If energy needs to be saved, there are good ways to do it.
                                                               Government product regulation is not one of them

Tuesday, January 31, 2012

Nebraska Bill Launch

 

In the Nebraska state legislature, Senator Tony Fulton has launched bill LB1164, as I understand on January 19th (the legislature links have been repeatedly down, end January).
The legislature bill link is here, or try via the legislature home page.


As Kevin O' Hanlon of the local Lincoln Journal Star news site writes (extracts):

A state lawmaker wants to make sure Nebraska's attorney general doesn't get involved with enforcing a federal law aimed at making incandescent light bulbs more efficient and promoting the use of energy-efficient compact fluorescents.
Lincoln Sen. Tony Fulton introduced a bill (LB1164) Thursday that would preclude the attorney general from getting involved in enforcement of the Energy Independence and Security Act, which is allowed under the 2007 law.

Fulton said his training as an engineer makes him interested in the new light bulb technology, but the federal government is overreaching with the law. He takes particular umbrage with language that would allow state attorneys general to enforce it.
"This is about what government should be able to do," Fulton said. "We're saying no. I would like to have said, 'Thou shall not be sending light bulb police into our homes,' but I can't do that. We are state senators. That's a federal law."

As seen, after a lull, several states are now launching repeal ban bills.
I understand, from talking to ban-opposing Federal Congress members from different states,
that several of their states are also planning launches, awaiting the fall of 2012 for 2 reasons: The September expiry of the federal bulb ban oversight funding, and the following Congress and Presidential elections.

I will shortly deal with the 10 state bills as a whole,
the commonality and differences in the bill texts,
and their chances of success (beyond the legislated Texas bill) with respect to the 9th and 10th amendments and added inter-state commerce clause, in the US constitution.


Progress updates and official links to the 10 local state freedom bulb bills can be seen on the website, here: http://ceolas.net/#bills
 

Sunday, January 29, 2012

A Mercurial Twist

 
From the Send Your Light Bulbs to Washington blog post, quoting the Washington Times, with added highlights and image.


cfl global warming mercury children



Washington Times Editorial January 27 2012
Obama’s Twisty Light Bulb Logic

President Obama said in his State of the Union address, “I will not back down from protecting our kids from mercury pollution.” Of course, no one is asking him to back down. There is no movement in favor of exposing kids to mercury poisoning. It was like boldly proclaiming opposition to organized dog fights.

Mr. Obama was obliquely referring to his support for the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) rule issued late last year by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In a December presidential memorandum, Mr. Obama claimed that “by substantially reducing emissions of pollutants that contribute to neurological damage, cancer, respiratory illnesses and other health risks, the MATS Rule will produce major health benefits for millions of Americans - including children, older Americans and other vulnerable populations.” MATS is the most expensive EPA rule revision in history, and compliance will cost power plants $10-18 billion a year. These costs will be passed directly to consumers.

Some critics have charged that hyping mercury poisoning in MATS was just a cover for the EPA to ramp up its regulatory assault on the coal industry. Trace amounts of mercury from coal-fired power-plant emissions affect a small number of Americans, chiefly those who live near the emissions sources.

At the same time, however, the Obama administration has been trying to force Americans to accept even greater mercury risks by insisting that traditional incandescent light bulbs be replaced with compact fluorescent lights (CFLs).

The mercury vapor in CFLs is at a much more dangerous concentration than anything coming out of power plants. The associated risks are magnified because the toxic vapors and dust from a broken bulb would be contained in a room or enclosed area.
The same EPA that is sounding the alarm about mercury emissions from power plants has written a detailed guide explaining how to respond to a broken CFL. It involves, among other things, evacuating the room in which the breakage occurs, shutting down central heating and air conditioning, airing out the room, carefully collecting bulb fragments and dust with rolled up duct tape, and placing all cleanup materials in airtight bags in a protected area outdoors pending proper disposal.
Who knew that dropping a light bulb would instantly turn a home into a HAZMAT zone?

If Mr. Obama had his way, fluorescent lights would be in every home and school in America.
The administration was set to enforce the ban on traditional incandescent light bulbs that passed in 2007 and was to begin this year, but a provision was included in the budget bill passed in December that would prohibit the Obama administration from spending any money to enforce the light-bulb ban. Energy Secretary David [Steven] Chu mocked this as “a choice that continues to let people waste their own money.” But it might also let them better protect their kids.

Remember when you are handling a CFL that it contains potentially deadly poisons. You can recognize the bulbs because they are twisty, like Mr. Obama’s policy logic.
 

Friday, January 27, 2012

The Good, the Bright, and the Dim

 
As you may be aware, there are now labelling requirements on light bulb packaging in the USA, as in the EU, and indeed elsewhere.
Basically, a requirement to show brightness in "lumens", alongside other information.



USA



image: Vector



image: Inhabitat



More about this from the information on the website of the American Lighting Association (the trade organization of the residential lighting industry in the U.S., Canada and the Caribbean).

The U.S. Federal Trade Commission is requiring manufacturers of incandescent, compact fluorescent and LED light bulbs to use new labeling on consumer packaging by mid-2011 to help consumers choose the most efficient bulbs for their needs.

U.S. Light Bulb Packaging Front LabelFor the first time, the label on the front of the package will emphasize the bulb's brightness as measured in lumens, rather than a measurement of watts.

“While watt measurements are familiar to consumers and have been featured on the front of light bulb packages for decades, watts are a measurement of energy use, not brightness,” stated the FTC in its press release. “As a result, reliance on watt measurements alone make it difficult for consumers to compare traditional incandescent bulbs to more [energy] efficient bulbs, such as compact fluorescents.”

The new front-of-package labels also will include the estimated yearly energy cost for the particular type of bulb.

The back of each package will have a “Lighting Facts” label modeled after the “Nutrition Facts” label that is currently on food packages. The Lighting Facts label will provide information about:
* Brightness
* Energy cost
* Life expectancy
* Light appearance (for example, “warm” or “cool”)
* Wattage
* Mercury content

The bulb's brightness, measured in lumens, and a disclosure for bulbs containing mercury, also will be printed on each bulb.




Europe (EU)









(images from the EU Commission and Osram,
unfortunately no larger or clearer image of packaging seen elsewhere)


The EU Commission has a good illustrated factsheet with information.

However, it is hardly a surprise that they leave out the advantages of incandescents, and while acknowledging a couple of CFL/LED issues, tend to marginalize any problems with them.


Edited extracts, beyond the hype:

Comparisons based on wattage are not meaningful any more and can be misleading.
Look for 1300-1400 lumens for the equivalent of a 100W incandescent bulb, 920-970 lumens for a 75W, 700-750 lumens for a 60W, 410-430 lumens for a 40W and 220-230 lumens for a 25W bulb.

Lifetime
The lifetime of a lamp is expressed as the number of hours it will operate before dying. The average use of a lamp is 1,000 hours a year, which is based on the assumption of 3 burning hours per day on average. Lamps that are on constantly will die faster, those rarely used will last longer.


The number of times compact fluorescent lights are switched on and off also influences how long they live. Standard compact fluorescent light bulbs (with 3000-6000 on/off switches) should not be installed in locations where switching on and off more than three times a day is likely, e.g. in toilets or corridors with motion sensors.



