I have to agree with the Tea Party; the US government should not choose the light bulbs I use in my home.  And fortunately, it does not.

Yet that’s the spin being pushed by those who want to roll back federal lighting performance standards. An odd mythology is developing around the standards.

Opponents claim that the standards amount to government picking and choosing winners and forcing them upon us. More specifically, they say that the feds have banned the incandescent light bulb, which has been around since Thomas Edison’s time.

This is not true; the incandescent light bulb is not being banned; the standards are agnostic about technology type as long as they perform as required. The 2007 law is meant to act as a market mechanism that encourages innovation. With a benchmark to work towards, scientists, engineers and product designers are working to displace older, inefficient devices.  Already several different kind of light bulbs have made their way into the marketplace, including a new and better incandescent.

We have efficiency standards not only for light bulbs, but also for refrigerators, water heaters, air conditioners, microwaves and other appliances. They are nothing new.  Those who see them as government intrusion may be surprised to find that the first US appliance standards were set under Ronald Reagan.

Still one might ask, do we really need appliance standards? Are they worth the bother? That’s a $300 billion question – the amount the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy estimates the US will save on electricity costs by 2030 through existing appliance and lighting standards. 

Here are other important points about appliance standards made by Steven Nadel, ACEEE’s executive director, in a testimony on March 10 before the US Senate’s Energy and Natural Resource Committee. Nadel urged that Congress reject S. 395, the Better Use of Light Bulbs Act (BULB), which would repeal lighting standards set in 2007 under the Bush administration.

  • Appliance standards generated 340,000 net jobs in the U.S. in 2010.
  • The majority of the standards are based on consensus agreements between manufacturers and energy efficiency advocates.
  • Four types of bulbs already meet the standards, although the standards do not take effect until 2012. Two are incandescent bulbs.
  • The 2007 lighting standards, alone, are expected to reduce annual electricity use by 72 billion kWh by 2020, enough to serve the annual electricity needs of 6.6 million average households and avoid construction of about 30 power plants.
  • ACEEE forecasts that the lighting standards will reduce consumer energy bills by more than $7 billion by 2020, or about $50 per American household annually.
  • A recent USA Today survey of 1,016 adults found that despite misinformation circulated about a light bulb ban, 61% of Americans favor the 2007 lighting standards, while 31% say they are  bad.

This blog is open source & copyright free with attribution to www.realenergywriters.com

Views: 69

Comment

You need to be a member of Home Energy Pros to add comments!

Join Home Energy Pros

Comment by Elizabeth Guinn on March 30, 2011 at 6:20am
Enjoy your blog immensely.  Great article.

Home Energy Pros

Home Energy Pros was founded by the developers of Home Energy Saver Pro (sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy,) and brought to you in partnership with Home Energy magazine.

Latest Activity

Tom Conlon commented on Kurt Shafer's blog post What is your opinion about members promoting products here?
"I just checked the site Guidelines Kurt, and any true "promotions" should be posted in…"
6 hours ago
Tom Conlon posted a discussion

Whole House Fans - Love 'Em or Not?

I just searched this forum for "Whole House Fan", but I didn't find much about them (except …See More
6 hours ago
Richard Beyer replied to Mike Kandel's discussion Our Homes Suck – And That's Why Our Kids Have Sinus Problems
"Don, Thank you for the praise! I only wish that some of these profiteers could answer my questions…"
9 hours ago
Richard Beyer replied to Mike Kandel's discussion Our Homes Suck – And That's Why Our Kids Have Sinus Problems
"Todd, This report (attached link) below on poor people living in subsidized housing show's…"
9 hours ago
Mike Kandel added 4 discussions to the group Building Performance Institute (BPI)
11 hours ago
Mike Kandel posted discussions
11 hours ago
Nate Adams commented on Jim Gunshinan's blog post My Energy Upgrade California—The Numbers Are In
"Jim, Glad to help! OK, a touch of soap box. So long as we don't tell people EE is free and…"
11 hours ago
Kurt Shafer commented on Kurt Shafer's blog post What is your opinion about members promoting products here?
"Bob, Good idea. I see that you are a window energy reduction expert. You might consider adding…"
12 hours ago
Robert (Bob) Bacon commented on Kurt Shafer's blog post What is your opinion about members promoting products here?
"Kurt, I would explain what energy/efficiency problem this device solves and explain the science the…"
12 hours ago
Ben Jacobs replied to Mike Kandel's discussion Our Homes Suck – And That's Why Our Kids Have Sinus Problems
"I agree that in many homes the indoor air sucks.  However, a lot of this problem is caused…"
14 hours ago
Kurt Shafer commented on Kurt Shafer's blog post What is your opinion about members promoting products here?
"Tom, thank you for your odd reference to a leaky duck. It is a bit off topic since I was not asking…"
15 hours ago
Tom Delconte commented on Kurt Shafer's blog post What is your opinion about members promoting products here?
"Shameless self promotion here sucks like a leaky duck!"
16 hours ago

© 2014   Created by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service