Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Government Power United States Technology

Trump Administration Is Rolling Back Rules Requiring More Energy-Efficient Bulbs (nytimes.com) 391

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The New York Times: The Trump administration announced new rules on Wednesday to roll back requirements for energy-saving light bulbs, a move that could contribute to the greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate change. The Energy Department's filing in the Federal Register will prevent new efficiency standards from going into effect on Jan. 1 under a law passed in 2007. The changes are likely to be challenged in court. "We will explore all options, including litigation, to stop this completely misguided and unlawful action," said Noah Horowitz, director of the Center for Energy Efficiency Standards at the Natural Resources Defense Council, last week in anticipation of the move. "One part of the new standards would have required the adding of four kinds of incandescent and halogen light bulbs to the energy-efficient group: three-way, the candle-shaped bulbs used in chandeliers; the globe-shaped bulbs found in bathroom lighting; reflector bulbs used in recessed fixtures; and track lighting," the report adds. "A rule that will be published Thursday in the Federal Register will eliminate the requirement for those four categories of bulbs."

"The Department of Energy was also supposed to begin a broader upgrade concerning energy efficiency in pear-shaped bulbs, scheduled to go into effect Jan. 1, 2020. The department is proposing a new rule that would eliminate that requirement, subject to a 60-day comment period."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Trump Administration Is Rolling Back Rules Requiring More Energy-Efficient Bulbs

Comments Filter:
  • Who cares? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Patent Lover ( 779809 ) on Wednesday September 04, 2019 @04:01PM (#59158752)
    That ship has sailed. The Trump administration's fascination with going back to the good old days is just sad.
    • by AioKits ( 1235070 ) on Wednesday September 04, 2019 @04:02PM (#59158766)

      On the plus side, I hear buggy whip manufacturing is coming back to the US?

    • Re:Who cares? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Freischutz ( 4776131 ) on Wednesday September 04, 2019 @04:03PM (#59158776)

      That ship has sailed. The Trump administration's fascination with going back to the good old days is just sad.

      Weren't these people elected on the basis of being business geniuses led by a president who is a business wunderkind? You'd think that a business wunderkind who runs a bunch of Hotels would know what more energy efficient lightbulbs and energy efficiency can do to lower your energy bill and thus make your hotels more competitive.

      • No. (Score:5, Funny)

        by mschaffer ( 97223 ) on Wednesday September 04, 2019 @04:20PM (#59158884)

        Weren't these people elected on the basis of being business geniuses led by a president who is a business wunderkind? You'd think that a business wunderkind who runs a bunch of Hotels would know what more energy efficient lightbulbs and energy efficiency can do to lower your energy bill and thus make your hotels more competitive.

        No.

      • Re:Who cares? (Score:5, Informative)

        by tlhIngan ( 30335 ) <slashdot&worf,net> on Wednesday September 04, 2019 @04:42PM (#59159042)

        Weren't these people elected on the basis of being business geniuses led by a president who is a business wunderkind? You'd think that a business wunderkind who runs a bunch of Hotels would know what more energy efficient lightbulbs and energy efficiency can do to lower your energy bill and thus make your hotels more competitive.

        The problem is, Trump isn't a business wunderkind. He just plays one on TV. Looks can be deceiving, though. After all Trump's business works on basically screwing people over.

        You know how the joke goes now, that a startup is how to take investor money and funnel it into the CEO's bank account? Trump is the same thing - basically all his business knowledge (real estate) is in doing that - how to buy a thing, take all the money from it, and leave before it falls apart, leaving basically everyone else on the hook for paying for it and killing many companies as a result.

        It's the sort of thing that almost rises to fraud, but falls just under, so he gets the protection of the corporate veil.

        Why do you think he doesn't want people to see his tax returns? Because he's rich? We all know that. Problem is, he's so piss-poor at money management his tax forms would reveal it.

        Might want to ask him about his climate change policies on his properties - like why he's applying for permits to "protect" them from rising seawater levels and such.

        So he's no business wunderkind. He is, however, business savvy and knows how to enrich himself by stealing it off of the proles.

