California is Lighting the Way

Share this
Image

By: Francesca Wahl

Feb. 24, 2011 — While the national light bulb standards are still a year away, California offers a sneak preview of what’s to come.  As of Jan. 1, 2011, the new energy efficiency standard for light bulbs requires any 100-watt incandescent light bulb manufactured and sold in California to use 28 percent less energy – reducing its wattage to 72 watts. California elected to enact the new national standard early to avoid the sale of 10.5 million inefficient light bulbs. The California Energy Commission, an Alliance Associate, estimates that this will save California consumers $35.6 million on electricity bills in 2011 alone.

The new national standard  that will become law in 2012 is part of the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA), signed by President Bush in 2007. EISA requires a 25 to 30 percent increase in the energy efficiency of common use incandescent light bulbs, which initially applies to 100-watt bulbs and will gradually expand to include 75, 60 and 45 watt bulbs by 2014. California will continue to adopt the additional performance standards one year early to ensure maximum savings.

Traditional Wattage

New Maximum Wattage

Lumens

California Implementation Date

       

100

72

1490-2600

January 1, 2011

75

53

1050-1489

January 1, 2012

60

43

750-1049

January 1, 2013

40

29

310-749

January 1, 2013

Source: California Energy Commission
 

A Bright Idea

Contrary to popular myths, the new standard does not force Californians to use CFLs, nor does it ban the use of incandescents. The standard is performance based and technology neutral, meaning advanced incandescent and LEDs are an available option for meeting the standard. According to Adam Gottlieb, a spokesman for the California Energy Commission, the advanced 72-watt light bulb simply improves Thomas Edison’s original idea and allows customers to see true savings on their electricity bills without a difference in bulb costs or performance.

The advanced 72-watt incandescent is designed to produce the same amount of lumens, a measure of the amount of light emitted by a bulb, as the traditional 100-watt incandescent – allowing it to shine just as bright. The main difference is that, unlike the original incandescent, it does not waste 90 percent of its energy on heat – making it more energy efficient. It is also comparably priced to the old version.  At a California Lowe’s, a four- pack of the advanced 72-watt incandescent light bulbs costs about $6.48, or $1.62 for one. Californians also may continue to purchase the less efficient incandescent while they are still in stock; the law does not apply to light bulbs manufactured before Jan. 1, 2011.

New incandescent light bulb exactly like the old:

New 72-watt bulb

 

Old 100-watt bulb

incandescent light bulb

  • Same brightness
  • Similar color
  • 28% less energy

Incandescent light bulb

Source: California Energy Commission
 

Two Months and Counting: Reviews and Responses 

California’s early enactment coinciding with the beginning of the 112th Congress has rekindled old criticisms. Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) recently reintroduced a bill to repeal the pending national standards. “People don’t want Congress dictating what light fixtures they can use. Traditional incandescent bulbs are cheap and reliable,” he says on his website

In response to Barton’s initial repeal last fall, Alliance Associate NEMA – the trade association for the electrical manufacturing industry – issued a statement clarifying the new standard’s positive impact on the lighting industry and its benefits for the consumer. Lighting manufactures support the standard for two main reasons: First, it gives them the necessary degree of certainty to invest in new manufacturing plants around the United States that act as a source of U.S. job creation and economic growth.  Second, by investing in new products, lighting manufacturers also can address consumers’ demands for efficiency and light quality as well as develop marketing information that will help consumers better understand the variety of products available.  

As Californians are finding out, Barton’s concerns are misguided and represent much of the misinformation about lighting standards that has been relayed to consumers. In a recent interview, a salesman at a Santa Rosa, Calif.-based home improvement store shared that he has not experienced a run on the old 100-watt incandescent in his store and that his customers over the past few years have generally been switching over to CFLs as a more efficient option.

However, Nick Reynoza, manager of Royal Lighting in Los Angeles, Calif., argues that the transition is coming at a time when the higher upfront cost of efficient alternatives may be prohibitive for some consumers. These views about costs are a common misconception that can deter consumers from purchasing CFLs. What many consumers don’t realize is that because a CFL uses about 75 percent less energy than the standard incandescent and can last up to 10 times longer, it actually saves the consumer about $40 over its lifespan. Therefore, even those on a budget can benefit from the energy cost savings. Alternatively, the advanced incandescent comes at a similar price to the old bulb and still provides energy savings making the new standard a win-win for all in California.

