Calling Bulb-Sh*t
EDITOR’S NOTE: Welcome to The Heat Beat, a newsletter about climate change, politics, and taking action, written by a non-expert for non-experts. If your friend forwarded you this and you’d like to subscribe, smash this here button.
This edition of The Heat Beat was initially published 5/1/19.
TOPLINE
Trump Energy Dept. trying to rollback Bush-era lightbulb standards
Could cost Americans $12B/yr and make US market a bad-bulb dumping ground
Would waste the energy of ~25 coal plants; create emissions of ~7M cars
Big Lighting makes $$ on decorative/specialty incandescents, want them exempt
CALLING BULB-SH*T
In February 2019, months before I started this here newsletter, the Trump administration moved to roll back federal standards on energy-efficient light bulbs, arguing that the current requirements, implemented in the final days of the Obama administration, were actually illegal. (The law has been on the books since then-President George W. Bush signed it in 2007.)
Environmental advocates say the proposed rule would needlessly increase American energy demand and “turn back the clock” on energy-efficiency efforts over a decade. Economists say the move will cost Americans about $12B a year in missed savings, and could set up the US as a dumping ground for lousy bulbs. The literal ancestors of Thomas Edisonsay DOE is acting for Big Lighting companies who will “sacrifice our common good for their selfish greed.”
It’s not the brightest idea (do you get it?!), but there’s still time to call bulb-sh*t. Let’s get into it.
[via]
Incandescent = Inefficient
Regular pear-shaped lightbulbs (“A-series” or “A-line”, in the jargon) have changed a lot since inventors like Edison and Joseph Swan commercialized carbon-filament lamps in the late 1800s. But one thing has remained mostly true: the practice of heating a material until it glows (y’know, incandescently) wastes a lot of energy. Incandescent bulbs convert about 10% of electric current into light, while about 90% is emitted as heat. This helps no one. Unless of course, you’re heating your house with incandescent lightbulbs, in which case, uh… don’t do that.
On top of being inefficient, incandescent A-lines only burn for about 1000 hours, so you have to replace them every year or so. Replacing lightbulbs this frequently creates waste up and down the supply chain (manufacturing, packaging, shipping, disposal, etc.) It’s also annoying as hell for me personally. For these reasons and more, the advent of the more-efficient, longer-lasting LED bulbs has been celebrated as a “light bulb revolution” and one of the easiest, cheapest ways to save energy & money. An LED bulb is up to ~10x more efficient than incandescent, and lasts for ~25 years.
Who Blocketh The Bulb?
You might be wondering what problem the Trump administration could possibly have with obsoleting the old bulbs, given all these upsides, and the fact that the law is already set to extend the A-line LED standards to other most other bulb types by 2020. DOE has been declining press inquiries about its proposal, so it’s hard to say exactly what’s motivating the rollback.
Except, not really! The DOE’s energy-efficiency office is headed up by Daniel Simmons, a former fossil-fuel lobbyist and Koch Bros. think-tanker. He defended the proposal to a House energy committee in early April 2019, testifying the revisions “will help reduce the burden of the process by which standards are developed, which can be costly and time consuming for stakeholders.”
Stakeholders like the National Electrical Manufacturers Association—an industry group that says the standards will reduce choice, and whose members tend to enjoy better margins on some of the decorative bulbs DOE is poised to exempt—were delighted to hear it.
Partisan Po-LIT-ics
Yes, I regret that pun. But even more so, I regret to inform you that President Trump’s Secretary of Energy, Rick Perry, has been down this road before. He pulled a similar move as governor of Texas in 2011, whipping the Tea Party into a fervor over the right to keep using costly, inefficient incandescent bulbs. “Your lightbulbs are suddenly a symbol of freedom in Texas and beyond,” drily remarked the Dallas Observer at the time.
It was weird, but then again, so was the fact that Perry went from the statehouse in Austin, to several failed presidential bids, to a spot onDancing With The Stars, to a critical cabinet position in the Trump White House. Where we're going, we don't need roads, etc.
[via]
If Perry Picks Winners, We Lose
The Looney Lone Star Bulb Backlash notwithstanding, most Americans want LED bulbs. US households can save ~$100/year on their power bill simply by switching to the newer A-lines. It’s true that LED bulbs cost (slightly) more, and that this can disadvantage low-income customers who can't afford to switch. But costs have been dropping sharply as technology improves, and many regional utilities offer rebates to help poorer people switch to LEDs. LED A-lines already outsell all other type of bulb, possibly because Americans say they’re willing to pay more for products that are good for the environment at near-majority, majority, and super-majority rates.
In light (!!) of all that, Perry’s proposal looks less like red-tape slashing, and more like the federal government picking winners and losers. That’s supposed to be anathema to avowed free-enterprise conservatives, but curiously, ever since taking the DOE gig, Perry has changed his tune. Critics say DOE’s new rules put the industry not on a level playing field but in “a race where each technology gets a different finish line… Manufacturers could keep on selling their current highly profitable halogen bulbs" and those decorative, non-A-line incandescent ones, too.
Energy Dominance?
President Trump has talked a lot about “energy dominance,” touting the idea that US energy resources should be used to stoke economic growth at home project power abroad (exporting to allies, withholding from foes, etc.) However flawed it may be, you’d think that his plan would include making American lighting more efficient. That way, we’d have more international selling power when, ahem, selling power.
But the DOE bulb rollback runs in the other direction. Under the proposed changes, the US would need way more energy—equivalent to ~25 coal plants’ annual power output and ~7 million vehicles’ annual missions, according to some estimates—just to turn on the same lights. This will make Americans more reliant on fossil fuels and subject to more pollution in the short term. Some think it could also make the US market target for China and other producers to dump cheaper, less-efficient bulbs that other markets have rejected. (They've done it before.) Sounds downright dominant!
ACTIONS:
The DOE’s comment period on this proposal closes THIS FRIDAY (5/3), so use this form to tell Perry how you feel.
Call one of your lawmakers today, tell them you want more LED lightbulbs, not fewer, and ask them stand up for energy-efficiency laws that are already on the books.