        • by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Wednesday September 04, 2019 @05:22PM (#59159236)
          rest her soul. She'd watch "Brother Sun and Sister Moon" and she was a peasant for 6 weeks. Then she'd watch an old John Wayne movie and suddenly she was a farmer. Then she'd watch Fiddler on the Roof and she was an old Jewish grandma.

          She also hated Danny Devito because he usually played creeps. He's actually an incredibly nice guy in real life and she knew this, but she couldn't separate the man from the roles he played.

          Looking back it was weird how heavily influenced by TV and movies she was. There were times I don't think she could separate fact from fiction. But she wasn't senile. She held a job down fine, knew where her keys were, etc, etc. It was smoking that got her, not senility or Alzheimer's.

          I think there's a lot of folks like her. They can't understand that Trump isn't a sharp businessman because that's how he is on TV. They don't know fact from fiction. Trump used that to his advantage.
        • The whole tax return thing is kind of stupid. Trump said the Mueller investigation was a witch hunt, which was comical because the circumstances definitely merited an investigation. But after it didn't yield the result that Democrats were practically demanding and even counting on, guess what they did? They went ahead and validated that idiot's claims about it being a witch hunt by going after his tax returns in an attempt to find anything they could (honestly if he had done something wrong, I think the IRS

      • Re: Who cares? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by c6gunner ( 950153 ) on Wednesday September 04, 2019 @06:05PM (#59159464) Homepage

        You'd think that a business wunderkind who runs a bunch of Hotels would know what more energy efficient lightbulbs and energy efficiency can do to lower your energy bill and thus make your hotels more competitive.

        Then why do you need a law to enforce it?

        If you're right (which I think you are) then this is win/win; everyone who can do so will switch to the new bulbs anyway since they save money, and you avoid implementing a useless law. Seems like everyone should be happy.

        • Re: Who cares? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Joce640k ( 829181 ) on Wednesday September 04, 2019 @09:48PM (#59160120) Homepage

          If you're right (which I think you are) then this is win/win; everyone who can do so will switch to the new bulbs anyway since they save money

          No, because energy-efficient bulbs cost more in the shops and people are poor at making that "better in the long run" call.

          and you avoid implementing a useless law.

          It's not a difficult one to implement, large retail outlets are easy to police.

          • I don't know where you are shopping the but house brand LED bulbs at Home Depot are cheaper than incandescent now.
          • No, because energy-efficient bulbs cost more in the shops and people are poor at making that "better in the long run" call.

            I think you have a rather dim view of your fellow man. I was recently in an African country which has a lot of issues with their power grid; every single bulb I saw was an LED. I can tell you with absolute certainty that there were no regulations in place mandating LEDs; people used them because they were poor and LEDs allowed them to light their homes at significantly lower prices.

            It's not a difficult one to implement, large retail outlets are easy to police.

            It's not a question of difficulty. The government should not be in the business of creating useless laws and regulations, o

        • What you suggest is true now. However, it would take some research to determine if that would have been true before this regulation was put in place.

          Putting a regulation like this in place increases the demand for the replacement product, which in turn increases the production of the replacement and results in all the usual economies of scale and production.

          I remember when led light bulbs were in the USD $30-40 dollar range per bulb, now they are less than one USD per bulb for a variety of reasons, but in n

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        Weren't these people elected on the basis of being business geniuses led by a president who is a business wunderkind?

        No. They were elected based on race-baiting, exploiting white-grievance and fake news generated by Russia-funded troll farms.

        But thanks for asking.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Bert64 ( 520050 )

        In which case why do you need legislation? If the new bulbs are cheaper, then people will buy them anyway without needing to have their choice taken away.

        Many countries phased out incandescents years ago, but the early replacements were terrible - CFLs cause headaches for some people, and early ones were slow to start up, didn't support dimmer switches etc. If you offer cheaper alternatives people will switch over to them as they become reasonable replacements, if you mandate then you're just punishing anyo

    • The good old days have nothing to do with it, its pre Obama days that Trump cares about.
    • Re:Who cares? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by barc0001 ( 173002 ) on Wednesday September 04, 2019 @04:11PM (#59158830)

      The market has moved on. Again.

