House Republicans: Down with squiggly light bulbs

JIM ABRAMS

Asso­ci­ated Press

WASHINGTON — How many gov­ern­ment bureau­crats does it take to screw in a light bulb? A lot of House Repub­li­cans think the answer should be “none.” They say the gov­ern­ment should just stay out of it.

To them, those new­fan­gled curly flu­o­res­cent light bulbs are the last straw, another exam­ple of an over­reach­ing gov­ern­ment that’s forc­ing peo­ple to buy health insur­ance, prod­ding them to get more fuel-efficient cars and stick­ing its nose into too many places it doesn’t belong.

For most Democ­rats, it’s an exas­per­at­ing debate that, just like the old incan­des­cent bulbs being crowded out of the mar­ket, pro­duces more heat than light.

Repub­li­cans in con­trol of the House moved toward a vote late Tues­day on leg­is­la­tion that would seek to over­turn light bulb energy-efficiency stan­dards and keep the mar­ket­place clear for the cheap, energy-wasting bulbs that have changed lit­tle since Thomas Edi­son invented them in 1879.

The stan­dards in ques­tion do not specif­i­cally ban the old bulbs but require a higher level of effi­ciency than the clas­sics can pro­duce, essen­tially nudg­ing them off store shelves over the next few years. Four of Edison’s descen­dants said the great inven­tor would be mor­ti­fied to see politi­cians try­ing to get the nation to hang on to an out­dated tech­nol­ogy when bet­ter bulbs are available.

The stan­dards have not been par­tic­u­larly con­tentious before now. They were crafted in 2007 with Repub­li­can par­tic­i­pa­tion and signed into law by Pres­i­dent George W. Bush. Peo­ple seem to like the new choices and the energy sav­ings they bring, polling finds.

But now they have become a sym­bol of a much larger divide in Wash­ing­ton over the size and reach of gov­ern­ment itself. The new bulbs sug­gest to some con­ser­v­a­tives that big gov­ern­ment is run­ning amok.

“Now the gov­ern­ment wants to tell con­sumers what type of light bulb they use to read, cook, watch tele­vi­sion or light their garage,” said Rep. Michael Burgess, R-Texas.

“I’m not opposed to the squig­gly tailed CFLs,” said Rep. Joe Bar­ton, R Texas, a dri­ving force behind the effort to save the old incan­des­cents and spon­sor of the bill to over­turn the stan­dards. But mak­ing the old bulbs go away “seems to me to be overkill by the fed­eral government.”

Repub­li­cans said peo­ple who now buy a bulb for 30 or 40 cents shouldn’t be forced to pay $6 for a flu­o­res­cent bulb or more for LED (light-emitting diode) lighting.

“If you are Al Gore and want to spend $10 for a light bulb, more power to you,” Bar­ton said. He exag­ger­ated the cost of most energy-efficient bulbs and neglected to men­tion that they last years longer than old incan­des­cent bulbs, which give off about 90 per­cent of the energy they con­sume as heat.

Repub­li­can pres­i­den­tial con­tender Rep. Michele Bach­mann of Min­nesota com­plained ear­lier this year that, under Pres­i­dent Barack Obama, “we bought a bureau­cracy that now tells us which light bulbs to buy.”

The Obama admin­is­tra­tion, which opposes Barton’s bill, says the light­ing stan­dards that are being phased in will save nearly $6 bil­lion in 2015 alone. The Energy Depart­ment says upgrad­ing 15 inef­fi­cient incan­des­cent bulbs in a home could save a home­owner $50 a year. Light­ing accounts for about 10 per­cent of home elec­tric­ity use.

The White House says the stan­dards drive U.S. inno­va­tion, cre­ate man­u­fac­tur­ing jobs and reduce harm­ful green­house gas emissions.

Incan­des­cent bulbs are not dis­ap­pear­ing. Today’s energy-savings choices include incan­des­cent light­ing that is more effi­cient, and more expen­sive to pur­chase, than the old standbys.

Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., held up a new Syl­va­nia incan­des­cent that meets the effi­ciency stan­dards and costs $1.69. “You don’t have to buy one of those funny-looking new light bulbs,” he said.

Under exist­ing rules, new bulbs will have to be 25 to 30 per­cent more effi­cient than tra­di­tional incan­des­cent mod­els. As of Jan. 1, 2012, inef­fi­cient 100-watt bulbs will no longer be avail­able at most stores. Also on the way out are tra­di­tional 75-watt bulbs in 2013 and 40-watt and 60-watt ver­sions in 2014.

The National Resources Defense Coun­cil said that when the law is fully imple­mented in 2020, energy costs will be reduced by 7 per­cent or about $85 a house­hold every year. It said the more effi­cient bulbs will elim­i­nate the need for 33 large power plants.

The advo­cacy group pre­sented state­ments from Edison’s kin in sup­port of the new stan­dards. “Edi­son would cer­tainly have rec­og­nized that the wave of the future — prof­its — is to make it bet­ter, cheaper and, yes, cleaner and more effi­cient,” said Barry Edi­son Sloane, a great-grandson.

Said Robert Wheeler, a great-nephew: “The tech­nol­ogy changes. Embrace it.”

Posted by AP News on Jul 12 2011. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS Feed. Comments can be made below.