Senate Considers Repeal of Incandescent Bulb Ban

0
The proposed BULB Act takes aim at upcoming federal legislation that will phase out incandescent light bulbs starting next year. (Stock Photo)

A bill that would repeal an upcoming ban on incandescent light bulbs received lukewarm reception in Congress Thursday.

The Better Use of Light Bulb (BULB) Act, introduced by Sen. Mike Enzi (R-WY) and Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) last month, would stop the implementation of a ban on incandescent bulbs slated to go into effect in 2012. Energy efficiency experts from government and business told the Senate Committee on Energy and National Resources that the BULB Act would move the country backwards.

“The BULB Act… would cost consumers and manufacturers money and result in higher energy use and higher bills,” said Kathleen Hogan, the Department of Energy’s Deputy Assistant Secretary for energy efficiency.

The incandescent light bulb ban was a component of 2007’s bipartisan Energy Independence and Security Act. Committee chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) said the BULB Act counteracted what had been a decade’s worth of bipartisan support for measures to enhance energy efficiency, particularly in household appliances.

“The proposal is of concern to me because it goes against this tradition that I spoke about of broad, bipartisan support for consensus appliance standards,” he said.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski, the committee’s ranking member, cited mercury content, lower light quality and a buzzing noise as drawbacks of compact fluorescent lights and other energy-efficient light sources. Murkowski said it was not the government’s place to tell consumers which type of bulb they must use.

[search type="recycling" what="CFL" whatlabel="CFL"]

“I think it is fair to say that light bulbs have really become the hot topic around Capitol Hill now,” she said. “They have become … a very visible, very tangible symbol of the overreach of big government. I can certainly sympathize with that sentiment.”

Hogan cautioned that repealing the ban would cause confusion in the industry, which she said is already adapting to the new standards.

“There’s great value in one national standard creating one national market for these bulbs,” she said.

The committee also heard testimony the Implementation of National Consensus Appliance Agreement Act, a bipartisan bill cosponsored by Bingaman and Murkowski. The bill would enact tougher energy efficiency standards for 20 household appliances, including air conditioners, outdoor lighting, furnaces and water dispensers.

“This legislation would continue to protect and create jobs by reducing regulations on business through the preemption of multiple state standards with simpler, more stable and more predictable Federal regulations,” Bingaman said. “This legislation would also reduce the power and water bills of American households and businesses, free those savings for other uses, make our economy stronger and more competitive, and would help protect the environment by avoiding the environmental impacts of reduced energy production.”

You may also like…
The Phase-Out of Incandescent Light Bulbs: What You Need To Know
Yes, You Pay More For CFLs, But Are They Worth It?
No More Easy-Bake Oven After Incandescent Ban

  • Kate

    Fluorescent lighting sets off migraines and eye pain for me. Neurologists agree this happens. I don’t feel well in stores with such lighting, but at least I hope I would have the ability to CHOOSE to have safer lighting at home. But nooooo –the government wants to make that difficult. So, we have to build wheel chair ramps everywhere for those with disabilities, but documented health effects from fluorescents are completely overlooked? I’m not asking that every public building be required to cater to my “lighting sensitivity” but surely, in my own home at least I should be allowed to buy incandescent. I’m not a Republican, but think I’ll become one because of this issue. Go Ron Paul! (he’s trying to help with this issue.)
    Kate

  • lighthouse

    it’s good to seee the recycling ethos here, including for CFLs
    All light bulbs have their advantages, I don’t think any should be disallowed
    (simple regular bulbs aren’t the same as halogens either, apart from cost)

    Hardly suprising though about the push to use CFLs, as in that Hearing,
    even if they can save energy:

    How manufacturers and vested interests have pushed for this ban,
    and lobbied for CFL favors – with happy political cooperation:
    http://ceolas.net/#li1ax with documentation and copies of official
    communications