Colour of the light (colour temperature)
While incandescent bulbs in the shops tend to be near the same light colour ("warm white"), compact fluorescent lights and in particular LEDs are offered in a wider range of colour temperatures, measured in Kelvins. [But that may be at the expense of a full, smooth light sprectrum quality, which in turn influences reflected color accuracy, as shown by the CRI, the Color Rendering Index, which is very high (100) with incandescents, of value also in photography]








Warm-up times
This information is particularly important for compact fluorescent lamps. Standard compact fluorescent lamps take a bit longer to start and to reach their full light output than other lamp technologies (up to 2 seconds to start and up to 60 seconds to reach 60% of their light output).






Dimming
You should always check this logo for compact fluorescent lamps and LEDs, as many of them will not work when operated on standard dimmers.






Operating temperature
Compact fluorescent lamps and LED lamps are more temperature sensitive....






Lamp dimensions
When you choose to buy a new bulb type, do not forget to check whether it will fit your lamp.
[Note that the fatter base of CFLs, unaccounted for here, stops them being used as candle/flame light replacements in chandeliers and small lamps]



How to dispose of compact fluorescent lamps and light emitting diode lamps?
These lamps contain complex electronics and should not be placed in the normal household waste. This is shown by the crossed-out bin logo.
They should be returned to the shops selling them or into another dedicated collection system.




Comment

The main change is therefore from an energy usage description in Watts to a brightness rating of Lumens.

This is right and logical.
You go into a shop and buy a 100 Watt bulb because it is bright, not because it uses 100 Watts.

Perhaps that is why it seemed a "good idea" to also base American phase out standards on brightness rather than energy use.
But the whole rationale, albeit itself misguided, is to save energy - and it creates the anomaly as seen, that dim 75 W bulbs are still allowed in 2012 but bright 75W bulbs are banned.
Or, to put it more practically, since dim incandescents are made because they last longer, that manufacture/import of dim long-lasting 100W bulbs below 1490 lumens is allowed in 2012, but bright common shorter lasting ones are banned!
Some might welcome this on sustainability grounds - but it's supposed to be about saving energy. See the earlier blog post about it.
[Canada is similar, the EU chose a wattage based phase-out, while Australia had a more complete one-off ban, as referenced]


There is a particular irony about banning a bright lighting technology, whatever way it is done: After all, arguably the greatest quality a light can have is that it is bright!
The "inefficiency" of incandescent lighting certainly does not relate to the efficiency behind a simple construction to deliver bright light.

There is then the further irony that regular 100W bulbs are the brightest cheap standard size incandescent bulbs, at the same low price as other incandescents:
Higher wattages increase bulb size and price, while Halogen type energy efficiency
alterations change light quality/heat/appearance characteristics in various ways, and again cost more.

The irony increases, when it is seen that unlike with standard incandescents, it costs more to make brighter CFLs and LEDs, to the extent they can be made in the first place: the technical aspects are covered on the website.
Omnidirectional general purpose bright lighting is difficult with CFLs and not possible with "true" RGB Leds, with white LEDs being similar to CFLs.

But it does not end there.
Even the lab-based specified brightness that can be achieved with CFLs and LEDs is open to doubt in real life conditions, based on brightness measurement procedure, on warm up times, on surrounding temperature, on decreasing brightness with age, and on enclosing the lamps (for safety, or to spread the light).


It takes pretty dim politicians to ban bright bulbs.
And we are not short of dim politicians.



Footnote:
The Commission of the European Union was for political reasons named the European Commission rather than the
"EU Commission" terminology that I prefer to use. But Europe is of course not the same as the EU. Not yet anyway.

 

Update of
"How Bans are Wrongly Justified"

 
I have edited and changed parts of "How Bans are Wrongly Justified",
(formerly called The Deception behind the Arguments used to ban Light Bulbs and other Products) post and page,
including the sections on Industrial Politics, Alternative Policies (taxation, market competition), and in answering "Old Obsolescent" criticism.

 

Tuesday, January 24, 2012

Missouri bill launched

 

Just learned that Missouri local state Rep. Chuck Gatschenberger and Bart Korman have also, January 4, launched a bill 1146, that "Specifies that the intrastate manufacturing of certain incandescent lightbulbs is not subject to federal law or regulation".
The bill has on January 19 been referred to the House Small Business Committee.



Missouri also had an earlier bill (2468) in 2010 with Cynthia Davis as chief sponsor, that stalled.




More to follow.

 

Thursday, January 19, 2012

On the recent so bad descent
of the indecent incandescent

 





Of a light sentence you were told,
Now sentence of a light behold,
Yes dear light, we have your measure,
Now you'll rest at our rulers pleasure!



 

image source: unknown

Further Update, Virginia Committee Meeting

 

Scheduled to be reviewed January 26...

HB 66 to exempt Virginia manufacturers of incandescent light bulbs from the Federal ban on manufacture and sale of such light bulbs in the Commonwealth of Virginia is scheduled to be heard in the Commerce & Labor Subcommittee #2 on Thursday, January 26, 2012.

The agenda was modified:
"Please Note: HB66 has been removed from todays docket"

So it's been put forward a week, from the 19th to the 26th, hopefully with good reason...


#         #         #         #         #         #         #         #         #         #         #


January 18:

Update
It has just been put on tomorrow's agenda


 
As seen, the bill was assigned to a sub-committee, meeting on Thursdays.

As can also be seen from the listing of other state bills,
what often happens is that these or any other bills are rarely defeated in the preliminary committee stages, that is, in votes undertaken to see if they will be passed on to the plenary sessions (when all members of a legislature vote on it).
Instead, when "the numbers" are judged not to be there, rather than calling for a committee vote, bills are quietly dropped, possibly to be taken up again should circumstances change, either in relation to the bill topic, or with regard to (new) committee members and their outlook.


#         #         #         #         #         #         #         #         #         #         #


January 17:

Regarding the Virginia local light bulb freedom bill covered earlier in this blog, it was referred to the Virginia House Committee on Commerce and Labor, who are meeting today midday (ET) to consider it.

Like others (for example some of those in the resource links), I consider light bulb legislation as wrong on Democrat as on Republican policy - firstly, on overall energy saving and environmental grounds, but also, if that is disagreed with, on the basis that "liberal" politicians could tax energy demanding products, and use the income to lower the price on energy saving products - or to help finance whatever other state spending they want - though I personally feel the stimulation of competition on free markets is better, also to save energy in overall terms (http://ceolas.net/#li23x, competition and taxation policies as alternative to regulations).

That said, given the seeming necessity for Republicans and Democrats to keep opposing each other on this issue, local state repeal bills have had greater progress in Republican controlled legislatures, so given the Republican control of the Virginia State House, recently also achieved in the local Senate, there is some ground to hope for the progress of this bill.

The bill is about local manufacture and sale, and is as seen in the Committee dealing with Labor:
So a further local factor, which may also influence Democrats, is the acrimony that arose from the closure of GE Winchester incandescent manufacturing plant, as described in the earlier post, with the resulting joblessness among factory workers who have skills in making the incandescent bulbs.

 

Wednesday, January 18, 2012

Updates: Virginia Committee Meeting

 
#     #     #
Second Update January 18:
It has just been put on tomorrow's agenda
#     #     #

 
As seen, the bill was assigned to a sub-committee, meeting on Thursdays.

