Article

2011-12-18 Economy

The traditional incandescent light bulb won a nine-month reprieve late Thursday from new federal rules that would have led to its demise. The deal to avert a government shutdown starting Friday night includes a provision that prevents the Department of Energy from spending any money to implement or enforce the energy efficiency standards for light bulbs that is set to start going into effect for 100-watt bulbs in 2012.

The new standards and regulations remain on the book, even if they now won't be enforced.
Right next to the immigration laws.
"The industry is concerned that any delay in federal enforcement...will undermine those investments and also create regulatory uncertainty," said Kyle Pitsor, vice president of government affairs for the trade group.

He said it could allow some "bad actors" to import less efficient bulbs from overseas "without any fear of enforcement, thereby creating an uncompetitive disadvantage for U.S. manufacturers that made those investments."
Only if the public wants to buy them, Kyle.
But while environmentalists and the manufacturers supported the new rules, many conservatives and some consumers had objected at the lack of choice they would entail. The issue has been a lightning rod issue for the Tea Party.
Whynot just add a carbon tax to the incandescent bulbs? OK, how about a surtax? Maybe a tax credit for CFLs. Why do they have to take away the choice?
David Goldston, director of government affairs for the National Resources Defense Council, a leading environmental group, said there is broad bipartisan support for the higher standards. If there had been an up or down vote on the provision, rather than having it attached to a must-pass piece of legislation, he said it would never have passed.
David knows this, because he is one of the elite who get to choose for the rest of us.

Posted by Bobby 2011-12-18 13:25|| || Front Page|| [11128 views ] Top

#1 This is a non-win. The plants have already closed. The jobs are already exported to China.

And they didn't even repeal the law. All this did was strip enforcement funds through September, 2012.

Posted by Iblis 2011-12-18 13:53|| 2011-12-18 13:53|| Front Page Top

#2 Really pathetic. The Democrats got most of what they wanted, and this is a boiled, dry bone thrown to the Tea Party congressmen.

"Yeah, they got a trillion dollars, and we got a light bulb."

"Did they tell you where to stick it?"

Posted by Anonymoose 2011-12-18 13:59|| 2011-12-18 13:59|| Front Page Top

#3 got a box of 24 100W Sylvanias at Amazon for $12. That's a pretty good price

Posted by Frank G 2011-12-18 14:12|| 2011-12-18 14:12|| Front Page Top

#4 Theoretically the CFL are a environmental hazard due to the trace amounts of mercury contained in them.

The environmentalists never think anything through, they are like a bunch of hormonal teenaged girls that rage against something with out rational thought.

I'm waiting for someone in the California nanny state to wake up and pass a law requiring some kind of huge fee to dispose of a broken or burned out CFL and then we'll have a black market on incandescent bulbs.

Has anyone ever thought of the concept of using more natural light, adding skylights and turning off lights when you are through using it?

CFL's are the liberals answer to a lack of common sense in their constituency.

Typical environmental wacko stuff, their cures are always worse than the problem.

Posted by Bill Clinton 2011-12-18 15:43|| 2011-12-18 15:43|| Front Page Top

13:08 Abu Uluque
13:00 swksvolFF
12:59 Regular joe
12:55 Skidmark
12:53 Skidmark
12:52 Abu Uluque
12:50 Abu Uluque
12:49 Skidmark
12:48 NN2N1
12:46 Skidmark
12:44 Bobby
12:43 Abu Uluque
12:41 Bobby
12:38 Skidmark
12:31 swksvolFF
12:30 Skidmark
12:22 Abu Uluque
12:19 Abu Uluque
12:17 Abu Uluque
12:17 Skidmark
12:15 Abu Uluque
12:11 Skidmark
12:01 Crusader
11:55 Grom the Affective