  • Bill Roush

    The whole idea of energy savings should be of interest to all. However, an ill conceived and not fully researched Federal Government edict law is not what we need. Especially for those of us that live in the parts of this country that have long periods of the year when the outside temperatures are below the operating capabilities of the prime alternative method of lighting, the CFL. Last fall I purchased new outdoor fixtures for my garage that came with the touted 10,000 hour LED light bulbs. While they worked great at first, two of the three bulbs in each fixture burned out within three to four monts of service. Keeping in mind that these lights only came on after decting movement between the hours of dusk to dawn, I am not convinced that the LED alternative is a cost effective solution either. I am now at the decision point of what lighting options are viable for my new detached, non-heated, two car garage. If the incandescent light bulbs, 40 watt and above, are being banned, currently available heavy use designed fluorescent lights are not usefull below zero to 10 degrees, LEDs obviously not cost efficient, what type of lighting fixtures do I pay the electrician to install when they wire this new non-heated structure in Grand Island, NE? Why enact a ban on one of the two types of light bulbs that will work properly below 10 degrees before a suitable cost effective / reducing substitute was made available?

  • Patric

    I am all for saving energy and for encouraging others to do so. Because CFLs are supposed to consume less energy, I use them in various places in my home and my small business where a somewhat poorer quality of light (“bluish light”) is acceptable. I have found that CFLs work best when I keep them constantly turned on, however. They take time to get up to full brightness, and they burn out quickly when turned on and off.)

    However, I have a few very strong reasons for insisting that I and others maintain full and ready access to incandescent bulbs. For me, the main reason is quality of life. Incandescent bulbs emit a warmer, more “human” light, and create a cheerier and more emotionally settling atmosphere in a room or home. This has positive health and human benefits compared to the colder and more emotionally sterile atmosphere created by fluorescent-based bulbs. This is why lighting designers around the world overwhelmingly oppose the de facto ban on incandescents. Are there good scientific studies to support this very obvious, common-sense observation? Well, yes, in a way. Several studies show that fluorescents create demonstrable, objectively-measurable adverse health effects in certain subsets of patients with emotional problems. One can readily conjecture that less-demonstrable, less-objective, but no less real effects are present in more robust patients as well—CFLs may be putting us on edge, making us feel subtly less welcome in a room lit by their cold light. Just what we need in an era of increasing stress, right?

    Another reason I want full access to bright incandescent bulbs is for reading. One of the oldest, simplest, and most significant activities known to civilized man is reading by the warm light of a fire or (more recently) warm incandescent bulb. Both I and the people with whom I work professionally—older patients with vision problems due to any number of eye conditions—prefer to read by the light of bright incandescents. And in this case the science is very clearly on our side, as clinical studies of patients with macular degeneration found that such patients overwhelmingly preferred incandescents to fluorescent lights. The preference is presumably based on how our photoreceptors respond to light emitted in the red (incandescent) vs. blue (CFL) spectra. Moreover, we do not just read with our eyes, but with our brains. There is something more than just energy output and watts that goes into the equation of humans reading books.

    Finally, I think that the de facto light bulb ban is not a political issue but an issue of common sense. The original 2007 legislation was signed into law by George Bush, yet the opposition to the legislation is being spearheaded by Republicans. New Zealand has already repealed their de facto ban on incandescents. The majority of people in Europe oppose the de facto ban on incandescents (despite the fact that their governments passed de facto bans), so much that mass panic buying and hoarding of incandescents occurred in Europe.

    There are many ways we can reduce energy. It is not only far less energy-consuming, but presumably more stimulating to the cerebral cortex and better for society, for an individual to choose to read by a 100-watt incandescent bulb, rather than to choose to play video games on a 42-inch plasma TV. Yet we are in effect banning the former activity, and allowing the latter. Surely we can find a better way to encourage others toward a more sensible approach to energy conservation!

