Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

left-of-center2012

(34,195 posts)
Sun May 12, 2019, 09:50 PM May 2019

States fight Trump rollback of Obama lightbulb rules

Source: The Hill

States are preparing to fight back as the Trump administration moves to erase Obama-era standards for lightbulbs. The Department of Energy (DOE) has proposed new regulations for lightbulbs that would eliminate efficiency standards for half the bulbs on the market.

State leaders say they are fighting what they see as an alarming trend under the Trump administration where agencies with an environmental purview are instead rolling back green regulations.

“It’s unfortunate if the Environmental Protection Agency doesn’t actually want to protect the environment or that the Department of Energy is not interested in energy efficiency,” said Colorado state Rep. Meg Froelich (D), who sponsored the legislation to commit the state to the Obama-era standards for lightbulbs and other devices. “We don’t want to become a dumping ground for energy inefficient appliances.”

The administration proposal is supported by lightbulb manufacturers, but consumer groups estimate continuing to use less efficient bulbs will cost the average household more than $100 a year and create more pollution as utilities produce energy that otherwise would not be needed.

BY REBECCA BEITSCH - 05/12/19 09:42 PM EDT

Read more: https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/443221-states-fight-trump-rollback-of-obama-lightbulb-rules

15 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
States fight Trump rollback of Obama lightbulb rules (Original Post) left-of-center2012 May 2019 OP
Of course lightbulb manufacturers spartan61 May 2019 #1
Thank You for not using the word 'President' in the same sentence as 'tRump' groundloop May 2019 #2
Correction. MattInMN May 2019 #3
Not gold plated. Rustoleum has a gold paint that is really good. The GemDigger May 2019 #5
He probably "huffs" it..... n/t gay texan May 2019 #14
Retribution is trump's middle name. Obama made fun of him at a correspondents' dinner. rusty quoin May 2019 #4
It was wonderful seeing Trump sitting like a blob in the audience, being forced to eat it. n/t Judi Lynn May 2019 #8
Back to the Dark Ages! not fooled May 2019 #6
At this point, let it fleece more money from stupid rubes. Now some have sensitivities to CFL & LEDs TheBlackAdder May 2019 #7
Thanks. pwb May 2019 #9
This was actually begun under the Bush administration bigworld May 2019 #10
It's more complex than that. From the CATO Institute: mahatmakanejeeves May 2019 #11
Dear president Trump jmowreader May 2019 #12
...especially Donnie Two-Scoops! Totally Tunsie May 2019 #13
Kick Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin May 2019 #15

spartan61

(2,091 posts)
1. Of course lightbulb manufacturers
Sun May 12, 2019, 10:05 PM
May 2019

support this bill. They want to sell more lightbulbs. But why the hell is the orange one's administration proposing such a stupid bill? Oh wait, I know. Could it be because it was an Obama era bill? Anything that reeks of Obama, trump wants to eliminate. trump is so jealous of President Obama because he knows he can never reach Obama's standard of leadership. Give it up, trumpy. Take your hairpiece and go home to your golden palace. You suck as president.


(I know proper nouns should be capitalized, but he doesn't deserve a capital t.)

 

MattInMN

(39 posts)
3. Correction.
Sun May 12, 2019, 10:39 PM
May 2019
Take your hairpiece and go home to your [s]golden[/s] gold-plated palace

Fixed it for you. He ain't that rich.

GemDigger

(4,305 posts)
5. Not gold plated. Rustoleum has a gold paint that is really good. The
Sun May 12, 2019, 11:39 PM
May 2019

"poor" bastard could only afford spray paint.

not fooled

(5,801 posts)
6. Back to the Dark Ages!
Sun May 12, 2019, 11:52 PM
May 2019

Science, innovation, and progress--all dirty words to red don and his backers, unless the technology puts money in their hands only.





TheBlackAdder

(28,183 posts)
7. At this point, let it fleece more money from stupid rubes. Now some have sensitivities to CFL & LEDs
Mon May 13, 2019, 02:37 AM
May 2019

.

For the small segment of folks who experience physical issues with CFLs and LEDs, that's one thing.

For the rubes who want to stick it to the libs, I say, go ahead and fuck yourselves. I saved $25/month moving to CFLs and I am slowly migrating to LEDs as they go out. And why use CFLs in a basement or garage? Because it's cheaper than incandescent bulbs and gives well-distributed light. If incandescents were better than CFLs, office buildings would still be using them.

In the example below, if the guy from Project Farm used the same amount of LED bulb lighting as his CFLs, he would have 1/4th the energy consumption. As it stands, he doubled up on the bulbs and now has twice the light at half the cost of the older CFLs.




Here's Jay Leno's Garage:



.

bigworld

(1,807 posts)
10. This was actually begun under the Bush administration
Mon May 13, 2019, 08:42 AM
May 2019

From wikipedia:

In December 2007, the federal government enacted the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA), which set maximum power consumption requirements for all general-service light bulbs producing 310–2600 lumens of light. Light bulbs outside of this range are exempt from the restrictions. Also exempt are several classes of specialty lights including appliance lamps, rough service bulbs, 3-way, colored lamps, stage lighting, plant lights, candelabra lights under 60 watts, outdoor post lights less than 100 watts, nightlights and shatter resistant bulbs. The law was to effectively ban most incandescent light bulbs, starting in January 2012.[91][92] By 2020, a second tier of restrictions would become effective, requiring all general-purpose bulbs to produce at least 45 lumens per watt, similar to a CFL.[93]

mahatmakanejeeves

(57,391 posts)
11. It's more complex than that. From the CATO Institute:
Mon May 13, 2019, 10:26 AM
May 2019

You'll get over it.

MARCH 7, 2019 3:20PM
Lightbulb Efficiency Standards
....

Lightbulb efficiency standards were included in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA), which established efficiency standards for “general service lamps.” These standards applied to various technologies, including traditional incandescent bulbs, CFLs, and LEDs, but excluded many types of specialty bulbs, such as decorative candelabra bulbs. The act also required the Department of Energy (DOE) to initiate procedures to determine whether the lightbulb standards should be increased and required a final rule to be published before 2017. If the DOE was unable to fulfill this requirement, the act created a backstop that would impose a 45 lumen (a measure of light intensity) per watt (lm/W) minimum on lightbulbs starting January 1, 2020. A traditional 100 watt incandescent bulb emits 1600 lumens of light, only 16 lumens per watt, and thus would be banned.
....

The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA). It was a law. It passed both houses of Congress and was signed by the president. Wanna remind me who was president then?

Here's the rule:

Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for General Service Lamps

jmowreader

(50,552 posts)
12. Dear president Trump
Mon May 13, 2019, 12:31 PM
May 2019

The Obama Administration, as one of its first acts, passed a law forbidding any American from using arsenic as a dessert topping. Certainly every American should have the freedom to decide what to sprinkle on his ice cream!

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»States fight Trump rollba...