Previous Efficient Lighting Initiative in California

Being ahead of the curve on energy efficient lighting is not new for California. Since 2006 California utility companies PG&E, Southern California Edison, and San Diego Gas & Electric, have participated in a rebate program sponsoring the use of CFLs, LEDs, and energy efficiency lighting fixtures. A recent report analyzing the effectiveness of the program from 2006 to 2008 concluded that screw-in CFLs accounted for 92 percent of net energy savings by consumers. While the program has come under some criticism for not reaching the expected value of savings, the data demonstrates significant statewide energy reduction and consumer on-bill savings that reinforce the rebates' overall success. 

Although it is still too early to measure direct energy savings from the new light bulb standard, future results in California appear promising given current estimates by the California Energy Commission and its previous success in promoting energy efficient lighting.  

Additional Resources

 

The labels today is green. Each syndicated network speaks green. It is almost impossible to watch the evening news to see without a segment of a global warming question or report a current green project in your state. What you may not know about going green.

This statement is misleading:

What many consumers don’t realize is that because a CFL uses about 75 percent less energy than the standard incandescent and can last up to 10 times longer, it actually saves the consumer about $40 over its lifespan. Therefore, even those on a budget can benefit from the energy cost savings.

Presumably this calculation assumes average usage. For fixtures that are used infrequently, a CFL or advanced incandescent is not at all cost-effective.

I think Mr. Reynoza has a reasonable point. For low-income people, spending more now from a limited budget to gain future savings may not help them.

Why does the efficiency community need to pretend that there aren't trade-offs?

As we transition to more efficient modern conveniences, it's important to consider safety to humans and animals. Studies show that CFL's and similar lighting emit high levels of electro magnetic radiation. The book "Dirty Electricity" by Dr Samuell Milham shows research that has been conducted on the harmful effects of EMF. Let's make sure we're making the right decisions related to efficiency and human safety. He recommends LED's as the safest alternative. Of course natural lighting should come first!

The statement that the improved incandescent bulbs are about the same purchase cost as the old ones is not accurate. In Maine, a four pack for a dollar is not unusual. Why exaggerate/dissemble on this point when the purchase price of a light bulb is so trivial when compared to the life cycle costs? Also, while I am using some excellent LEDs, in my experience, LEDs still have color shift, lumen degrade, and high initial purchase costs as significant barriers.

I work with commercial and mixed use development around the world, using high performance fluorescents and CFLs, solar daylighting and the new LED light bulbs and ceiling tiles. While each bulb does require some changes in use and handling - I haven't sen much confusion at all. In fact, all these options last so much longer than traditional incandescents and halogens, I find the changeout issue to be more of a pretext not to do anything rather than significantly reducing lighting loads which range from 27 - 38 percent if building energy loads. Scott Sklar, The Stella Group, Ltd. wwww.TheStellaGroupLtd.com

Leds are bright, last a long time, are inexpensive and are energy efficient. This is demonstrated by led flashlights. It is my experience that CFLs are very expensive, poisonous and do not last ten times longer. As for lower wattage incandesants with higher lumenosity; while I believe that they can be produced, the cost is far from comparable. In New Jersey where I live, a four pack of standard incandesants costs between one and two dollars, nowhere near the $6.48 stated in the article.

The article is referring to the new, MORE ENERGY-EFFICIENT incandescent bulbs. Take a look at this Lowe’s link and enter your zip code to find the price of a four-pack of the advanced 72-watt incandescent light bulbs; in Jersey City, it costs about $4.34, or $1.09 for one. These incandescents look like the old-school ones, but use less energy. They are just another lighting option for people who are really attached to the old bulbs.

I don't live in California, but the phasing out of incandescent light bulbs is happening here, in Ohio, too.  I find this to be extremely confusing for the average consumer because:  (1) They don't know that they have to dispose of the CFL bulbs in a special place; and (2) They don't know that if you break one, it must be disposed of properly, not just tossed in the trash.  I believe there needs to be more education about light bulbs in general.  Just a suggestion.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.
By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.