      For anyone who wondered how someone could take Trump's enormous gifted start in life and turn it into multiple bankruptcies (including a CASINO!!!) and 8-9 figure debt, this is how. A truly stunning masterclass in ignorance.

    • Yep, why complain? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by SuperKendall ( 25149 ) on Wednesday September 04, 2019 @04:14PM (#59158852)

      Clearly LED bulbs are a lot better at this point for many uses - but I see nothing wrong with anyone being able to manufacture some classic bulbs as well for those that prefer the look. There are some fixtures where classic bulbs just look nicer.

      • by rsborg ( 111459 )

        Clearly LED bulbs are a lot better at this point for many uses - but I see nothing wrong with anyone being able to manufacture some classic bulbs as well for those that prefer the look. There are some fixtures where classic bulbs just look nicer.

        Filament LEDs are amazing - they have a much better color spectrum and warmth than even incandescents in some cases. Not to mention they have a great retro look. No, I don't see any going back unless you are a "rolling coal" (gratuitous waste/pollution) kind of guy.

      • It also takes a lot of LED bulbs to prevent the pumphouse from freezing in the winter. One incandescent will generally do it, simply by leaving the light on in the winter months. Not all heat is waste heat all the time.
      • Clearly LED bulbs are a lot better at this point for many uses - but I see nothing wrong with anyone being able to manufacture some classic bulbs as well for those that prefer the look. There are some fixtures where classic bulbs just look nicer.

        I also prefer LED bulbs. I've replaced all the bulbs in my house with them. Same thing with my camper. However, I believe that people should be able to make a choice as to what they prefer--or are able to afford. Believe it or not, $10 is a lot for four light bulbs for some people. Hopefully though this will make LED light bulb manufacturers to lower prices since they will now have competition. If not, I probably have a good 10 years left on all of mine, and they should be cheaper by that point anyway.

    • There doesn't need to be any regulation since LED bulbs are now dirt cheap as well as superior to incandescent and CFL bulbs.
    • Re:Who cares? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by nonBORG ( 5254161 ) on Wednesday September 04, 2019 @04:39PM (#59159016)
      Actually this is part of cutting out all the crap red tape. I remember all the whining on /. when this rule got introduced.

      It is good to be free if LEDs are better then get those, actually energy efficient technology will win due to economics rather than legislation. Perhaps we should ask why we even have a government, to wrap us in cotton wool and legislate every part of our life or to give us the freedom to be able to be healthy and happy.
  • by Kohath ( 38547 ) on Wednesday September 04, 2019 @04:04PM (#59158778)

    The dumb lighting standards pushed people to buy those horrible compact fluorescent bulbs instead of waiting a few more years for the excellent LED bulbs to become economical.

    • by Mal-2 ( 675116 )

      There are terrible CFLs, and a lot of them were given away to induce people to use them. This soured the reputation of all CFLs, but many of them really aren't bad at all. Nowadays you can either get really good ones or really bad ones and not much in between.

    • by barc0001 ( 173002 ) on Wednesday September 04, 2019 @04:14PM (#59158850)

      Yes, but the excellent LED lighting wouldn't have ever been a thing without a push for more efficient lighting standards. To this day people aren't buying them because they save you $3 a year on your electric bill, they're buying them because that's mainly what's out for sale on the shelves.

    • I got a set of General Electric CLFs from the electric company that are still working ten years later. Cheap CLFs don't last and expensive CLFs last forever.
    • by geekoid ( 135745 )

      Well no they wheren't horrible.
      And this law also accelerated LED development.
      But you keep going on about the 99 cents CFL you bought meaning all CFLs are bad.

    • by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Wednesday September 04, 2019 @05:35PM (#59159326)
      you did have to spend about $5 bucks a bulb on them. I'm super sensitive to flicker. Put me in front of a 60hz CRT and I'll get headaches. But I have no issues with a good CFL.

      The cheapo 99 cent CFLs though, yeah, those suck. Especially 10-15 years ago when they were being pushed.