  • NorthStarr

    As someone in decorating industry, I have to say that I H-A-T-E fluorescent bulbs. Always have, always will. They are creepy and depressing. They ruin the ambience of a room and greatly distort wall colors, giving them a greenish, muddy cast.

    We are pretty ‘green’ at home and are glad to take steps to use less energy. But this bulb ban is just nonsense. Making more fuel-efficient cars and increasing insulation in buildings will save a hundred times more energy than any bulb change could. And furthermore, the real issue is we need to get off oil, no matter what it’s powering.

    I’m stocking up on real lightbulbs, in hopes they will last until a better alternative is found to CFL and the (so-far) substandard light produced by most LEDs. I encourage others to do the same. I called GE and Phillips, and they said the bulbs are thought to last indefinitely, if stored in a cool, dry place.

  • Laquasha

    Agree with NorthStarr and CFLs are just not healthy for people and pets.

  • Bill

    I certainly agree that government should not mandate what kind of light bulbs we are able to buy, there is no question, however since starting to sell the CFL’s at work, I have found that most people do not know there are more than just one type of CFL for each wattage equivalent. At least from my experience it’s not that CFL’s give off horrible/blueish/gray light, it is that people selling them do not take the time to educate their customers as to the differences in the bulbs. We have a light box setup at my store with three 60 watt equivalent CFLs but three different “color temperatures” and it is amazing what a difference there is in the quality of light!! I think if any of you were to experiment with the different colors of the bulbs, you may find that they aren’t so bad after all.

    And for Kate, when was the last time you tried a CFL?? I also suffer from migraines and seizures and have not had a problem with the newer type bulbs.

  • Carole

    Please don’t take away my incandescent light bulbs. The so called “energy efficient” ones depress me…the light they give off is weird and gives me headaches. Besides that…they aren’t more economical because they break when they are bumped or dropped just as readily as incandescent bulbs but are a health hazard because of the mercury inside. This is crazy. Back off Big Brother and your neurotic eco-nut Sister.

  • Kristen

    CFLs are only beneficial if they are left on for longer periods of time. If you are like me, conscientious about turning off lights when leaving a room and badgering your children to do the same, you will actually lose the energy and financial benefits attributed to CFLs. They aren’t made to be turned on and off. In daily, residential life they are impractical and without true benefits.

    Children are particularly vulnerable to Mercury poison. When they play, accidents happen, lamps topple over and bulbs break. This has happened twice in the past 6 months in the bedroom of my two young boys (and no, I do not allow them to run wild or wreak havoc in our home, and still accidents happen). I don’t want mercury in their carpet where they sit for hours playing with their legos. There are no safe levels of Mercury.

    In a few areas of our home, as in our barn we use CFLs. However, I live in an area with a long, cold winter. The CFLs take too long to heat up to be able to cast any beneficial light when we actually need it. Indoors we have all of our lights on dimmers, even table lamps (plug adapter). With the use of dimmers we are able to minimize kilowatts. Only specialty CFLs work with dimmers. It is not recommended to use any CFLs in enclosed fixtures, i.e. an enclosed ceiling light, as the heat becomes an issue. Nor are they recommended for fixtures in ceiling fans and garage door openers due to vibrations.

    This is short sighted, reactionary legislation. I make no claim to be the “brightest bulb on the tree” and even I can see this.

  • gwen

    I really like the “old-fashioned” light bulbs the best. The other ones–even though they promise a longer life–tend to burn out when bumped or something. I also like the heat of the “regular” light bulbs, which is nice in colder weather.

    I don’t like our government dictating our life about what we can and cannot do in these minor issues. Big brother is too controlling.

    Also, I also believe big brother shouldn’t be dictating to restaurants that they cannot allow smokers in restaurants. Even though I don’t smoke, if smoke bothered me, I would just choose another restaurant. Restaurant owners, in their own private businesses, should be able to make their own calls to what brings in the most business.

    What ever happened to the government “by the people, FOR the people.” We are tending to be soooo socialistic.

