Posted on 07/11/2011 7:28:37 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
Reporting from Washington— It doesn't have the ring of "Remember the Alamo," but a new battle cry has gone up in Texas: "Remember the incandescent bulb."
Texas has become the first state seeking to skirt a federal law that phases out old-fashioned incandescent light bulbs in favor of more efficient lamps — a move that has emerged as a shining example of Republicans' resolve to strike down what many view as excessive federal regulation.
Texas hopes to get around the law with a measure recently signed by Republican Gov. Rick Perry declaring that incandescent bulbs — if made and sold only in Texas — do not involve interstate commerce and therefore are not subject to federal regulation.
"I think that Texans as a whole are tired of the federal government trying to micromanage our lives," said George Lavender, a Republican state representative who sponsored the legislation.
Critics of the federal mandate hope the Texas action will spur Congress to repeal the light bulb rules or prompt other states to adopt similar laws. The Republican-controlled U.S. House on Monday is expected to take up a repeal measure sponsored by a Texas congressman. Efforts also are underway in Pennsylvania and South Carolina to follow Texas' lead.
.... "I just believe that we should be able to buy what we want," Lavender said of the Texas law. "I've had calls from people in every state, and even in foreign countries, saying how much they appreciate this bill."
"This is about more than just energy consumption, it is about personal freedom,'' said Rep. Joe L. Barton (R-Texas.), who's leading the repeal effort in the House. He recently cheered his state's action, declaring on Fox News: "I do thank the Lord that I live in Texas."
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Well, it is excessive federal regulation. Incandescent bulbs have their place just as CFGs and LEDs and halogens do. I despise do-gooder environmentalists who don’t look past the ends of their noses.
God Bless Texas!
Excessive? Only if you think $1.75 trillion cost of compliance is excessive.
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/op_ed/view.bg?articleid=1349673
I would hate it less if it were actually "do-gooder" legislation.
This was the result of political favors to enviro-leftists and corporatism on behalf of companies like GE and Phillips, who stood to gain financially from the legislation.
.....”Despite the quiet heartburn that the bill is now generating in some moderate Republican offices, GOP leaders are still driving it forward, in hopes that Monday’s House floor debate will generate campaign talking points for tea party candidates across the country—including Bachmann.
And in a sign that all this has generated concern in the highest quarters in Washington, Energy Secretary Steven Chu on Friday held a press call with former Republican Sen. John Warner, R-Va., in hopes of shoring up support for the law.
“Right now many families around the country are struggling to pay their energy bills and leaders in the house want to roll back these standards that will save families money,” said Chu.
Under the current law, “You’ll still be able to buy halogen incandescent bulbs. They’ll look and feel the same, but the only difference is that they’ll save consumers money,” he said.
Of tea partiers’s philosophical argument that the law would deprive consumers of the choice of lighting products, Chu said, these standards are not taking choices away, its putting money back in the pockets of American families.”
Warner, who now lobbies his former colleagues on energy issues, said rolling back the law would freeze up business growth. “If I were a financier trying to help the small business community, I would say, ‘wait a minute—if congress is going to start stripping out provisions of this landmark legislation, then there’s no regulatory certainty—and I’m not going to lend you the money.’ ”
http://www.nationaljournal.com/battle-of-the-bulb-20110708
Indeed. I use CFLs where they provide a cost advantage. Everywhere else, incandescents are more cost-effective based on our usage patterns.
While I applaud the effort, I don’t think it will hold up. If the Supreme Court can hold that a farmer growing wheat on his own land, for his own consumption, can be considered to impact interstate commerce simply because it meant he did not need to buy the wheat from someone else, it will be a snap for them to decide that this law would mean that Texans would not need to buy fluorescent bulbs from vendors in other states, and would thus impact interstate commerce.
Total grandstanding. I'm sure Perry's lawyers have heard of Wickard v Fillburn and Raich v Gonzalez. I like me some incandescent light bulbs, but this effort is destined to fail. Good PR, I guess. But ignorant on the law.