As can also be seen from the listing of other state bills,
what often happens is that these or any other bills are rarely defeated in the preliminary committee stages, that is, in votes undertaken to see if they will be passed on to the plenary sessions (when all members of a legislature vote on it).
Instead, when "the numbers" are judged not to be there, rather than calling for a committee vote, bills are quietly dropped, possibly to be taken up again should circumstances change, either in relation to the bill topic, or with regard to (new) committee members and their outlook.


#         #         #         #         #         #


January 17:

Regarding the Virginia local light bulb freedom bill covered earlier in this blog, it was referred to the Virginia House Committee on Commerce and Labor, who are meeting today midday (ET) to consider it.

Like others (for example some of those in the resource links), I consider light bulb legislation as wrong on Democrat as on Republican policy - firstly, on overall energy saving and environmental grounds, but also, if that is disagreed with, on the basis that "liberal" politicians could tax energy demanding products, and use the income to lower the price on energy saving products - or to help finance whatever other state spending they want - though I personally feel the stimulation of competition on free markets is better, also to save energy in overall terms (http://ceolas.net/#li23x, competition and taxation policies as alternative to regulations).

That said, given the seeming necessity for Republicans and Democrats to keep opposing each other on this issue, local state repeal bills have had greater progress in Republican controlled legislatures, so given the Republican control of the Virginia State House, recently also achieved in the local Senate, there is some ground to hope for the progress of this bill.

The bill is about local manufacture and sale, and is as seen in the Committee dealing with Labor:
So a further local factor, which may also influence Democrats, is the acrimony that arose from the closure of GE Winchester incandescent manufacturing plant, as described in the earlier post, with the resulting joblessness among factory workers who have skills in making the incandescent bulbs.
 

More about US light bulb regulations

 
While US regulations were covered in an recent post,
some additional points are worth mentioning.


Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007

2 phases, based on 2012-2014 and 2014-2020.
[A third phase may begin 2020: "DOE is also required under the EISA 2007 to initiate a rulemaking in 2020 to determine whether the standards in effect for general service incandescent lamps should be increased.", from the DOE fact sheet linked below]
Aim: to reduce the allowed wattage for incandescent bulbs by 28 percent starting in 2012, becoming a 67 percent reduction by 2020, in accordance with the defined annual review procedures.
Effective January 1, 2020, at the latest, the Secretary shall prohibit the sale of such general service lamps that do not by then meet a minimum efficacy standard of 45 lumens per watt.

`(i) The term 'general service incandescent lamp' means a standard incandescent or halogen type lamp that—
`(I) is intended for general service applications;
`(II) has a medium screw base;
`(III) has a lumen range of not less than 310 lumens and not more than 2,600 lumens; and
`(IV) is capable of being operated at a voltage range at least partially within 110 and 130 volts.

List of exceptions: Appliance lamps, Black light lamps, Bug lamps, Colored lamps, Infrared lamps, Left-hand thread lamps, Marine lamps, Marine’s signal service lamps, Mine service lamps, Plant light lamps, Reflector lamps, Rough service lamps, Shatter-resistant lamps (including shatter-proof and shatter-protected), Sign service lamps, Silver bowl lamps, Showcase lamps, 3-way incandescent lamps, Traffic signal lamps, Vibration service lamps, G shape lamps with a diameter of 5” or more, T shape lamps that use no more than 40W or are longer than 10”, and all B, BA, CA, F, G16-1/2, G-25, G-30, M-14, or S lamps of 40W or less.

(Note, a long list of exceptions does not take away the objective to block sales of the most popular bulbs, otherwise no "energy savings": No point in blocking sales of what people would not want to buy, the "dilemma" for the regulators!)

So, in the first phase beginning January 1 2012,
the manufacture and import - but not the sale itself - of general service incandescent lighting is progressively restricted, beginning with 100 W bulbs, but therefore with certain excepted classes (e.g. rough service, 3-way, and chandelier lighting).
Bulbs equivalent to 25W and below, and of 150-200W and above, are also not affected.
However: The sale of 150-200W (2,601-3,300 lumen) incandescents will be specially monitored,
and the Secretary is directed to prohibit them too, should sales exceed a certain quantity (more below).

The immediate practical point regarding 2012-2014 regulations is therefore that sales of existing store stock of the targeted bulbs will still be allowed.

Additionally, new 2012 packaging requirements will change the way light bulbs are referred to. Instead of buying a "72 watt light bulb," one might purchase a "1500 lumens" light bulb.
[More on packaging in a following blog post, likely tomorrow]


The legal language relating to the subsequent phase-out to 45 lumen per Watt is more ambiguous, since the expressed aim is then to prohibit actual sale.
Even the Dept of Energy reluctantly admits that it "may qualify as an outright “ban” on certain general service lamps".
This is in addition to the possible prohibition of 150-200W (2,601-3,300 lumen) incandescents, then to be sold only as 95 watt equivalents in 1-bulb packages, of which more on the website, as linked below.

Further details on Ceolas.net, regulation section.
Also see the "Yes it is a 'ban'" post from last year.
 

Tuesday, January 17, 2012

Virginia Committee Meeting Today

 
Regarding the Virginia local light bulb freedom bill covered earlier in this blog, it was referred to the Virginia House Committee on Commerce and Labor, who are meeting today midday (ET) to consider it.

Like others (for example some of those in the resource links), I consider light bulb legislation as wrong on Democrat as on Republican policy - firstly, on overall energy saving and environmental grounds, but also, if that is disagreed with, on the basis that "liberal" politicians could tax energy demanding products, and use the income to lower the price on energy saving products - or to help finance whatever other state spending they want - though I personally feel the stimulation of competition on free markets is better, also to save energy in overall terms (http://ceolas.net/#li23x, competition and taxation policies as alternative to regulations).

That said, given the seeming necessity for Republicans and Democrats to keep opposing each other on this issue, local state repeal bills have had greater progress in Republican controlled legislatures, so given the Republican control of the Virginia State House, recently also achieved in the local Senate, there is some ground to hope for the progress of this bill.

The bill is about local manufacture and sale, and is as seen in the Committee dealing with Labor:
So a further local factor, which may also influence Democrats, is the acrimony that arose from the closure of GE Winchester incandescent manufacturing plant, as described in the earlier post, with the resulting joblessness among factory workers who have skills in making the incandescent bulbs.
 

Monday, January 16, 2012

More Mercury Madness

 




From Send Your Light Bulbs To Washington blog post, reporting on a January 12 Investor’s Business Daily article, with added highlighting.

 
 

Environmentalism: As the light bulb phaseout goes into effect, you may be surprised to know the law also requires their already-costly replacements to be phased out too.

That's right, new light bulb efficiency standards set by Washington also mandate light bulbs become 70% more efficient than classic bulbs by 2020. The only bulbs that meet that higher standard are light-emitting diodes, or LEDs. And they are even more expensive than compact fluorescent lamps.

CFLs will replace incandescent bulbs to meet the first level of efficiency that's been widely reported in the media. By 2014, household bulbs using between 40 and 100 watts will need to consume at least 28% less energy under a stupid law passed by Congress in 2007.

But a little-noticed provision of the law, known as the Energy Independence and Security Act, also sets a second efficiency goal of 70% that must be met nationwide by 2020.

LEDs already exceed that goal. But an LED replacement for a 50-cent, 60-watt incandescent bulb costs as much as $60. No doubt costs will drop by 2020.

