lights.

The latter two are far more efficient than the former.

[rjhuntington]

07:14 AM on 12/19/2011

"GOP lawmakers say they're trying to head off more government interference in people's lives."

Typical GOP lie. The GOP care nothing for people's lives, only for their corporate benefactor's profitability, which is what they are trying to protect here. After all, it takes more fuel -- oil, that is -- to light an incandescent lamp that to light a fluorescent lamp.

Just another lying winger.

[farmilyman]

09:40 PM on 12/18/2011

Obviously it's all about using as much oil as possible.

[Jim Milks]

08:09 PM on 12/18/2011

The true irony is that the efficiency standards were supported by George W. Bush in 2007. I guess in today's Republican party, G. W. Bush would be considered a liberal for signing a law that allowed the government to "meddle in people's lives." Just goes to show how quickly the Republican party has veered to the far right in just four years.