How Many House Republicans Does It Take To Screw Over The Light Bulb Industry?

The House GOP’s inclusion of a policy rider in the $1 trillion “omnibus” spending bill that prevents the Department of Energy from phasing out Incandescent light bulbs is not sitting well with the light bulb industry:

Big companies like General Electric, Philips and Osram Sylvania spent big bucks preparing for the standards, and the industry is fuming over the GOP bid to undercut them.

After spending four years and millions of dollars prepping for the new rules, businesses say pulling the plug now could cost them. The National Electrical Manufacturers Association has waged a lobbying campaign for more than a year to persuade the GOP to abandon the effort.

Manufacturers are worried that the rider will undermine companies’ investments and “allow potential bad actors to sell inefficient light bulbs in the United States without any fear of federal enforcement,” said Kyle Pitsor, the trade group’s vice president of government relations.

Yes, you read that correctly: An industry group whose membership includes one of the largest multinational conglomerates in the world, General Electric, has had to lobby Republicans in congress to keep government regulations in place. But apparently, their lobbying efforts that represent over 95 percent of the Lighting Industry have now proved to be a failure in the face of a few fringe House Republicans like Michele Bachmann who craftily slipped the language into the bill. The Republicans just couldn’t stomach the narrative that regulations can be beneficial.

Of course, the irony of all of this is that it was President George W. Bush who originally signed the bipartisan-supported bill in 2007 that killed would have killed the Incandescent bulb. At the time, Michele Bachmann responded by introducing the “Light Bulb Freedom Of Choice Act” to the chuckles of President Bush and the rest of the Republican establishment. It seems like she now gets the last laugh.

Comments

  1. JimC146 says:

    So when Big Corp’s greed goes to help the green movement, it is ok. However, when it is goes to make people welathy it is not…got it.

    In case you missed it.

    Manufacturers are worried that the rider will undermine companies’ investments and “allow potential bad actors to sell inefficient light bulbs in the United States without any fear of federal enforcement,” said Kyle Pitsor, the trade group’s vice president of government relations.

    Translation: “We want the government to protect our investments by manipulating the market to force consumers to buy our high priced new bulbs”

    Rather than reduce the cost of the new bulbs or subsidize the cost to get them adopted by the public and thus become competitive in the long run, the Big Corp want government to fix the market for them so they can charge big bucks right out of the gate and not have to worry about competition from alternatives.

    Government shouldn’t be involved in light bulbs…period.

    The regulations forced these companies to invest in LED bulbs in the first place were bad…the market should prompt the investment not the government. If the government would have given incentives to develop these technologies rather than a deadline, we’d probably see better and cheaper LED bulbs than we have now because they would have to compete with traditional bulbs in the consumer’s eyes. But with Big Gov telling them “it’s ok, you go ahead and make your expensive bulbs, we’ll force the consumer’s to have no choice.”, Big Corp has no incentive to keep the consumer in mind but rather their wallets.

    Isn’t this the very type of things the OWS was griping about? Corporate Protectionism?

    I buy the expensive LED bulbs because they are more efficient and just cool. However, there’s absolutely no need for the government to tell us which bulbs we can buy. Besides, haven’t they thought of the Easy Bake Oven’s future? Oh wait, now they come without the need for a light bulb…

  2. peter says:

    our country needs the regulation for energy efficiency.

    Jim, I understand your thought about market driven economics. But, it just does not work. Lets use energy efficiency as an example. I rent an apartment. My landlord has the least energy efficient appliances that are available. the reason being that it cost them less to purchase, and they don’t care about the longterm energy costs because they don’t have to pay it.

    The lightbulbs are important for several reasons.
    -They lower our use of non renewable fossil fuels
    -They reduce electricity bills for consumers
    -They are longer lasting and reduce waste

    Industry groups didn’t want to switch. They would rather sell us a product that needs to be changed out a few times a year rather then once in seven years.
    However, even as pointed out in the article the republicans realized during bush years that they needed this regulation.

    incandescent lights bulbs are an ancient technology. Its time to move on

  3. JimC146 says:

    Peter, I agree that the technology needed to change. I don’t agree that it takes the Government to do it. It takes market incentive. If there is demand, then it will succeed. If the product is competitive price-wise, it will succeed all on its own.

    Your analogy of the appliances in your apartment isn’t accurate. I currently rent a house. The house came with a dishwasher that was cheap and bare minimum. I, as the renter, obtained permission from my landlord to purchase and have installed a better dishwasher. This could be applied to any of the appliances. Doesn’t take government regulations. If I need a place to live and want to consider the efficiencies of the lights as well as the appliances, then I need take responsibility for that in my apartment search. If I find a place I like but don’t like the appliances, find out if they can be replaced. You know, choice, personal liberty, etc.

    I have also purchased a split rail fence to fence in the backyard so that kids and the pets were kept safe from the busy road behind the house. Didn’t require government intervention for me to take personal responsibility for my kids’ safety.

  4. nathan says:

    So when Big Corp’s greed goes to help the green movement, it is ok. However, when it is goes to make people welathy it is not…got it.

    Rather than reduce the cost of the new bulbs or subsidize the cost to get them adopted by the public and thus become competitive in the long run, the Big Corp want government to fix the market for them so they can charge big bucks right out of the gate and not have to worry about competition from alternatives.
    Government shouldn’t be involved in light bulbs…period.

    I think you’re commenting on the wrong post — this has nothing to do with “Big Corp’s greed” and them “fixing the market.”

    It is simply a matter of the unpredictability that the Tea Party has brought to our federal government since they took the House in 2010. There is nothing illegal about the government setting standards for certain industry’s, you really can’t deny that… When Bush signed the light bulb efficiency standards, he was assuring the entire industry that by Jan. 1 2012, no company could sell inefficient incandescent bulbs anymore. Now, as enforcement of the standards is about to go into effect, the federal government suddenly changes their tune. Pulling a stunt like this is unfair for any industry, especially one that has prepared for years to be in compliance.

    It’s this constant unpredictability brought on by the Tea Party’s utopian libertarian ideology that is screwing with our economy’s recovery. You really want to argue that the political climate in Washington — the constant threats of government shutdowns, the refusal to accept any compromise, the rampant GOP obstructionism — is a means of effective governing? Do you really believe that most Americans voted their representatives into congress so that they could usher in an era of crises based off of assertion that the General Welfare Clause in the Constitution does not exist?

    When it comes down to it, this episode highlights the Tea Party’s refusal to distinguish between reality and ideology. Do you really believe that the choice between being able to buy incandescent light bulbs or not is really equivocal to having freedom?

  5. peter says:

    jim,

    The majority of home bills come from HVAC. I doubt your going to install a new A/C. I think you know very well that what you did is the exception.(i’ve installed a programmable thermostat in my apt)

    The market forces can’t succeed here because there is an intermediary, and the true costs are not born with the purchase.
    Whether its the higher amounts of pollutants spewed into the air(The govenrment- not the polluters- pays for the healthcare of such diseases.) so therefore the inefficient product is cheaper because it does not cover its true costs. Or as i said before, your landlord still has virtually no reason to spend the extra X amount on a more efficient whatever. Even though during its lifetime it would save X times alot.

  6. Mark says:

    The thing is, the market IS phasing out incandescents on its own. Their sales have been in steady decline since the 2000′s and CFL’s have been on the rise. If there really was such a need for incandecents there would have been a rise in sales after news of the ban came out, much like there was once Polaroid announced they were going to discontinue making instant film. But there hasn’t been, people have not been hoarding incandescent in significant numbers because they are old technology and not cost effective.