  • Louise Linville

    In regard to the “new” flourescent light bulbs. I don’t like them because they are not as bright and they distort reading and colors. But my BIGGEST concern, they give FALSE readings on my pacemaker. I cannot have these bulbs where I am because the pacemaker does not function properly. If it fails, I am really in a mess.

    Check and see how many people cannot use these bulbs before making everyone go to them.

  • Tom

    I think Patric and Northstar have stated the case well. I have used CFLs for the past two years, purchsed somewhere between 35 and 40 bulbs with about half already returned to recycling. That isn’t even close to the projected cost and reliability numbers. Trying to read under a soft or bright white CFL leads to dizziness and/or headaches. CFLs, Halogens and LEDs, although using less energy are not even close to the light quality and performance of the incandescent.

  • http://www.rimmic.us Tony

    Hello,
    I understand the frustration most people are having over this. Basically I think it can be summed up as a leadership problem. A good leader knows that you get in front of the troops and ‘pull’ them, you don’t sit behind and ‘push’ them — even Napoleon knew this. In other words, the government should be the one leading the way by converting all of their lights to high efficiency LED’s before requiring the rest of the country. If everyone tried to convert at once, the supply of high quality bulbs just does not exist. That is why it would be best for the government to lead by first converting all of their buildings and THEN asking us to follow suit. I will admit that finding good quality LED bulbs is a challenge — one that I face in work, which is why I became an LED importer myself. Initially I started with specializing in converting high powered halogen bulbs to LED, but did not figure anyone would be interested in converting the lower powered bulbs. But then I did a big job where I converted every fixture (around 200) and did the math. Here’s the math. Converting 150 fifty watt bulbs to 5 watt LED bulbs for landscape lighting that runs 6 hours/day every day saves (50 -5)*150 bulbs *6hrs/day*365days/year = 14,782,500 watts or 14.7 MEGAWATTS per year on ONE house. Converting the smaller 20W bulbs to 3W led’s saved (20-3)*50lights*6hours/day*365days/year = 1.86 MEGAWATTS/year. So, just by changing some landscape lighting bulbs at one house, I was able to save over 16 MEGA watts/year. This was not an average house, but still even on an average house a lot of savings can be made. But consider what I said about leading — now ONE large highschool converting would save as follows. Assume 1,000 40W flourescent bulbs are replaced with 1,000 20W LED bulbs. Savings: 20W*1000 bulbs*10 hours/day*5days/week*20days/month = 20000000Watts or 20 MEGA watts/month. Actual savings is higher if the building is open for sports on weekends and evenings and if more bulbs – like stadium bulbs are converted. Still, 20M watts/month per large high school or public building like a library – we could shut down a number of power plants across the US if our GOVERNMENT would LEAD instead of TALK. As a final note I will say that I prefer to lead from out front which is why all my landscape lighting is LED as well as some of my regular inside lighting — by the end of this year it will most likely all be LED as I continue to test new products – which I admit not everyone has time for. The biggest problem we really face is we need to elect people who lead from the front – not the back. That’s why I’m voting for Trump if he runs!!

  • Betsy Rogers

    I am very energy-conscious but I agree with others who have complaints/concerns about CFLs. I use CFLs for some things and incandescent bulbs for other things – and this should remain up to my discretion. This is yet another unfortunate example of a law that was passed before all the ramifications were truly considered. It’s great that it was a bipartisan bill, but I get the feeling it was also an “election season” bill that would help everyone’s PR campaigns. I’m all for saving energy, but to force incandescent bulbs off the market is pretty hypocritical compared to some of the things that Are allowed in this country.

