California's proposed ban on incandescents

Could it really happen? Could the incandescent light bulb, one of Thomas Edison's greatest inventions, be no more in California? If lawmakers have their way, it could very well happen.

While the incandescent bulbs have been the standard in lighting since Mr. Edison's creation, other technologies like compact fluorescent lamps (CFL), cold cathode, and light emitting diodes (LED) have all made advances to one day replace the incandescent bulb.

Compact fluorescent lamps can reduce wattage of incandescent bulbs by 75% while lasting 10 times as long. So if its so good, why don't we all as consumers just make the switch on our own without government getting involved?

1. Cost. Human nature is to evaluate a purchase on initial cost. When dealing with lighting, the initial cost is only 5% of the total cost of light. The other 95% is in energy cost. However most of us will buy what is cheaper more often than not.

2. Quality of light. While other technologies have made improvements, they don't match the warm feel of incandescent lights. Without getting too techincal, it is amazing that the first light bulb ever created has one of the best color rendering index ratings of artifical light. Too bad it is more of a heater than a light, which is why it uses so much energy. I tried changing out a few lights years ago in my house only to have an upset wife. I continue to do it, and she is starting to notice less and less. Either I am wearing her down, or the CFL lighting is getting better.

3. The stores. Incandescent lamps will burn out 10 times as fast than CFL's. That means you have to go back to the store more often. That is good business. Why would they want you to come less often?

California is usually the leader in the U.S. on setting these types of policies and standards, so it will be interesting to see what happens.

If you want to read more about this, here is an article that appeared in NW Current.com ( http://www.nwcurrent.com/policy/6649592.html ) .

March to 'ban the bulb' heats up by Becky Brun - 3.27.07

How many legislators does it take to change a light bulb? In California, it will take 41 to pass Assembly Bill 722, which would require the phase-out of the incandescent bulb by 2012.
Introduced Feb. 22 by Chair of the Assembly’s Utilities and Commerce Committee Lloyd Levine (D-Van Nuys), the bill has had a ripple effect. The same week AB 722 was formally introduced in California, legislators in Australia passed a similar law making it the first country to ban the sale of incandescent bulbs. A week later, the European Lamp Companies Federation, whose members represent 95 percent of Europe’s lighting manufacturers — including General Electric, Siemens and Royal Philips Electronics — released a statement calling for a governmental shift to more efficient residential lighting products.
States such as Connecticut and New Jersey have announced similar efforts to “ban the bulb,” and Philips Lighting North America announced on March 14 that it has joined the Alliance to Save Energy and other energy-efficiency advocacy groups calling for legislation that would phase out inefficient incandescent light bulbs by 2016.
“It’s a good sound bite,” says Tom Eckman, the Northwest Power and Conservation Council’s manager of conservation resources. “It gets the message across that we have to get something more efficient than incandescents.”
But Eckman says banning the traditional pear-shaped bulb is not necessarily the best way to encourage more people to buy CFLs. He argues that adopting better performance standards for all light bulbs (increasing the required amount of lumens per watt), rather than altogether banning a certain type, would put the onus on the market to determine the best way to accomplish the goal (see “Current Commentary: Lighting efficiency: Is this all there is?,” nwcurrent, April 2007).
For example, General Electric, keen to avoid seeing its founder’s invention get left in the dust by CFLs and light-emitting diodes (LEDs), announced in early March that it is developing high-efficiency incandescent lamps that “provide the same high light quality, brightness and color as current incandescent lamps while saving energy and decreasing greenhouse gas emissions.”
Catchy slogans such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s “Savings With a Twist” and Wal-Mart’s new “Change a Light, Change the World” have helped elevate the CFL market. As of March 23, 2007, an estimated more than 22 million CFLs had been sold in United States just since the beginning of the year, according to the nonprofit 18 Seconds.
Given the strong regional commitments to energy efficiency, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and investing in renewable energy, could the trend meander into the Northwest? Local energy experts seem divided on the issue.
Even with Wal-Mart aiming to sell 100 million CFLs in 2007, it could take more than robust marketing campaigns to convince consumers to make the switch, says Brian Kealoha, vice president of sales for Energy Industries, a Northwest engineering and consulting firm.
“The market itself would never allow that to happen,” Kealoha says. Because the incandescent is the lighting industry’s number-one seller, he continues, “there is no incentive for them to switch over.” But if California passes the bill, he adds, others will likely follow.
Kealoha works mostly with commercial clients that want to increase the energy-efficiency of their buildings. Lighting is a major focus of his efforts — mainly because incandescent bulbs consume about 10 percent of all electricity use, according to the U.S. Department of Energy.
Replacing a 75-watt incandescent light bulb with a 20-watt CFL would save customers $55 over the life of the bulb, not to mention keeping 1,300 pounds of carbon dioxide from entering the atmosphere, according to the Rocky Mountain Institute.
Liz Klumpp, senior policy analyst for Washington State Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development, says while Washington has a strong track record for pursuing high energy-efficiency standards for products and within its building code, CFLs are a different sort of beast: Because of their mercury content, CFLs need to be recycled (see “Current Commentary: CFL conundrum,” nwcurrent, Feb. 2007).
“I don’t know if the state of Washington or the solid-waste department is prepared for that,” she says. She adds that although the state pursues higher codes and standards in some situations, rather than letting the market decide, mandates might not be as well-suited for CFLs. However, she notes the Washington Building Code Council in November 2006 approved changes to the state energy code (See “Efficiency measure escapes code,” nwcurrent, Feb. 2006), including a restriction on outdoor lighting. The measure, which is scheduled to go into effect in July, mandates that all residential external lights utilize either a CFL fixture or combined daylight and motion sensors.
Oregon and Washington will likely consider some type of lighting efficiency legislation if AB 722 passes, says Eckman.
Klumpp, on the other hand, is not convinced the bill is a slam dunk.
“That’s a huge ‘if’,” she says.