But it's yet another unnecessary federal mandate looming on the horizon for consumers — many of whom are perfectly happy with their old bulbs.

The federal regulation effectively bans those bulbs by halting their manufacture. Major bulb makers have already made the plant investments to follow the law.

As of Jan. 1, traditional 100-watt bulbs no longer meet standards, and are no longer stocked in stores. Starting next January, the 75-watt incandescent bulb also will be phased out, followed by the 60-watt version in 2014.

The Energy Dept. claims each household can save $50 a year in electricity by replacing 15 traditional bulbs. But the costs of the new CFLs exceed those savings. And they'll only get worse with LEDs.


Here's what's really crazy: Two years before it banned classic bulbs in favor of mercury vapor CFLs, Congress passed a law banning mercury vapor streetlights. Under the Energy Policy Act of 2005, manufacturers cannot make or import ballasts for mercury vapor lights after Jan. 1, 2008.

According to the act, mercury vapor security lights are being phased out to "protect the environment" and to "promote energy efficiency" in lighting.


Utility companies across the country have been replacing mercury street lamps with high-pressure sodium fixtures or metal halide fixtures, which are twice as efficient as mercury vapor and possibly safer.

The government warns that the amount of mercury in one CFL bulb is enough to contaminate up to 6,000 gallons of water beyond safe drinking levels. The same agency that's pitching them as a green alternative requires households perform a small hazmat operation to dispose of them upon breakage.

The Energy Dept. recommends numerous steps to "reduce exposure to mercury vapor from a broken bulb," including shutting off the air conditioning for "several hours" and even removing pets from the contaminated room. It advises picking up debris with duct tape, enclosing it in a glass jar and taking it to a special recycling center for proper disposal.

So the geniuses in Washington are removing mercury from outside the home, while adding it inside. And making us all pay for it. Yet another bright idea from Congress.




Comment

Philips have also for some time been calling for a big European switch away from mercury street lighting, citing environmental advantages - though not their potential sales ;-)

Of course, as the above article also says, there are certainly inherent merits in switching street lighting in terms of energy savings - but then, as with domestic lighting, energy saving is not everything, light quality, brightness, and other usage issues should also be considered.

Note the comparative irony,
not merely of allowing CFL mercury bulbs, as in recent UN and EU mandates that seek to reduce mercury use while excepting the CFLs,
but also of directly promoting CFL mercury bulbs, in local North American programs, and in the Philips/Osram worldwide en.lighten switchover initiative with UN backing and public funds.
Whatever the dangers or not of mercury, wherever it comes from, it speaks of rather odd environmental standards...

For a more complete discussion on CFL mercury:
The CFL Mercury Issue
Breakage -- Recycling -- Dumping -- Mining -- Manufacturing -- Transport -- Power Plants

Also, look out for Howard Brandston's upcoming Mondo Arc Magazine article, February, maybe March, on CFL and thermometer (etc) mercury, no doubt highlighting more contradictions!
  image credits, above  RTCC    below  Dr Bulldog    







 

Sunday, January 15, 2012

Meet Mr Stinkypants!

 
Always interesting when support against light bulb regulations comes from unlikely sources...

Green and sustainability practicing Montana software engineer turned farmer, Paul Wheaton, has interesting Permaculture based forums that also happen to have good coverage of light bulb issues.

Also see his comprehensive CFL article, well linked with videos etc.

And don't miss his just completed (December 2011) Mr Stinkypants Cartoon on how manufacturers profit from the ban!
The cooperation between light bulb manufacturers is no fairy tale, reflected in the Phoebus cartel: GE, Philips, Osram and others cooperating for several decades to keep lifespans down. That is why even today the standard incandescent lifespan is 1000 hrs. Recent German research shows how a special "1000 hr lifespan committee" punished those who manufactured any longer lasting bulb. Communist long lasting bulbs were blocked for Western markets....
Unsurprising then, to see renewed manufacturer cooperation in later years, regarding both subsidised CFL programs and indeed regulations that more forcibly ensures that more profitable "energy saving" bulbs are sold in place of the old cheap incandescents.
Continuing the story, this kind of manufacturer cooperation with public authorities has now gone way beyond the USA or the EU: The world's 2 biggest light bulb manufacturers, Philips and Osram/Sylvania, are involved in the UN sponsored worldwide switchover program, en.lighten. As part of that, a recently announced "Efficient Lighting Toolkit" will be available in 2012, which will "provide comprehensive guidance to countries on how to transform their markets to energy efficient lighting". More in a later blog post.
Meanwhile, another spoof send-up of the goings-on behind the scenes to ensure the sales of CFLs, "The CFL Advertising Account" on the Send Your Light Bulbs to Washington blog, ensures that we meet Fred who says "Thank you Jim for landing the CFL United ad account. Let’s work out the ad campaign"... ...and indeed they do, with certain ensuing contradictions!

Saturday, January 14, 2012

The Virginia Bulb Bill and its Background

 
As covered in an earlier post (copy below),
local Virginia statehouse delegate Bob Marshall is joining local politicians in other states in opposing federal light bulb regulations.

However, the earlier referenced article did not make clear he had already launched the bill (Bob Marshall's 2012 session bills here):
It was launched on December 19 2011, as bill HB66, and has been referred to the House Committee on Commerce and Labor.

Bill Summary
Establishes a procedure by which a manufacturer of incandescent light bulbs (ILBs) in Virginia may obtain a license from the State Corporation Commission.

Licensed manufacturers are required to distribute their light bulbs only within the Commonwealth. The license of any licensed manufacturer is subject to revocation or suspension if it violates such requirement or engages in other prohibited conduct.

The Office of the Attorney General is authorized to represent, or assist in the representation of, any licensee in any action instituted by the federal government, or by any person acting pursuant to color of federal law, in which it is alleged that the licensee has violated any provision of federal law regulating the manufacture or sale of ILBs.


Bill Purpose
(from the full text of the bill, extract:)
§ 59.1-551. Purpose.

A. The purpose of this chapter is to encourage the manufacturing within the Commonwealth of ILBs that will be distributed only within the Commonwealth.

B. The General Assembly finds that:

1. Licensing manufacturers of ILBs will encourage the manufacturing of such bulbs in Virginia;

2. Access to a plentiful supply of ILBs will protect the public health, safety and welfare by providing citizens of the Commonwealth with better lighting quality than is provided by other types of light bulbs;

3. Providing Virginians with ILBs will protect their eyesight from risks associated with the use of light bulbs that provide poorer quality illumination;

4. The use of ILBs protects the public safety and environment from the risk of mercury poisoning in homes, offices, and other places of residence and business and from pollution caused by landfill disposal of mercury-filled compact fluorescent light bulbs; and

5. The manufacturing within the Commonwealth of ILBs will benefit the public welfare by ensuring that Virginians, especially those receiving public assistance, have the opportunity to purchase ILBs at an affordable price.



Comment

As seen from previous state bills,
this bill has a slightly different emphasis, on specific local licensing, from the Virginia State Corporation Commission, with the local Attorney General in turn authorized to defend the licences against any federal opposition.


