At a time when families are struggling to pay their energy bills, leaders in the House are pushing to roll back common-sense standards for residential lighting that save families money by saving energy.
It's important to remember that these standards were passed just a few years ago with overwhelming bipartisan support from 86 Senators and 314 members of the House. They were championed and co-sponsored by the former Speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert, and signed into law by President Bush.
I also want to take this opportunity to dispel a myth. The standards do NOT ban incandescent bulbs. You'll still be able to buy energy-saving halogen incandescent bulbs that look exactly the same as the ones you're used to, and more than pay for themselves over the life of the 100 watt replacement bulb.
The only difference is that your electric bills will be lower.
To save even more money, there are a wide range of new options like CFLs and LEDs. These options are 75 or 80 percent more efficient than traditional lighting, and they'll last 10 or 25 times longer. In some cases, you might never have to replace them.
In a typical house, replacing 15 traditional bulbs with energy saving bulbs will save about $50 a year. That's enough to run two 50 inch Energy Star plasma TVs -- five hours a day, all year long. The savings get even bigger if you use only the most efficient bulbs.
Overall, consumers will save $6 billion a year from these standards.
Here's another example of how common-sense standards like these have been working for American families for decades: since the 1970's, we've made energy-saving improvements to refrigerators that now save Americans $20 billion per year, or $150 per family.
These improvements happened because the government set energy saving standards that drove a wave of industry innovation. Today's refrigerators are larger than those from the 1970's but cost half as much and consume only one quarter as much energy.
Thanks to the bipartisan effort in 2007, the same thing is already happening for lighting. There is a revolution in technology that is giving consumers more options.
On Friday, I announced a website that is designed to give consumers all the facts about the standards and the lighting options available to them -- energysavers.gov/lighting. The website explains what's covered by the law and what isn't. It also has useful information about energy-saving incandescent, CFL and LED bulbs -- light bulbs that meet the new standards and save consumers money.
The standards help us meet America's energy needs while also saving people money. It's a win-win approach that just makes sense.
This post first appeared on the Department of Energy blog.
CFL Lightbulb Opponents Attack A Solution That Saves Energy and Money
As Congress Dithers Over Light Bulbs, AMF Bowls for Dollars
Study: New light bulb standards opposed by Bachmann actually save money
Regulators rule Mainers should have alternatives to the CMP devices, such as keeping their old meter, but it will cost extra.
By Tux Turkel tturkel@mainetoday.com
Staff Writer
HALLOWELL — Central Maine Power Co. customers who don't want wireless "smart meters" at their homes and businesses will have alternatives because of a landmark decision Tuesday by the Maine Public Utilities Commission.
People will be able to opt out of the program by keeping their analog electricity meters or by having modified smart meters installed with the wireless transmitters turned off, the PUC decided. Customers also may have a wireless smart meter moved to another location on their property.
http://www.pressherald.com/news/puc-allows-smart-meter-opt-outs_2011-05-18.html
And while liberal policymakers insist on a woman's right to choose to have her unborn child dismembered, they are hellbent on removing our freedom to choose a traditional incandescent bulb. Do you not see the sheer hypocracy of that?
Freedom to choose a traditional incansdescent may seem like a very minor freedom to encroach, and it is, but once we start down this path, what wasteful practice will you "save" us from next? (No one really needs to build a home larger than 2000 square feet, and they use lots of energy, so why don't we ban them...)
If CFLs and LEDs are so superior -- and I believe they are, I buy them myself -- traditional incandescents would go down to a resounding defeat in a perfectly free market, no government intervention required.
"The standards do NOT ban incandescent bulbs. You'll still be able to buy energy-saving halogen incandescent bulbs that look exactly the same as the ones you're used to, and more than pay for themselves over the life of the 100 watt replacement bulb."
The article explicitly states you can still buy incandescent, so what is the big deal if the new ones are more energy efficient and thereby lower the total operating cost for the consumer?
Do you morn the fact that the traditional energy inefficient appliances such as older refrigerators, dishwashers, water heaters and heat pumps were mandated out? Do you want the inefficient fridge of the 1960s back? Is that encroching on your personal liberty too?
My main point was that superior products win in free markets, and there's no need for the government to intervene and restrict consumer choice to any degree.
A good example: all MP3 players currently on the market use solid-state memory instead of miniature hard drives (like you would find in a first-generation iPod). Did the government have to ban the use of hard drives in MP3 players? No, free markets automatically ensured the adoption of the more efficient technology.
PS. The law was sponsored in 2007 by Dennis Hastert (former Republican speaker of the House) and signed by George W. Bush (former Republican President). And neither of them were exactly known for wanting government mandates (well, except for the Patriot Act).
I learn something new every day.
Nobody needs the government making decisions in the market, nothing good will come of it, unless you ask the thousands saved every year by government mandated safety standards in the auto industry alone.
We should also let the market decide how much lead should be allowed in our drinking water/paint etc (spoiler alert: the market says unlimited is better than limited).
Let the market decide how many pesticides an infant should ingest (if agent orange has taught us nothing it's that companies put our health above profit in all these decisions).
I applaud you, rbcinc21, for defending the market against these environmentally sound common sense solutions to our energy problems.
I drive a big safe Lexus sedan that gets 18 miles to the gallon-and I could care less about it.
Why? Easy-wise up.
Over 36,000 thousand Americans DIE every year due to car accidents.
And there are 2,000,000-3,000,000 million INJURIES every single year-
due to car accidents.
Go ahead-drive your small plastic 45 mpg car and when we collide in a car accident?
I'll be just fine thank you-
and go off to work the next day.
And you?
You'll be sitting in a wheelchair-
sucking out a straw-
in a nursing home-
for the next thirty years of you miserable pained life.
You own a "smart car"?
No, you actually own a dumb car.
You Foo-
You lookie for government handouts too?
I had you down as a lincoln navigator kind of guy.
President Obama called on you to head up Energy cabinet chair, an important post, ostensibly for your Nobel Prize prestige, to give credibility and "gravitas".
This was understandable move for new administration.
Same approach was adopted to enlist name and gravitas of former Fed Chairman Paul Volcker to come onboard as economic adviser. The following Huffpost blog article by Miles Mogulescu explained Volcker's actual role on the shelf, and his personal regrets, as main impetus for Volcker's resignation from his toothless role.
"Is Paul Volcker Barack Obama's potted plant?"(5/28/2010):--
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mogulescu/is-paul-volcker-barack-ob_b_593939.html
You've been put in charge of cutting energy subsidies to working poor, legislated by Congress, approved by President. You had to babysit anaemic response to Gulf oilspill disaster aftermath. Now you're reduced to writing blog articles appealing to public to counteract regressive energy policies of this Congress and Administration, instead of formulating policies, overseeing national energy transformation. That cannot be fulfilling position for Nobel Laureate.
One makes a point; two make pattern; three make trend. Dr.Volcker's and your situations spell a pattern?
There's an OpEd opinion in WallStreetJournal worthy of your attention and thoughts:--
"China vs. America: Which is the Developing Country?"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/Chopin/sunday-roundup_179_b_893906_96486804.html
It doesn't take an Einstein to see the essential truth.