    People have the right to fill their houses with guns and ammunition, but I won’t have the right to buy a couple of incandescent bulbs? People have the right to drive a less-than-20-mpg monster SUV all around town, but if a CFL bothers my eyes then too bad for me? I recycle everything that I can find a place that will take it, but I don’t have the right to Not buy something that requires hazardous-waste disposal? And how many people do you think won’t even bother to dispose of CFL’s properly? What then? A ban on CFLs? I predict a ridiculous cycle of bills being passed, modified, repealed, clarified, etc, – all around in circles in congress and other government offices. And how much paper, electricity, and ‘hot air’ will be wasted in the end?

  • Betsy Rogers

    Just a side note: I’m not sure everyone remembers that this bill was passed during the Bush administration, not during the current administration. It was bipartisan legislation co-authored by members from both parties, and was part of the Energy Independence Security act of 2007. It was supported by large majorities in both the House and the Senate, and signed by Bush in December, 2007. (Just FYI, since a lot of people are mistakenly assuming this was an initiative of the current administration.)

    Another side note: The first phase of the legislation is to ban the 100-watt bulb by 2012. I for one see no absolute necessity for the 100-watt incandescent bulb. It’s incredibly inefficient, too bright for most household needs, and many lamps are not rated for that high a wattage anyway (and it’s dangerous when people use them for a lower-rated lamp). I’d be fine with a ban on just the 100W bulb. But other than that, keep your hands off my incandescent bulbs! :)

  • maverick

    CFL’s are made in many different colors and they do not flicker anymore. The issues brought up here against CFL’s are either made by oil/gas company lobbyists, or people that heard things from others or just plain wackos. The amount of mercury in the ccfl’s is inconsequential if they are recycled properly. The amount of energy they save over their lifetime (and I’m still running original ones from 10 years ago) is more than the cost of the recycling and manufacturing costs, unlike other people claim here. If you are overly sensitive, you should use LED lights.

    If you are concerned about hazardous waste disposal, you need to not only stop buying CFL’s, but also all other electronics in California. Might as well pack up a tent and walk the earth like Cain. Hazardous waste disposal is everyone’s responsibility. I think we should drive up the price of electricity from 10 cents a kwh to 50 cents. Take the 40 cents and use it towards building solar panels and wind generators. If the right wing wackos here want to still use their 500 watt hallogen with their air conditioning going full blasts, great, their buying more solar panels and wind. That should stop them in their tracks.

    My dad has a pacemaker and the house is filled with CFL’s and has no problems. From what I”ve seen, there’s CFL’s in every store so that must preclude the one person in the world that cfl’s interferers with a pacemaker.

    For the guy with gov’t for the people by the people. We did make a choice not to have smoking in restaurants, as a majority. Your minority oppinion by a large margin was extinguished with the cigarette smokers. What kind of company that can sell a product that kills more people than all of the world wars put together can stay in business? I think they should ban cigarettes completely. Insurance company should also drop you from coverage if you are a smoker.

    For the guy that says his cfl’s don’t work in cold weather. That’s correct, the cheap 69 cent ones don’t. Lights of America has one that will work well below 0 degrees and available for a few bucks. Don’t you people know how to use google? Or has the incandescent light bulb held you back to a wood stove and candles?

  • Betsy Rogers

    @Maverick, re- “The amount of mercury in the ccfl’s is inconsequential if they are recycled properly. …If you are concerned about hazardous waste disposal, you need to not only stop buying CFL’s, but also all other electronics…”

    Actually, I am Very concerned about people improperly disposing of electronics, batteries, household hazardous waste, etc. The fact is that a lot of people either don’t know or don’t care about what they’re dumping in to the landfills, down their drains, etc. And then they complain that they ‘need’ to buy bottled water because they’re worried about what’s in their tap water.

    The fact is that the lightbulb doesn’t come close to being our biggest source of wasted energy. A recent analysis by Lawrence Livermore National Labs showed that, for 2009 in the U.S., the major source of energy inefficiency (i.e. wasted energy, or what they call “rejected energy” in the flow chart) can be attributed to inefficiencies in the “Transportation” category (cars, trucks, etc) which are largely petroleum based. The Transportation category accounted for about Half of our total rejected energy. The second highest source of ‘rejected energy’ was from inefficiencies in the “Industrial” category, which are powered mainly by electricity, petroleum, and natural gas. Residential energy inefficiencies were a Very small component of the nations rejected energy totals (less than 3%). I’m quite sure residential use of lightbulbs didn’t account for all of that ~3% either.