Background
As also noted in the previous update,
Virginia is of interest in having a tradition of incandescent manufacturing, the GE closure of the Winchester plant also being covered by Tim Carney in this Washington Examiner article, "GE backed regulations that killed GE jobs in U.S", September 2010, extracts:

On Thursday night -- sometime around 8 o'clock -- 130 years after Thomas Edison commercialized the incandescent light bulb, Dwayne Madigan helped make the last such bulb Edison's company, General Electric, would make in the United States.

GE supported the [US federal light bulb] regulations. Many Winchester workers, noting that the CFLs are made in China by lower-wage workers, say GE wanted to force the higher profit-margin bulbs on consumers, and Winchester is collateral damage.

GE management in a press release last year blamed the factory's closing on "a variety of energy regulations that establish lighting efficiency standards" that will "make the familiar lighting products produced at the Winchester Plant obsolete."

But one worker, who went out of his way to talk to me, said the regulations are just a "scapegoat." GE wanted to send their jobs to Mexico, and the regulations provide political cover.
So GE is still making traditional incandescents -- but in Monterrey, Mexico, instead of Winchester. "We look at our business as a global business," Fraser explained.



The Washington Post 2010 article adds

The [GE] company developed a plan to see what it would take to retrofit a plant that makes traditional incandescents into one that makes CFLs.
Even with a $40 million investment and automation, the disparity in wages and other factors made it uneconomical. The new plant's CFLs would have cost about 50 percent more than those from China, GE officials said.

"For those who make incandescent bulbs the law was bad for business," [China based CFL manufacturer] Yan said. "For people like us, it was very good."



The Guardian followed up in November 2010, including...

To workers in this pre-revolution frontier town, the incandescent bulb – virtually unchanged in a century – may be outdated but GE's refusal to equip the factory to make energy-efficient bulbs amounts to a slap in the face.

Political leaders, they say, recite a mantra of hope but they have little to show for their words. "Obama talks about bringing green jobs to America but they're going to China and it doesn't seem right," said Brady Allen, 56, an engineer now working in a retail auto parts store near the shuttered GE plant.

US fears of falling behind China in clean energy manufacturing are being compounded by a dispute over recent Chinese curbs on the export of rare earth metals used in clean energy products. In short, the promise that decades-long job losses from traditional manufacturing might be made up by American-led growth in areas of new technology, is coming up empty.


The earlier post covering the Virginia bill particularly focused on the Local v Federal rules issue, is copied below for convenience.


#     #     #     #     #     #     #     #     #     #     #


As also a Virginia Freedom Bill is launched:
What chance of Local versus Federal Law?



Update (January 6):
Unlike many other states, Virginia does have a history of local light bulb manufacture.
General Electric had a plant at Winchester, Virginia, said to be the last major US incandescent
manufacturing facility (some American incandescent manufacture remains), a plant which closed controversially in 2010, as GE switched to invest in China.
See the contemporary 2010 articles: Washington Post, The Guardian
I will make a follow up post on Virginia.


At least 7 American states have launched local freedom of manufacture and sale bills, which in Texas as posted has been enacted (June 2011).

Now comes the news that Virginia House delegate Bob Marshall (more) is preparing to defend a similar freedom for Virginia.



Virginia Statehouse News article 5 January 2012 by Bill McMorris, with my highlighting
(copy also on Virginia Watchdog)


VA tries to dodge fed ban on incandescent lightbulbs

Delegate Bob Marshall hopes to do for lightbulbs in Virginia what California did for marijuana and Arizona did for guns. But he faces an uphill climb.
The Manassas Republican introduced a bill to allow makers of incandescent lightbulbs to set up shop in Virginia after a federal ban on the bulbs went into effect Jan. 1.
Marshall, a skeptic of global warming, said he has safety concerns about the compact fluorescent bulbs, or CFBs, that are supplanting traditional lightbulbs. The more energy-efficient bulbs carry traces of mercury, and federal guidelines recommend evacuating the site of a broken bulb for up to 10 minutes before trying to clean it.

"The solution is worse than the problem," he said, "When you drop one of these mercury bulbs you have hazardous materials. It's a health risk that you wouldn't have with one of Mr. (Thomas) Edison's bulbs."

The same federal guidelines, however, say mercury levels fall below hazardous standards, and increased efficiency has resulted in lower levels of mercury.

Marshall's proposal would avoid the Interstate Commerce Clause in federal law by limiting distribution to the state. The federal government has used the clause to push regulation on items including guns and drugs. The legislation mirrors efforts in Arizona, where in-state gun magazines have skirted federal firearm regulations, as well as California's own medical-marijuana industry.

"I have identified other powers reserved to states under the 10th Amendment that we can manufacture these in Virginia without federal interference," he said. "This is the kind of economic development I get behind. We're not tossing taxpayer money at companies, we are just allowing them to exist."

Constitutional scholars are skeptical.
Saikrishna Prakash, who teaches constitutional law at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville, said Marshall's efforts may not hold up in court.

"If the federal government does not want these bulbs built, they can ban interstate and foreign trade and, to make the ban more effective, they can ban intrastate trade to prevent the bulbs from trickling into the market," he said.

Prakash said the lightbulb policy could go the way of California's legalization of medical-marijuana production in 1996.
In the 2004 case, Gonzales v. Raich, the Supreme Court ruled even if marijuana was grown for personal medical use, legal under state law, the federal government can ban production under interests of interstate commerce.

"Supreme Court doctrine over the years has indicated that Congress can regulate intrastate sales if it relates to interstate sales, so I'm not sure it would hold up," Prakash said.

Marshall's proposal says the Virginia Attorney General's Office would defend bulb makers if the federal government tried to stop production.

"If we tell them they have the protection of the state of Virginia and our attorney general, then they will say that Virginia is the place to do business," he said.

Caroline Gibson, spokeswoman for Republican Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, said the office has not yet taken a position on the proposal.

Under a 2007 federal law, the U.S. Congress adopted efficiency standards that did away with traditional 100-watt light bulbs. The law led to increased production of CFBs, and light-emitting diode bulbs, or LEDs, which can be up to 10-times more expensive than traditional bulbs but save energy costs over time.

Former Republican President George W. Bush signed the bill into law, but his contemporary party mates, including Marshall, have taken aim at the regulation.

"This was not a response to consumer demand; it was the federal government interfering in something it had no business doing," he said.

Should the proposal become law, there's a decent chance it could survive:
Gonzales v. Raich has not interrupted the medical-marijuana trade in California, which has grown into a $2 billion industry with more than 2,000 dispensaries.

"You have all of these U.S. attorneys and marshals and FBI and they have to determine who they're going after, and they decided to spend their resources elsewhere," Prakash said. "That doesn't mean it's legal, it just means the federal government does not have the resources to shut down the activity."

The federal government's ability to crack down on traditional incandescent light bulbs has even fewer resources after congressional Republicans defunded the enforcement program in December.

But even if the law passes, Virginia is unlikely to attract any new business, since energy companies have invested millions preparing for the bulb ban, said Joe Higbee, spokesman for the National Electrical Manufacturers Association, or NEMA, an industry lobbying group based in Rosslyn.

"The traditional incandescent bulb is not being made anymore," he said. "People are still able to purchase incandescent bulbs; they are more advanced and efficient because manufacturers are looking ahead."

Marshall is not worried.

"The market is still there, and I think there are plenty of entrepreneurs in Virginia who will take the industry forward if we provide them protection," he said.

Environmental groups have pledged to contest Marshall's proposal.

