Dark Days in Congress, as Republicans Block Enforcement of Lighting Efficiency Bill

Hopes have dimmed—but only slightly—for compliance with the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA), which would phase out the conventional 100-watt incandescent light bulb, starting January 1.

Claiming that the EISA 2007 “limited the freedom of average Americans” to buy whatever type of bulb they want, this week, U.S. Republicans and Tea Party activists added a rider to a trillion-dollar spending bill needed to avoid a federal government shutdown. The rider would block funding to the Environmental Protection Agency to enforce the EISA for most of 2012. The House voted 296-121 for the FY 2012 Omnibus funding bill. The Senate voted 67-32 and sent the legislation to President Barack Obama

However, Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) has told the congressional newspaper, The Hill, that the light bulb rider won’t stop the lighting efficiency law from going into effect. The rider only blocks funding for enforcing the efficiency rules, but it still will be “illegal to produce or import the inefficient, wasteful bulbs in the United States,” Bingaman opined.

 “We are required to abide by the standards, and, of course, intend to comply with our legal obligation,” David Schuellerman, a General Electric spokesman, said in an e-mailed statement.

Kateri Callahan, president of the Washington, D.C.-based Alliance to Save Energy, argued that, “Congress is voting to prohibit the Department of Energy from spending money to enforce a law that it ‘put on the books’ in 2007, namely technology neutral, light bulb efficiency standards that can save Americans money and energy. By attempting to reverse itself, the Congress is putting into jeopardy significant savings for consumers – $12 billion dollars a year – as well as the enormous potential benefits to the country – annual reduction in electricity use equivalent to 30 power plants and reduction in pollution equivalent to that produced by 14 million cars.”

She added, “The enactment of the light bulb standards in 2007 was supported by members from both sides of the political divide and was signed into law by President George W. Bush.  And, importantly, the standards reflected the input and consensus of light bulb manufacturers who continue to support this money and energy-saving law.”

What’s more, U.S. manufacturers may lose money and business, if the rider is passed as part of the spending bill, according to Kyle Pitsor, vice president for Government Affairs with the National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA), which has headquarters near Washington, D.C. That rider raises a number of concerns, the association claims, including the following:

• American manufacturers have invested millions of dollars in transitioning to energy efficient lighting as a result of the EISA 2007. Delay in enforcement undermines those investments and creates regulatory uncertainty.
• The inability of the Department of Energy (DOE) to enforce the standards would enable those who do not respect the rule of law to sell inefficient light bulbs in the United States without fear of enforcement, creating a competitive disadvantage for compliant manufacturers.
• The EISA 2007 gave state attorneys general the authority to enforce the standards. A lack of DOE enforcement will create consumer confusion, resulting from a patchwork of state enforcement and place manufacturers in an intolerable position due to uneven and potentially unpredictable enforcement.

NEMA noted that the EISA 2007 does not ban incandescent light bulbs—and explained that consumers will have expanded lighting options that include energy-efficient advanced incandescent, compact florescent lights (CFLs), and new lighting technologies such as light-emitting diodes (LEDs).

In response, Nick Loris, a policy analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C., told Bloomberg “The light-bulb ban is government overreach at its worst. Washington has absolutely no business in dictating what you can and cannot purchase.”

“The question is, who is in favor of wasting energy?” Callahan said.