    It would be more efficient (sorry for the pun) if more effort and time went into regulating the efficiency standards of cars, trucks, etc., instead of regulating efficiency standards of household lighting. And when it comes to hazardous waste, a combustion engine certainly creates more hazardous waste (e.g. oil changes) and gives off more pollution and particulates than my 60W incandescent lightbulb ever will.

    We can’t fix everything overnight, and there’s a lot that needs to be fixed, but there are bigger things that need to be addressed than regulations on household lighting.

  • Betsy Rogers
  • http://BigGuy Jack Feldkamp

    The death of Tom Edison by the political tribe in Washington.How this ever got voted in the first place is stupid. Now it’s time to get it off the books!

  • Don

    I’d say that if CFLs are really the economical long-term then there is no need for the legislation.

    However, my personal history with CFLs is not very good. I’ve found that they don’t last any longer on average than incandescents, and in some cases they have died much earlier.

    Perhaps I saved enough electricity to make the purchase worthwhile, but since I’ll be burning gasoline to drive the old bulb to the nearest recycle center, a few miles away, I wonder if using these things is saving the planet or just hastening the end?

  • Joann Price

    I feel very sad that our government is telling us what kind of lighting we can use in our homes.

    I am all for conserving energy and I choose to do this by TURNING OFF LIGHTS that I do not need. This is a habit that can really help our environment. I can see the difference in incandescent vs the energy efficient, and incandescent gives off a warmer glow . Lighting effects our mood in subtle ways.

    Let people choose their own lighting, for goodness sake. We have to use common sense not government dictation.

  • Benjamin Appleman

    Some great progress has been made on fluorescent lightbulbs. The key problem with both fluorescent light bulbs AND LEDs are the transformers. Both fluorescents and LEDs require transformers to operate and if not made properly they flicker and buzz. Most people can not hear this buzz or see the flicker, they simply do not have the capacity to see or hear that well (they also used to leave their CRTs refresh rate at 60hz because of the same problem (before lcds that is)). Because of this most companies use the cheapest transformers possible so their lights flicker and buzz. This flickering and buzzing hurts my eyes and ears and I am pretty sure contributes to my migraines. It IS possible to find both fluorescent and LED lightbulbs made properly but VERY expensive(esp. LEDs). Commercial grade fluorescent light bulbs seem to be okay for the most part though. There’s also the quality of light problem I’ve rarely seen it in LEDs but it is a problem in CFLs. Once again cost is the problem sure in the long run a cheap fluorescent will save people money but they will also produce low quality light that I don’t think anybody likes. For quite a bit more you can get a decent quality of light but then the actual cost savings over the course of the life of the bulb comes into question. I’ve been through the stores the better quality of light actually requires more energy.

    I think I’ll stick to halogens, thank you very much. I would accept incandescents as an alternative but I’ll just turn the air conditioner up instead.

  • Ray

    Lets see, Jeff Immelt appointed “To Head President’s Council On Jobs And Competitiveness” according to Google. Immelt, CEO of GE, who happen to make CFL`s, incandescent and LED`s. Coincidence?? Ray ,retired, GE

  • AJ

    The ban is actually having the exact opposite of its intended effect on me. I am buying FAR MORE 100-watt incandescents that I ever would have before. I will have enough to last the rest of my life and probably longer (I’m only 33!) Each year I will focus on stockpiling the next wattage bulb to be eliminated. I feel no guilt for doing this – my friendly gov’t is forcing me to as they are not providing an equal quality alternative. I suffer migraines and how do I know my future child won’t also have the same condition? Sorry, but I’m going to be prepared.