"We don't want any type of circumvention of these environmental protections," said Lisa Guthrie, executive director of the Virginia League of Conservation Voters, or VLCV.

State Sen. Dave Marsden, D-Alexandria, does not expect the bill — or the spirit behind it — to advance far.

"I don't think it's going anywhere; they tried this same thing with guns in the past and it hasn't gone anywhere," he said. "This whole 'keep-it-in-Virginia' mindset makes Virginia look like it has secessionist tones, which is not good for business."

Marshall said Wednesday that he plans to move forward with the proposal when the General Assembly 2012 session begins. The session starts next week.


Comment: The Federal v State issue

The federal versus local state issue has of course arisen also with regard to the other state bills, as linked above. As with drugs and guns, the letter of the law is one thing - local enforcement another.
In other words, it depends on local support.

In this regard, note the difference as well as the similarity applying to Arizona and Texas, and their local legislation.


Arizona,
where Gov Jan Brewer vetoed the local light bulb freedom bill, as reported in the Arizona Capitol Times article of May 11 2010, excerpts:

Brewer said the goal of H2337 [local light bulb sales] can be more easily achieved with another bill she signed in April, H2307, that states that any firearm manufactured wholly in Arizona is not subject to federal regulations if it is not sold outside the state.

Brewer wrote in her veto letter that the guns bill is a better way for Arizona to assert its 10th Amendment rights because the state would need to begin mining and processing tungsten, a critical component of incandescent light bulbs.

“I believe that the Firearms Freedom Act is the more immediate and practical vehicle for achieving this objective,” Brewer wrote in her veto letter. “HB2337 would take many more years to achieve its goal.”


Also, a letter from Gov Brewer explaining her stance, here (pdf document).


Notice that she says she believed in the case, and could have asserted state rights, according to the 10th Amendment: as she says, she had already done so, with local Healthcare, and with the Firearms Freedom Act - but chose not to do so in the case of local light bulb sales, because of "no active tungsten mining or mineral processing facilities in Arizona".

The lack of local tungsten or its processing seems a lame excuse:
The iron in Arizona made firearms does not come from Arizona mined or processed iron ore!
See Arizona Government on mining resources (2010 map, pdf), and their (latest) 2007 mining production report.

The import of "generic non-specific components" is allowed according to most commerce clause interpretation in other bills - what is prohibited is rather the import of specific, significant parts.
In other words: tungsten itself has a lot of other uses in other states - so import is not ruled out.
However tungsten filaments have few other uses - so they would have to be made locally.
Again, comparing with Arizona gun law legislation, notice how special parts are indeed imported, and how hardened steel etc is produced outside Arizona.

Besides, nearly all manufactured products, in any locality, will of course have some non-locally made component.
The logic of "local manufacture and sale", of light bulbs as of other products in other state bills, in no case includes the necessity of local mining of any and every mineral involved.

The clear impression is that Gov Brewer did not sign it for some other reason, which she did not wish to mention.


More importantly overall here,
Gov Brewer's actions with healthcare and firearms shows that if individual states are against federal legislation, it seems difficult to stop them.
There is also a moral isssue: if a federal law should apply everywhere, then it should also apply to those states who wish to subject their residents to stricter interpretations of the law. In other words, California should not be allowed any earlier or stricter light bulb ban, any more than Arizona or others should be allowed to avoid them.
The European Union also allows such local "stricter interpretation", when if a federal law is (questionably) needed in the first place, it should be the same for all, particularly if product safety is not an issue.


As for Texas,
covered earlier, I understand that Gov Perry's office dealt with both local and federal attorney generals over the issue, before Gov Perry signed the bill, which presumably he would not do if he did not consider it legal - also in the absence of Texas tungsten mining!

 

Thursday, January 12, 2012

US Regulation Absurdity: Dim 100W bulbs allowed, Bright 100W bulbs banned!

 
US regulations are based on bulb brightness (lumens) not on energy usage (watts):
Bright incandescent bulbs are banned, dim incandescent bulbs using the same or more energy are still allowed
.



In the Resource News Update recently,
I incorrectly commented on Halogenica's informative blog post, on the USA regulations.

I said:
"As a comment, and as I also tend to leave out, less common 75 Watt bulbs are also banned from Jan 1 2012 in the Act (in fact, any regular incandescent over 72W, Energy Dept info)".

As I have since corrected, Halogenica was right, which highlights the absurdity, that 75 W "dim" bulbs are allowed but 75 W "bright" ones are banned!
This is because the regulations are based on brightness, rather than energy usage.
The above Dept of Energy link seems to indicate a 72 W maximum, but it is as a lumen (brightness) reference, and several other official documents clarify the legality of regular 75 W bulbs, until 1 Jan 2013.


So you can actually still buy a 100W incandescent bulb, if it's dim enough, which can sometimes be an attractive option, since dimmer incandescent bulbs of given wattages tend to have have longer lifespans (the trade off).

For example Aero incandescent manufacturer, 100W 20 000hr bulb, 1000 lumen, for around $2 each in bulk purchase, January 2012.
That makes it pretty equivalent to an 1100 lumen 1000 hour standard incandescent 75W bulb.
While the Aero light bulb is allowed in 2012 anyway as a rough service bulb, with associated advantages, such bulbs would, bans apart, otherwise be more of a convenience measure for difficult to reach locations etc...
$2 dollar long life bulb plus 25 W extra energy cost for 20 000 hours, 25W x 20 000 hrs = 50 kWh, USA 12 cent per kWh average residential cost (EIA), 50 kWh x 12c = 600c or 6 dollars, + 2 dollar bulb cost = 8 dollars.
Box of twenty 75W regular bulbs, typically 10-12 dollars, so given that 1000 hrs is considered typical yearly use, it's pretty much the same overall cost, just a couple of dollars difference over 20 years, more exactly depending on local electricity costs.

Update 7 May 2012
See comments below ...
"But 25W * 20,000 hrs is 500KWH, not 50KWH. That means it costs $62 for the life of the bulb."

So this makes it even more interesting,
in that the hailed legal "rough service" "long life" alternatives therefore waste a lot more energy and money, compared to allowing continued use of simple incandescent light bulbs (or for that matter allowing continued use of Halogen replacements with their marginal savings...)

Further Update 25 May 2012
Looking more closely at lumens, 1000 lumen is actually closer to the typical 60W rating for clear bulbs, the Aerotech bulb being a clear bulb.
That is 900 lumen for 60 watt compared to 1200 for 75 watt bulbs.
Incidentally, brighter bulbs in North America from usually using lower (120V) voltages than say Europe (220V).
So really around 10 watts equivalent use should be added, or about 24 dollars
That gives 86 dollars... over 70 dollars more in total cost for equivalent brightness over the period compared to 20 ordinary bulbs.


For more on the USA regulations, and the various exceptions, http://ceolas.net/#li01inx.


Of course, the regulations are wrong for many other reasons,
energy savings is not the only reason for choosing a bulb you want to use,
and overall energy savings are not that great, whatever way the ban is defined.

The point here is therefore the lack of logic, in the stated justification for the ban, to "prohibit energy wasting" bulbs, not to "prohibit bright bulbs",
such that a 100 Watt bright incandescent bulb is banned, but a 100 Watt dim incandescent bulb is still allowed!
 

Tuesday, January 10, 2012

Resource News Update

 

  #   #   #   #   #   #

Update Tuesday January 10:

(Last update... will return with a new fill of resource news in a week or two, as appropriate!)


