by: Kit Mathers, \u00a0Associate Copy Editor<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
In January, Congress, through overwhelming bipartisan cooperation, approved, and President Obama signed into law, a $1.1 trillion omnibus spending bill; a provision of which precludes the U.S. Department of Energy (\u201cDOE\u201d) from spending allocated funds to enforce twilight measures of a \u201clight bulb phase-out\u201d mandated by the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act (\u201cEISA\u201d).[1]<\/a>\u00a0 The phase-out, which effectively began in January 2012, requires that light bulbs produce a certain level of brightness at specified energy levels.[2]<\/a>\u00a0 Of particular significance to the average consumer, traditional incandescent light bulbs are incapable of fulfilling the new energy efficiency standards and as of January 1, 2014 60- and 40-watt incandescent light bulbs (which represent half of the consumer light bulb market) are no longer allowed to be manufactured or imported into the U.S.[3]<\/a>\u00a0 Overall, the standards set forth by the EISA are predicted to result in annual electric bill savings of nearly $13-billion, power savings equivalent to the output of 30 large power plants, \u00a0and will reduce carbon dioxide emissions by about 100 million tons per year.[4]<\/a><\/p>\n The spending bill\u2019s ban is not particularly formidable from the perspective of many environmentalists and \u201cpro phase-out\u201d light bulb manufacturers who have characterized it as a nuisance that can\u2019t possibly derail the \u201cmarket shift\u201d toward more energy-efficient light bulbs.[5]<\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0But should we be more supportive of the spending bill\u2019s ban despite the EISA\u2019s potential environmental benefits? \u00a0In support of the ban, House Republicans have stated that EISA phase-out requirements are characteristic of government overreach, and enforcement measures should not be tolerated.[6]<\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0Is there any merit to the House Republicans\u2019 argument? \u00a0Is federal product regulation really the proper avenue for catalyzing change in consumer power consumption? \u00a0The tension at the heart of the light bulb phase-out is representative of a fundamental issue that must be addressed in any discussion of \u201cwhere\u201d<\/i> energy regulations should be focused. \u00a0I tend to agree with House Republicans who are wary of the government\u2019s reach into consumer purchasing power, but perhaps end-user regulation (\u201cdownstream\u201d) is the most parsimonious way of realizing change in energy use and accompanying (upstream) emissions. \u00a0Upstream regulation is inescapably difficult. \u00a0State and federal regulation of power plants and their emissions is tedious work, often drawn out interminably by litigation. \u00a0But then again, why not increasingly regulate power plants themselves if we are operating under the guise that the end goal is to limit carbon emissions and power plant out-put? \u00a0It\u2019s not as though the light bulbs are the source of poor energy management decisions or egregious carbon emissions. \u00a0 Understanding why <\/i>the EISA, in large part, came to be makes the decision to regulate downstream consumer choice even less palatable.<\/p>\n While the EISA does not outrightly proscribe the manufacture or importation of all<\/i> incandescent light bulbs, it has the net effect of increasing market \u00a0prevalence\u00a0 and selection of more expensive, compact fluorescent light bulbs \u00a0(\u201cCFLs\u201d) and light emitting diodes (\u201cLEDs\u201d) which is extremely<\/i> beneficial to major light bulb manufacturers. \u00a0As Timothy Carey of the Washington Examiner details, the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act \u201cwasn\u2019t a case of an industry getting on board with an inevitable regulation in order to tweak it. \u00a0The lighting industry was the main reason the legislation was moving.\u201d[7]<\/a>\u00a0 The light bulb industry is, by its nature, a competitive market with no significant impediments to entry. \u00a0Characteristic of such competitive markets, under the neoclassical economic model, is product pricing at marginal cost \u2013 the cost of producing one additional unit of output- which results in low profit margins.