Bulb ban opposed by Republicans said to save $12.5 billion

Posted: July 09, 2011

Pulling the plug on a phaseout of traditional incandescent lightbulbs, as a U.S. House bill requires, would jeopardize $12.5 billion in consumer savings by 2020, according to a study by efficiency-advocacy groups.

The average household's energy costs would be cut by 7 percent, or $85 a year, when the standards are fully in place, according to the analysis released Friday in Washington.

The bill in the Republican-led House, which may be voted on next week, would block provisions in a 2007 energy law that effectively ban the 100-watt incandescent bulb next year and other versions subsequently. U.S. Rep. Joe Barton of Texas is among Republicans who say the standards are government overreach akin to President Obama's health-care overhaul.

Supporters said the energy law, signed by Republican President George W. Bush, will reduce air pollution by eliminating the need for 33 power plants while saving homes and businesses money. "Clearly, consumers, the economy and the environment will suffer if these standards are repealed," Jim Presswood, federal energy policy director for the Natural Resources Defense Council, said in a statement.

The American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy and the Appliance Standards Awareness Project, cofounded by the council and NRDC, researched and wrote the report.

Critics of the bulb ban say replacements don't illuminate as well as traditional incandescent bulbs and don't last as long as advertised, which undercuts savings claims.

Rep. Michael Burgess (R., Texas), a supporter of blocking the bulb ban, has said he's worried that using more of the new compact-fluorescent bulbs, which contain mercury, may harm the environment.

"Traditional incandescent bulbs are cheap and reliable," Barton said in a statement when he introduced his bill in January. Alternatives "are more expensive and health hazards, so why force them on the American people?"

|
|
|
|
|