Peter Stenzel has noted (translation) the Aero marketing of 20 000 hr life incandescent bulbs
As he says (somewhat adjusted and corrected from the Google translation)
According to their website, their 20 000 hours bulbs have the following advantages:
* Extra-durable filament
* Additional protection against vibrations
* Extra-strength to absorb surges

1 pack of 6 bulbs costs only $ 11.99.

Aero-Tech Light Bulb Co. was founded in 1987 by Ray M. Schlosser as a company producing special lighting. They have over the years developed a complete line of 20,000 hours bulb in many shapes and sizes, from 11-200 watts, and the company is the only manufacturer of 20,000 hours bulb that is still left in America.


More from Halogenica

LED drawbacks
"summary about solid state lighting a.k.a. LED and what has transpired over the last couple of years"
Observations on different LED types, and lifespan and safety issues


U.S. Incandescent ban – will it save the planet (and my economy)?
A good updated rundown from a household savings perspective.

One might add, when looking at this from the viewpoint of whether regulations are justified or not, that society regulations are, or should be, about society savings - not individual savings
(unless "interference in people's lives" is a primary government objective!).

On that basis the percentage electricity and energy savings are even smaller, since household use is only a relatively small part of grid electricity use.
(and see from the blog post that I could decrease the overall 1-2% grid electricity savings I keep referring to!)



Update Monday January 9:

Also good to see Halogenica back in action, as always with an insightful blog post.
The latest, yesterday, covers a Q & A about the US incandescent ban, on to what extent it is a ban, the lamps affected, about halogen replacements and where to get them, and background issues to the ban.


Excerpts, adding to information previously posted here
(the original text also includes a lot of useful links regarding the below text)

If you want incandescent you can still buy 72 watt tungsten halogen Energy Savers and get as much light as from a 100 watt lamp (see my Halogen Energy Savers review). If you can find them. Amazon sells them, Home Depot only have reflector lamps, Lowe’s have more flodlight reflector models, but they can be hard to find in regular stores (ask for them)....
....just a few days ago IKEA proudly announced that they will not sell any incandescent lamps (spinning more-$$$-for-IKEA-from-new-$14-LEDs to sound like “IKEA-saving-the-planet”). More retailers may follow, regardless of how the dispute ends.

Also, regarding the "Blame Bush" jibe at Republicans... the ban was a bi-partisan job
back in 2007:
The original light bulb legislation was written by Fred Upton (R-MI) and Jane Harmon (D-CA) says CNS News.

“In 2007, Harman and Upton introduced bipartisan, bicameral legislation–which became law as part of the Energy Independence and Security Act–that bans the famously inefficient 100-watt incandescent light bulb by 2012, phases out remaining inefficient light bulbs by 2014, and requires that light bulbs be at least three times as efficient as today’s 100-watt incandescent bulb by 2020,” explained a 2009 press release put out by the two House members.

The bill was passed under the Republican Bush administration and signed by president G.W. Bush in 2007. President Obama and the Democratic party have embraced it. However, Upton later changed his mind, as did many other Republicans (and many didn’t think it was a good idea in the first place).



As a comment, and as I also tend to leave out, less common 75 Watt bulbs are also banned from Jan 1 2012 in the Act (in fact, any regular incandescent over 72W, Energy Dept info).

//
Post update correction: Halogenica was right.
The absurdity, that 75 W "dim" bulbs are allowed but 75 W "bright" ones are banned!
This is because the regulations are based on lumen (brightness) rating, rather than energy usage.
The above Dept of Energy link seems to indicate a 72 W maximum, but several other official documents clarify the legality of regular 75 W bulbs, until 1 Jan 2013.
See updated comment to USA regulation on this http://ceolas.net/#li01inx
//


Also, as Halogenica says the above is only about the first phase of the ban, the Halogen replacements will effectively come to be banned too, in the less well known second phase after 2014 that also forms part of the Act, on the 45 lumen per Watt end regulation (they typically only reach 22-25 lumen per Watt), as covered before in this blog.


  #   #   #   #   #   #




I am going to do a weekly or so look at what others are doing, particularly the linked resources...see how it goes.
(May update somewhat, ahead of the next relevant post)


Howard Brandston will soon have an article on the lack of logic in targeting mercury thermometers, yet not doing anything about CFL mercury (as I understand).
In a coming Mondo magazine article (probably either this or this link)

Kevan's blog is as seen just updated, looking at Lighting Regulatory Landscape for 2012, with a European perspective (extract, my highlight)
2012 will also see the beginning of [European Union] consultation on the first revision of the Ecodesign regulations for domestic lamps part 1, aka the Incandescent Lamp Ban.

It is vital that the Lighting Design Community engage with this process and do not get left out like we did at the beginning of the first round of this legislation.
From what we have seen and learned it is now vital that we secure the future of the Halogen energy saver lamp.

At present we are beginning to see the problems I and others have forecast with the disposal of CFLs. We are also seeing increasing numbers of people with non specific photosensitive disorders coming forward. These people can not live with CFLs or LEDs and so far there is insufficient research to understand what this apparently broad range of disorders are caused by though all seem to be able to live with incandescent light.
...good point about saving halogens, also on a practical note as to what is achievable.

Trishah at Light Bulb Choice covering the latest delays in Canada as well as how the Republican amendment affects, or does not affect, the 2012 situation.

The Montana permaculture people has an extensive 2 hour podcast on CFL issues
- interesting, coming from avowed environmentalists...

Send Your Light Bulbs To Washington report on a humorous take on CFLs, with a mock CFL sales campaign, a spoof that nevertheless also shows up several problems with CFLs that don't often get highlighted.

Peter Stenzel's Gluehbirne site, news section (translated: from German, here) also covers the Canadian ban delay, and has LED test report information.

 

Friday, January 6, 2012

As also a Virginia Freedom Bill is launched: What chance of Local versus Federal Law?

 
There is a further post about this, with bill details and background, here (January 14)

#   #   #
Update (on day of post, January 6):
Unlike many other states, Virginia does have a history of local light bulb manufacture.
General Electric had a plant at Winchester, Virginia, said to be the last major US incandescent
manufacturing facility (some American incandescent manufacture remains), a plant which closed controversially in 2010, as GE switched to invest in China.
See the contemporary 2010 articles: Washington Post, The Guardian
I will make a follow up post on Virginia.
#   #   #



At least 7 American states have launched local freedom of manufacture and sale bills, which in Texas as posted has been enacted (June 2011).

Now comes the news that Virginia House delegate Bob Marshall (more) is preparing to defend a similar freedom for Virginia.



Virginia Statehouse News article 5 January 2012 by Bill McMorris, with my highlighting
(copy also on Virginia Watchdog)


VA tries to dodge fed ban on incandescent lightbulbs

Delegate Bob Marshall hopes to do for lightbulbs in Virginia what California did for marijuana and Arizona did for guns. But he faces an uphill climb.
The Manassas Republican introduced a bill to allow makers of incandescent lightbulbs to set up shop in Virginia after a federal ban on the bulbs went into effect Jan. 1.
Marshall, a skeptic of global warming, said he has safety concerns about the compact fluorescent bulbs, or CFBs, that are supplanting traditional lightbulbs. The more energy-efficient bulbs carry traces of mercury, and federal guidelines recommend evacuating the site of a broken bulb for up to 10 minutes before trying to clean it.