In Raich, even SCALIA reaffirmed Wickard's holding that the interstate commerce clause covers some activities that are not interstate (or for that matter, commercial.)
Why even applaud the effort? Do we think the Perry team is ignorant of Wickard? If not, then why do it? PR stunt? I think this sort of thing creates false impressions out there about a)the scope of the commerce clause and b) nullification, two fights the states have already lost, and will lose again if they try it.
b
I’m in Texas, and I’ve replaced most of my incandecent bulbs with the CFLs. That was my choice, made easier by the fact that last summer the local grocery chain had them for free (with the coupon). I’m quite certain that there was a federal subsidy behind that - TANSTAAFL, you know. Anyhow, prior to that I only had put them in master bedroom, master bath, kitchen and living room - areas of high usage where the higher cost of the bulbs would be worth it.
Note that these bulbs are no panacea - for one thing, they contain mercury, and if they break there are warnings all over the container about how to clean it up. I still have several of the bulbs that burnt out, because you’re supposed to give them to a recycling center that can handle the mercury...and I have yet to find one. The second thing is that these bulbs don’t have nearly the promised lifetime - they aren’t meant to be turned on and off like an incandecent, and doing so significantly shortens their life...meaning that they’re more expensive than it seems on the surface (yet another thing that the green weenies haven’t thought about).
I utterly RESENT the idea that people nearly 2,000 miles away seem to think that they know what is best for me (and everyone else), and that they are enforcing their do-gooder nonsense literally at the point of a gun, just like every other regulation out there (and before someone says, “but they’re not coming into anyone’s house with a gun to get rid of incandecents” - that’s not what I mean. I mean it in the sense of what would happen to a company that continued to produce incandecents for interstate sale, and disregarded court orders to cease...the guys with guns would be there before long). This country is about freedom and liberty - and the purpose of government is to secure our liberties, NOT to constantly tell us what to do and how to think like perpetual parents of perpetual children.
I use them in places where I need to drag out an eight foot step ladder to change bulbs. However they emit a horrible oder when they are burning out. Have you had that experience?
Next think ya know those Texans will start allowing their people to have toilets that flush properly.
Wickard is ripe for a challenge. Somewhere at some time there will be a case of the feds relying on Wickard for something so absurd that even the semi-statist Supreme Court will have no choice but to overturn that abomination. In any case, it’ll NEVER get tossed out if we continue to meekly accept it. Better to go out on one’s feet than on one’s knees, I always say. Besides, sooner or later some state is going to grow the cajones to tell the feds to shove it, and if the feds don’t like it then they can send in soldiers...in full view of the world. The feds will have to back down, and that will be the beginning of the (hopefully peaceful) Second American Revolution.
“Next think ya know those Texans will start allowing their people to have toilets that flush properly.”
That should be next on the list...but how do you petition the legislature on that one? “Uh, my scat is too large to flush, can we get real toilets back?” Somehow or other, I don’t see many people writing to their legislators or senators, or signing petitions to that effect. Something would have to happen to a legislator or the governor, who would likely talk about “large numbers of my constituents who are P.O.’d (well, maybe that’s not quite accurate) about this issue....”
The government nannies will not give consumers “the right to choose” when it comes to light bulbs. Bravo for Texas...again!
I use them in the few fixtures that are not dimmable / 3-way where the light is always on during our waking hours.
When they first came out, I tried them and hated the "office" look they provided. Then they changed them; and made the light more in line with incandescent bulbs. However, in my experience, they do not last any longer than incandescent bulbs. We now find out that if they are stored on their sides, CFLs do not last as long. Who knows when they are stored on their sides before we even bring them home? And they do not offer much in the way of 3-way bulbs, either.
Every time I go to Lowe's or Home Depot I pick up another box of incandescents to add to the stockpile.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.