Right on Bob Marshall! As a Virginian I am happy to see someone is standing up form our right to choose which lightbulbs will illuminate our homes. Cuccinelli is busy trying to make a name for himself suing Obamacare, but I can’t see how this lightbulb ban is constitutional! How can he find the power to regulate light bulbs in the constitution?? This power if left to then states by the tenth amendment.
I think they should be discontinued, and not manufactured anywhere, BUT believe we need no laws on a Federal Level that mandate against what is a State’s right.
I vote to let them use what ever they want. Just dry up the supply of bulbs by mass producing GREEN bulbs and making zero new NON GREEN bulbs. This will drive the cost of non green bulbs up and green bulbs down. Thus making it more financially sound, as well as green conscience.
Simple ECO-nomics of the matter will make it more appealing.
Just some mad ramblings(and thoughts) of a sane man.
I hate the fluorescent bulbs. Isn’t there a problem with disposing of the old ones? Will an individual be subject to prosecution or fine if they don’t dispose of them correctly? I say, get the govt out of our business. Leave us alone!
http://ceolas.net/#bills
Updates on US regulation and 8 US state repeal light bulb ban bills
A 9th state, Missouri, also launched a bill January 19 (HB 1146 Gatschenberger/Korman)
I don’t think the old bulbs are “banned”. It’s just that they have to be manufactured to high efficiency standards; flourescent bulbs meet that standard. Standard bulbs could be, but aren’t because of the cost.
while I don’t particularly like the high handed fed approach, I switched over to flourescent because it makes sense from an economic standpoint.
Bob,
it is effectively a ban on incandescent technology for ordinary lamps, given the 45 lumen per W end regulation standard (2007 EISA legilsation phase 2, after 2014).
No known incandescent can meet that requirement, including today’s touted halogen replacements (typically 22-25 lumen per W).
Besides, replacement incandescents are different anyway, in light quality (whiter, hotter) as well as costing much more for marginal savings, which is why neither politicians or consumers like them much.
Energy saving is not the ONLY reason for choosing a light bulb to use.
Besides, overall US energy savings from a switchover are a fraction of 1%, from US Dept of Energy stats and surveys, referenced http://ceolas.net/#li171x
with more relevant electricity generation, grid and consumption savings.
As seen, there are also many reasons why consumers may not save much in switching.
Just 4 of the factors taken up, with research references
1 Replacement savings might be great for the main lights
But US households have 45 lighting points on average
No “big savings” with upfront expensive lights in rarely used lamps.
Add in, any broken or lost or “dud” bulbs…
2. The incandescent heat is proven to save room heating costs,
when it’s dark its often cold, and use with air conditioning cooling is of course optional
3. The so-called “power factor” (not the same as power
rating) of ordinary “energy saving” fluorescent bulbs means that they use twice the energy at the power plant than do ordinary incandescent bulbs, compared to what your meter says. http://ceolas.net/#li15eux also has Osram/Sylvania factsheet admission.
Many LEDs, for domestic users, also have power factor issues.
Electricity consumers of course eventually have to pay for this
“hidden cost” in higher bills.
4. Conversely:
With any electricity saving the electricity companies make less money, and they simply raise the electricity bills, or receive tax payer subsidies (out of citizens pockets) to compensate
Already happening in California, Ohio and other US states, the UK etc (http://ceolas.net/#californiacfl)
Bob,
it is effectively a ban on incandescent technology for ordinary lamps, given the 45 lumen per W end regulation standard (2007 EISA
legilsation phase 2, after 2014).
No known incandescent can meet that requirement, including today’s
touted halogen replacements (typically 22-25 lumen per W).
Besides, replacement incandescents are different anyway, in light
quality (whiter, hotter) as well as costing much more for marginal
savings, which is why neither politicians or consumers like them much.
Also, energy saving is not the ONLY reason for choosing a light bulb to use – and anyway, overall US energy savings from a switchover are a fraction of 1%, from US Dept of Energy stats and surveys, referenced http://ceolas.net/#li171x
As seen, consumers don’t save much either, and there are more relevant electricity generation, grid and consumption savings described.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
Right on Bob Marshall! As a Virginian I am happy to see someone is standing up form our right to choose which lightbulbs will illuminate our homes. Cuccinelli is busy trying to make a name for himself suing Obamacare, but I can’t see how this lightbulb ban is constitutional! How can he find the power to regulate light bulbs in the constitution?? This power if left to then states by the tenth amendment.