"The solution is worse than the problem," he said, "When you drop one of these mercury bulbs you have hazardous materials. It's a health risk that you wouldn't have with one of Mr. (Thomas) Edison's bulbs."

The same federal guidelines, however, say mercury levels fall below hazardous standards, and increased efficiency has resulted in lower levels of mercury.

Marshall's proposal would avoid the Interstate Commerce Clause in federal law by limiting distribution to the state. The federal government has used the clause to push regulation on items including guns and drugs. The legislation mirrors efforts in Arizona, where in-state gun magazines have skirted federal firearm regulations, as well as California's own medical-marijuana industry.

"I have identified other powers reserved to states under the 10th Amendment that we can manufacture these in Virginia without federal interference," he said. "This is the kind of economic development I get behind. We're not tossing taxpayer money at companies, we are just allowing them to exist."

Constitutional scholars are skeptical.
Saikrishna Prakash, who teaches constitutional law at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville, said Marshall's efforts may not hold up in court.

"If the federal government does not want these bulbs built, they can ban interstate and foreign trade and, to make the ban more effective, they can ban intrastate trade to prevent the bulbs from trickling into the market," he said.

Prakash said the lightbulb policy could go the way of California's legalization of medical-marijuana production in 1996.
In the 2004 case, Gonzales v. Raich, the Supreme Court ruled even if marijuana was grown for personal medical use, legal under state law, the federal government can ban production under interests of interstate commerce.

"Supreme Court doctrine over the years has indicated that Congress can regulate intrastate sales if it relates to interstate sales, so I'm not sure it would hold up," Prakash said.

Marshall's proposal says the Virginia Attorney General's Office would defend bulb makers if the federal government tried to stop production.

"If we tell them they have the protection of the state of Virginia and our attorney general, then they will say that Virginia is the place to do business," he said.

Caroline Gibson, spokeswoman for Republican Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, said the office has not yet taken a position on the proposal.

Under a 2007 federal law, the U.S. Congress adopted efficiency standards that did away with traditional 100-watt light bulbs. The law led to increased production of CFBs, and light-emitting diode bulbs, or LEDs, which can be up to 10-times more expensive than traditional bulbs but save energy costs over time.

Former Republican President George W. Bush signed the bill into law, but his contemporary party mates, including Marshall, have taken aim at the regulation.

"This was not a response to consumer demand; it was the federal government interfering in something it had no business doing," he said.

Should the proposal become law, there's a decent chance it could survive:
Gonzales v. Raich has not interrupted the medical-marijuana trade in California, which has grown into a $2 billion industry with more than 2,000 dispensaries.

"You have all of these U.S. attorneys and marshals and FBI and they have to determine who they're going after, and they decided to spend their resources elsewhere," Prakash said. "That doesn't mean it's legal, it just means the federal government does not have the resources to shut down the activity."

The federal government's ability to crack down on traditional incandescent light bulbs has even fewer resources after congressional Republicans defunded the enforcement program in December.

But even if the law passes, Virginia is unlikely to attract any new business, since energy companies have invested millions preparing for the bulb ban, said Joe Higbee, spokesman for the National Electrical Manufacturers Association, or NEMA, an industry lobbying group based in Rosslyn.

"The traditional incandescent bulb is not being made anymore," he said. "People are still able to purchase incandescent bulbs; they are more advanced and efficient because manufacturers are looking ahead."

Marshall is not worried.

"The market is still there, and I think there are plenty of entrepreneurs in Virginia who will take the industry forward if we provide them protection," he said.

Environmental groups have pledged to contest Marshall's proposal.

"We don't want any type of circumvention of these environmental protections," said Lisa Guthrie, executive director of the Virginia League of Conservation Voters, or VLCV.

State Sen. Dave Marsden, D-Alexandria, does not expect the bill — or the spirit behind it — to advance far.

"I don't think it's going anywhere; they tried this same thing with guns in the past and it hasn't gone anywhere," he said. "This whole 'keep-it-in-Virginia' mindset makes Virginia look like it has secessionist tones, which is not good for business."

Marshall said Wednesday that he plans to move forward with the proposal when the General Assembly 2012 session begins. The session starts next week.




Comment: The Federal v State issue

The federal versus local state issue has of course arisen also with regard to the other state bills, as linked above. As with drugs and guns, the letter of the law is one thing - local enforcement another.
In other words, it depends on local support.

In this regard, note the difference as well as the similarity applying to Arizona and Texas,
and their local legislation.


Arizona,
where Gov Jan Brewer vetoed the local light bulb freedom bill, as reported in the Arizona Capitol Times article of May 11 2010, excerpts:

Brewer said the goal of H2337 [local light bulb sales] can be more easily achieved with another bill she signed in April, H2307, that states that any firearm manufactured wholly in Arizona is not subject to federal regulations if it is not sold outside the state.

Brewer wrote in her veto letter that the guns bill is a better way for Arizona to assert its 10th Amendment rights because the state would need to begin mining and processing tungsten, a critical component of incandescent light bulbs.

“I believe that the Firearms Freedom Act is the more immediate and practical vehicle for achieving this objective,” Brewer wrote in her veto letter. “HB2337 would take many more years to achieve its goal.”


Also, a letter from Gov Brewer explaining her stance, here (pdf document).


Notice that she says she believed in the case, and could have asserted state rights, according to the 10th Amendment: as she says, she had already done so, with local Healthcare, and with the Firearms Freedom Act - but chose not to do so in the case of local light bulb sales, because of "no active tungsten mining or mineral processing facilities in Arizona".

The lack of local tungsten or its processing seems a lame excuse:
The iron in Arizona made firearms does not come from Arizona mined or processed iron ore!
See Arizona Government on mining resources (2010 map, pdf), and their (latest) 2007 mining production report.

The import of "generic non-specific components" is allowed according to most commerce clause interpretation in other bills - what is prohibited is rather the import of specific, significant parts.
In other words: tungsten itself has a lot of other uses in other states - so import is not ruled out.
However tungsten filaments have few other uses - so they would have to be made locally.
Again, comparing with Arizona gun law legislation, notice how special parts are indeed imported, and how hardened steel etc is produced outside Arizona.

Besides, nearly all manufactured products, in any locality, will of course have some non-locally made component.
The logic of "local manufacture and sale", of light bulbs as of other products in other state bills, in no case includes the necessity of local mining of any and every mineral involved.

The clear impression is that Gov Brewer did not sign it for some other reason, which she did not wish to mention.


More importantly overall here,
Gov Brewer's actions with healthcare and firearms shows that if individual states are against federal legislation, it seems difficult to stop them.
There is also a moral isssue: if a federal law should apply everywhere, then it should also apply to those states who wish to subject their residents to stricter interpretations of the law. In other words, California should not be allowed any earlier or stricter light bulb ban, any more than Arizona or others should be allowed to avoid them.
The European Union also allows such local "stricter interpretation", when if a federal law is (questionably) needed in the first place, it should be the same for all, particularly if product safety is not an issue.



As for Texas,
covered earlier, I understand that Gov Perry's office dealt with both local and federal attorney generals over the issue, before Gov Perry signed the bill, which presumably he would not do if he did not consider it legal - also in the absence of Texas tungsten mining!