  • unknown

    To all the migraine sufferers mentioned above, I’ve heard that with a doctors note you will be able to purchase incandescent bulbs. Also LED is a pretty good alternative.

  • Ron Lentjes

    I’m going to keep my comment simple (about the light and what you can do to save energy). Each tool has its purpose and each tool is best at a particular purpose. Only Fluorescents and Incandescents are for ambient room lighting. Fluroescents way up in the ceiling is compromise for large spaces, otherwise Incandescents. But fluorescents are aggressive light. When you come home from office of day of aggressive light it is good to come home to calm incandescent light and especially when can be dimmed. LED is NOT for ambient lighting at all. It is great in its red, green, blue, yellow as indicator lighting and very good at that. Calm areas and homes and restaurants and motel and hotel rooms need INCANDESCENTS. They are trying to ban a range of lighting that has specific purpose. It is the only calm ambient lighting. Personally I have eliminated all types of fluorescents from my home. Just come to Australia. All hotels and motels have mortuary white CFLs or other fluorescent. Our shopping centers either have huge number of CFLs in shiney contains or very bright halogens. It is truely unpleasant to go to our shopping centers. I now stay away from them. I prefer a coffee with INCANDESCENT lighting because it creates the right kind of mood for me. But hard to find. So I make my own at home with dimmed INCANDESCENTS now. I can’t even sit down at our country train main platform because all the CFLs in the shiney container: If you sit directly under one, too annoying. If you sit between two, the shineyness makes the light of two of them bother you. So I have to stand! And they don’t use covers at all in many many places. No plastic covers on fluorescent. No glass on halogen. Mmm. UV anyone?? Yep, they make more efficient (burn the filament hotter for halogens) which means pushing the envelope towards more UV spectrum! Think about it. More efficient now -> more UV. Also, no covers means more efficient?? anyway that also means more UV. One hotel has CFL both sides of bed just above pillow! I now take my own INCANDESCENTS with me to hotel and motel. What a relief it is to turn off the annoying CFLs and turn on the pleasant INCANDESCENTS. It’s a world apart. To me CFL = aggressive, ugly, annoying, stressfull light. To me INCANDESCENT = calm, relaxing, safe, comfortable, pleasant, inviting light. I strongly suggest STOP THE BAN OF INCANDESCENT. But please do use solar and wind power and be creative. Eg. I measured how long batteries would be drained if I heat water for 1/2 cup of water for my coffee. If I do min water in kettle vs 1/2 cup in microwave I save 9 / 1.8 -> more than 4.5 times battery life! One way, is to get two batteries, charge up one and only use other battery power one day then switch over. You will quickly learn how to save energy. Forget this ban. I am for saving environment. I am also for saving human environment. Good lighting is INCANDESCENT lighting. Even when using solar and wind power. I am pro-choice. If you like ugly unsafe CFL go for it. Just don’t cry later ’cause we all warned yah (and don’t put mercury into the landfill, please). Cheers, Ron Lentjes.

  • Thought Criminal

    Ya gotta read the state of Maine’s CFL’s clean-up instructions…we’re all going to have to buy Chemtron Suits! So much for conservation!

  • sandy

    Everytime I see mention of the Bulb Act and the reasons behind it, I never see mention of the health issues they cause or exacerbate. I have a medical condition that forces me to avoid all fluorescent lighting including CFL’s. They cause migraines & dizziness to the point of almost fainting within minutes of being near them. Because of this I have to avoid most stores. Soon I won’t be able to leave my house because everyone will have them in their homes too. I have contacted the sponsors of this bill (who never mention health concerns) and my state reps & senators. My state reps/senators could care less & just say “they will consider my opinion if this bill ever comes up” if they even bothered to respond. I wish they or one of their family members would have a life altering condition like me & then I don’t think they be so flippant about ignoring the health ramifications of forcing CFL bulbs on us.