      I still prefer LEDs for the cost savings. And I understand why, if you're poor, a $5 light bulb ain't happening. I think better subsidies and better quality control on subsidized lightbulbs would have been the solution. Those cheap CFLs gave everything that isn't incandescent a bad rap.
  • by rsborg ( 111459 ) on Wednesday September 04, 2019 @04:07PM (#59158804) Homepage

    I can see how some folks like incandescents over say, CF or older LED bulbs, but the newer filament LEDs [1] are amazing - they almost look better than incandescents. At this point, they're cheap enough, give you more light, for the power, and last longer than incandescents, so it's unclear if there's any interest left in going back to incandescents. Also LEDs run much less hot so aren't oppressive in the summer.

    [1] https://www.superbrightleds.co... [superbrightleds.com]

  • by WillAffleckUW ( 858324 ) on Wednesday September 04, 2019 @04:08PM (#59158808) Homepage Journal

    We are the majority of the US economy.

    We will fight.

    We will win.

    And we will drag you into the new century, no matter what you say.

    You'll love the new more efficient lighting, the new more efficient electric cars and trucks, that mean you spend less on maintenance and send less money to the government.

    • by Z80a ( 971949 )

      No you won't.
      You will just keep complaining on twitter about and hating yourself due the racist propaganda that was shoved down your throat and you refuse to let it go, meanwhile the republicans will keep stealing more and more of your talking points and doing horrible things with em.

  • by Powercntrl ( 458442 ) on Wednesday September 04, 2019 @04:11PM (#59158824) Homepage

    My disdain for the current administration is no secret, but this is the right call.

    The free market has already solved this problem itself - there are LED bulbs for sale at my local Dollar Tree for, you guessed it, $1. If someone sucks so badly at math that they can't understand the watt guzzling, heat spewing incandescent bulbs are going to cost them more in the long run, their higher power bill is just a tax on stupidity.

    I'll likely never be able to afford an EV, photovoltaics, or any of the other expensive green tech the left keeps trying to push (without much regard for how us folks of limited means are supposed to pay for it), but I've long since abandoned incandescent bulbs and don't miss them. Now if the free market can just come up with a zero emissions vehicle that won't need a super expensive battery replacement in 10 years...

    • The free market is not a panacea for all that ails society. It can't deal with problems that have externalities (such as pollution). Government regulations are useful.
      • Agreed, but the right kind of government regulations would be to stop propping up coal and natural gas and tax them correctly for said externalities. We need a better pricing structure for power. The baseline bill for power should be fairly low (for po people) but once you go above a certain use it should become increasingly expensive per additional kwh. Want to buy incandescent bulbs? Fine, you'll pay for it..

        But both sides prevent this sort of thing for different reasons.

        • by DogDude ( 805747 )
          You're right, but I'll take any improvements that we can get. The lightbulb one definitely helped drop power usage across the country. That was better than nothing.
          • by cirby ( 2599 )

            "Definitely helped drop power usage?"

            Well, possibly. Except that, in most places, it didn't.

            What happened was that a lot of people started leaving their lights on all of the time, and installed more lighting, as well as using more electricity for other things. We had a general lowered per capita electricity consumption when LED bulbs took over - but that was during the weak economy from 2008 to 2016. Consumption is rising again.

    • Dollar store price check: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

    • Even in the short term, it's a bother to deal with incandescents. My desk lamp used to get too hot to touch, and now it's cool to the touch. And the incandescents kept needing to be replaced.
    • by geekoid ( 135745 )

      No, its the wrong call and it sends the wrong message.

      This law is why there are LED bulbs at the dollar stare.

    • there are LED bulbs for sale at my local Dollar Tree for, you guessed it, $1.

      Good for people to stock up on regularly so they don't run out.

    • I seem to remember that the free market needed a hefty shove to make it move quickly. Back when this board was full of complaints about incandescents being banned.
    • by Ksevio ( 865461 )
      The price of EVs are coming down so depending your age you'll probably own one in the future.

      If you have the space for an EV installation, you might shop around, see if you can get a loan to install some panels. Having free electricity is great no matter your political leanings and it's fairly easy to get a loan since it has a predictable payback
  • The Trump administration is finally accidentally doing something sensible. Conserving your way to a clean environment is as absurd as hunting your way to an unmolested garden patch.