[8]<\/a>\u00a0 GE, Phillips and Sylvania, which dominate the U.S. incandescent light bulb market, want to \u201cconvert their dominance into price hikes,\u201d but because market entry is not significantly encumbered by manufacturing or regulatory costs, consumers will gladly purchase new alternative brands that offer bulbs at, or close to, marginal cost.[9]<\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0Market giants, with significant capital available for research and development programs, sought to extinguish the threat of competition (which keeps profit margins low) by expending significant money to improve the incandescent light bulb, primarily through advancing halogen, LED and fluorescent technologies.[10]<\/a>\u00a0 These \u201cenergy efficient bulbs\u201d sell at a much higher price point compared to incandescent light bulbs, and because of this, consumer choice has remained somewhat stagnant and heavily biased toward incandescents. \u00a0Light bulb manufacturers, aware that consumers won\u2019t willingly skirt cost benefit considerations in light bulb selection, have thus collaborated with groups like the NRDC in lobbying for the phase out of incandescents; their agenda being the \u201cpush\u201d of profitable products rather than environmental conservancy.[11]<\/a>\u00a0 Undoubtedly, there are great advantages to newer bulb technologies, as well as associated costs.[12]<\/a>\u00a0 However, it\u2019s extremely hard to justify the handcuffing of consumer freedom of choice when it is being instituted by government elites and unelected bureaucrats.[13]<\/a><\/p>\n \u00a0All in all, it is extremely important to ask, where<\/span><\/i> (or at what phase) should regulatory efforts be focused (and why)? \u00a0The upstream power plants, downstream consumers, or both? \u00a0Perhaps the fact that light bulb manufacturers are sustaining windfall profits from federal regulation is an inevitable consequence; in any regulatory effort there will always be a party that benefits, perhaps grossly, from regulation.\u00a0 It will be interesting to see what happens to the spending bill\u2019s ban in the coming months, and whether or not downstream regulation will accomplish its goals.<\/p>\n [1]<\/a> Bill Chappell, Obama Signs Trillion-Dollar Spending Bill<\/i>, NPR, (January 17, 2014), http:\/\/www.npr.org\/blogs\/thetwo-way\/2014\/01\/17\/263511534\/obama-signs-trillion-dollar-federal-spending-bill.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n [2]<\/a> Jeremy Kaplan, Last light: Final Phaseout of Incandescent Bulbs Coming Jan. 1<\/i>, FOX NEWS, (December 13, 2013), http:\/\/www.foxnews.com\/tech\/2013\/12\/13\/final-phase-out-incandescent-light-bulbs-jan-1\/.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n [3]<\/a> Patrick J. Kiger, U.S. Phase-out of Incandescent Light Bulbs Continues in 2014 with 40-, 60-Watt Varieties<\/i>, NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC, (December 31, 2013), http:\/\/energyblog.nationalgeographic.com\/2013\/12\/31\/u-s-phase-out-of-incandescent-light-bulbs-continues-in-2014-with-40-60-watt-varieties\/.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n [4]<\/a> NRDC Fact Sheet, Shedding New Light on the U.S. Energy Efficiency Standards for Everyday Light Bulbs<\/i>, NRDC, (January 2013), http:\/\/www.nrdc.org\/energy\/energyefficientlightbulbs\/files\/shedding-new-light-FS.pdf.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n [5]<\/a> Wendy Koch, Congress to Bar Enforcement of Light-bulb Phaseout<\/i>, USA TODAY, (January 14, 2014), http:\/\/www.usatoday.com\/story\/news\/nation\/2014\/01\/14\/coal-projects-light-bulb-rules\/4476103\/.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n [6]<\/a> Timothy P. Carney, Industry, not Environmentalists, Killed Traditional Light Bulbs<\/i>, WASHINGTON EXAMI [7]<\/a> Id. <\/i><\/p>\n<\/div>\n [8]<\/a> See id.<\/i><\/p>\n<\/div>\n [9]<\/a> See id. <\/i><\/p>\n<\/div>\n [10]<\/a> See id. <\/i><\/p>\n<\/div>\n [11]<\/a> For a comical portrayal of the \u201cstory behind the ban\u201d (in both the U.S. and Canada) see this crude cartoon: http:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=ta2ozf_uJJ8 (a feature from infra note 15).<\/p>\n<\/div>\n [12]<\/a> It\u2019s contended that new light bulb technologies are not <\/i>all that \u201cefficient\u201d when used by the average consumer. I recommend looking at Paul Wheaton\u2019s website for a critique of the science behind the phase-out:\u00a0 http:\/\/www.richsoil.com\/CFL-fluorescent-light-bulbs.jsp<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\nNER, (January 1, 2014), http:\/\/washingtonexaminer.com\/article\/2541430.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n