I think they should be discontinued, and not manufactured anywhere, BUT believe we need no laws on a Federal Level that mandate against what is a State’s right.
I vote to let them use what ever they want. Just dry up the supply of bulbs by mass producing GREEN bulbs and making zero new NON GREEN bulbs. This will drive the cost of non green bulbs up and green bulbs down. Thus making it more financially sound, as well as green conscience.
Simple ECO-nomics of the matter will make it more appealing.
Just some mad ramblings(and thoughts) of a sane man.
Sincerely,
Bubba Scooter
I hate the fluorescent bulbs. Isn’t there a problem with disposing of the old ones? Will an individual be subject to prosecution or fine if they don’t dispose of them correctly? I say, get the govt out of our business. Leave us alone!
RE Bob Marshall Virginia Light Bulb Bill:
It will be debated in the House Commerce Sub-Commitee tomorrow Thursday Jan 26.
http://freedomlightbulb.blogspot.com/2012/01/virginia-bulb-bill-and-its-background.html
Historical background to the bill, Winchester plant closure,
and Federal v Local 10th Amendment and other issues,
also with regard to the Texas bill (legislated) and the Arizona bill
http://ceolas.net/#bills
Updates on US regulation and 8 US state repeal light bulb ban bills
A 9th state, Missouri, also launched a bill January 19 (HB 1146 Gatschenberger/Korman)
I don’t think the old bulbs are “banned”. It’s just that they have to be manufactured to high efficiency standards; flourescent bulbs meet that standard. Standard bulbs could be, but aren’t because of the cost.
while I don’t particularly like the high handed fed approach, I switched over to flourescent because it makes sense from an economic standpoint.
(see below reply, I did not see the direct reply option!)
Bob,
it is effectively a ban on incandescent technology for ordinary lamps, given the 45 lumen per W end regulation standard (2007 EISA legilsation phase 2, after 2014).
No known incandescent can meet that requirement, including today’s touted halogen replacements (typically 22-25 lumen per W).
Besides, replacement incandescents are different anyway, in light quality (whiter, hotter) as well as costing much more for marginal savings, which is why neither politicians or consumers like them much.
Energy saving is not the ONLY reason for choosing a light bulb to use.
Besides, overall US energy savings from a switchover are a fraction of 1%, from US Dept of Energy stats and surveys, referenced
http://ceolas.net/#li171x
with more relevant electricity generation, grid and consumption savings.
As seen, there are also many reasons why consumers may not save much in switching.
Just 4 of the factors taken up, with research references
1 Replacement savings might be great for the main lights
But US households have 45 lighting points on average
No “big savings” with upfront expensive lights in rarely used lamps.
Add in, any broken or lost or “dud” bulbs…
2. The incandescent heat is proven to save room heating costs,
when it’s dark its often cold, and use with air conditioning cooling is of course optional
3. The so-called “power factor” (not the same as power
rating) of ordinary “energy saving” fluorescent bulbs means that they use twice the energy at the power plant than do ordinary incandescent bulbs, compared to what your meter says.
http://ceolas.net/#li15eux also has Osram/Sylvania factsheet admission.
Many LEDs, for domestic users, also have power factor issues.
Electricity consumers of course eventually have to pay for this
“hidden cost” in higher bills.
4. Conversely:
With any electricity saving the electricity companies make less money, and they simply raise the electricity bills, or receive tax payer subsidies (out of citizens pockets) to compensate
Already happening in California, Ohio and other US states, the UK etc (http://ceolas.net/#californiacfl)
Heads they win…tails we lose!
Bob,
it is effectively a ban on incandescent technology for ordinary lamps, given the 45 lumen per W end regulation standard (2007 EISA
legilsation phase 2, after 2014).
No known incandescent can meet that requirement, including today’s
touted halogen replacements (typically 22-25 lumen per W).
Besides, replacement incandescents are different anyway, in light
quality (whiter, hotter) as well as costing much more for marginal
savings, which is why neither politicians or consumers like them much.
Also, energy saving is not the ONLY reason for choosing a light bulb to use – and anyway, overall US energy savings from a switchover are a fraction of 1%, from US Dept of Energy stats and surveys, referenced http://ceolas.net/#li171x
As seen, consumers don’t save much either, and there are more relevant electricity generation, grid and consumption savings described.