    The law was basically a "We need to do something; this is something, so we must need to do this" sort of law. Companies and organizations that use the overwhelming majority of power produced are already going to do whatever they can to save power, even without laws that limit incandescent bulbs. (When is the last time you s

    • I couldn't care less what my power bill is. I don't even know how much it is. The government regulations were absolutely the right thing to do.
  • I don't get it. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by penandpaper ( 2463226 ) on Wednesday September 04, 2019 @04:30PM (#59158956) Journal

    DOE does not make a determination in this rule whether standards for GSLs, including GSILs, should be amended.Rather, this rule establishes the scope of lamps to be considered in that determination. DOE will make that determination in a separate rulemaking.

    Rule change for how lamps are classified and not bulb standards. Ok.

    DOE tentatively determined that since these lamps are subject to standards in accordance with a specific regulatory process under 42 U.S.C. 6295(l)(4), there is no need to undertake an additional process for determining whether to establish energy conservation standards for these lamp types as GSLs under 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(i). Doing so would potentially subject these
    21lamps types to two separate standards and create confusion among regulated entities as to which one applies.

    Sounds like much ado about nothing. These lamps classify under 2 laws and the DOE is amending their classification in the hopes to clear up confusion. Doesn't seem bad.

    DOE pointed out that since IRLs are twice excluded from the definition of GSL in 42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(BB)(ii)(II), it is clear that Congress did not want the Secretary to include IRLs within the definition of GSL. 84 FR 3124 ...
    DOE does not have the authority to regulate IRLs as GSLs, because the statute plainly states, in 42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(BB)(ii)(I), that the term “general service lamp” does not include the list of lamps that were excluded from the term general service incandescent lamp (which includes reflector lamps).

    So, DOE can't regulate Incandescent Reflector Lamps as general service lamps because Congress said they are not GSLs.

    What is the controversy here and why should I care about a rule that didn't go into effect?

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • by Ksevio ( 865461 )
      Make sure to also avoid screens (TV/phone/monitor) during night hours as those have similar affects. Basically go to sleep at sunset. Reading can also cause eye damage so you won't want to be doing that.

      It's amazing how much conservatives will sacrifice to "stick it to the libs". You'd think paying less for lighting would be popular, but instead of that they'll complain we can only solve one environmental problem at a time.
  • I doubt that Trump even has an opinion on the issue but it's exactly the sort of thing that will make his opponents overreact, and he will gain more from the overreaction than he will lose by embracing an objectively bad policy decision.

    Too many people still have not figured this out and will play right into his hands.

  • by Lije Baley ( 88936 ) on Wednesday September 04, 2019 @04:41PM (#59159030)

    I think they should bundle some kind of quality/lifetime standards with the efficiency requirements. My bathroom fixture has those globe lights and I switched to CFLs years ago, but most of they have gone to the trash prematurely, including one that shot a flame out the side.
    Considering the length of time a properly used bathroom fixture is actually turned on, is the amount of greenhouse gases produced worse that the waste electronics and such in the LEDs and CFLs, especially in geographic areas like mine where fossil-fuel electric generation is already low and being phased out?

  • by p51d007 ( 656414 ) on Wednesday September 04, 2019 @05:37PM (#59159336)
    Hey, I was against the getting rid of the old style bulbs, but, I've switched everything out to LED's and can't remember the last time I had to change a light bulb. They never go out. Incandescent bulbs always failed when you turned them on and needed them the most and, typically didn't have a spare.
  • by Nocturrne ( 912399 ) on Wednesday September 04, 2019 @09:13PM (#59159996)

    This is all the result of big lighting companies lobbying to avoid the escalation of standards to the next level, making bulbs more expensive. I am in the LED lighting business as well and really don't care either way. As many have said, the market has already decided LED lighting is better. LED bulb prices have dropped so much it really doesn't make sense for anyone to buy an incandescent bulb unless they really have a special need, like tiny oven bulbs or high CRI color-accuracy.

There is no opinion so absurd that some philosopher will not express it. -- Marcus Tullius Cicero, "Ad familiares"

Working...