An Obama administration decision to ban incandescent light bulbs was based on a misunderstanding of the law, according to the Department of Energy, meaning those faithful products that had been in use for a century may be returning.
The development in a war that began when Congress restricted some bulbs to increase energy efficiency during the George W. Bush administration was reported by Tim Nerozzi at AMI Newswire.
The original campaign to ban incandescent bulbs was criticized as one of the “most blatantly unconstitutional and amazingly stupid congressional acts,” inspiring the creation of a bumper sticker that states “I’m pro-choice on lightbulbs.”
Opponents of the ban argued incandescents have benefits not offered by alternatives.
While the Bush administration issued rules to ban certain incandescent bulbs, it was an Obama regulation, adopted just before he left office, that completed the agenda by setting up new energy efficiency standards.
They were written essentially to eliminate the last exemptions that remained for incandescent bulbs, including anti-insect lights, three-way bulbs, many decorative light bulbs and “rough service lamps,” AMI Newswire reported.
But now the Department of Energy, in a published statement, has “determined the Obama administration exceeded its statutory authority.”
“The Department of Energy said it has ‘determined that the legal basis underlying those [Obama administration] revisions misconstrued existing law,'” the report said.
The result? A proposal by the DOE to withdraw Obama’s changes.
Nerozzi reported: “The move might once again allow more Americans to choose to purchase traditional light bulbs which give off warmth, are cheaper to produce, and have lower-risk ingredients than fluorescent and LED bulbs. They also cost less to consumers at the purchase point. The issue has long been a concern of Donald Trump. In 2012, then a real estate mogul, Trump tweeted his concern about LED and other non-traditional lightbulbs as a potential cancer risk.”
Remember, new “environment friendly” lightbulbs can cause cancer. Be careful– the idiots who came up with this stuff don’t care.
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 17, 2012
The report explained that light bulbs now are regulated by efficiency, and newer technologies such as CFL bulbs and LEDs rank better.
But the report noted that just last year, the National Electrical Manufacturers Association published a letter to Secretary of Energy Rick Perry on the subject.
The industry group said that more energy efficient products are good.
But the group said consumers already were moving in that direction and “it would be extremely unfortunate if that orderly transition is disrupted – impacting American consumers and workers who buy and make these lamps.”
“NEMA’s interest is in promoting greater adoption of energy efficient lighting, ensuring consumer choice among energy-efficient lighting options, preserving jobs, and ensuring that the market satisfies consumer demand for quality lighting products,” the group said.
Bush’s Energy Independent and Security Act in 2007 started the slide toward no incandescents.
The goal was energy independence and security.
Michele Bachmann, then a congresswoman from Minnesota, resisted. In 2014, Congress tried to defund the administration’s light bulb standard, but without much success.
That was not long after OilPrice reported the CFLs and LEDs that the government was promoting also released toxic metals such as copper, lead, mercury and zinc, along with arsenic and antimony.
The analysis found that both CFLs and LEDs “should be classified as hazardous waste, in particular because of their lead content.”
WND’s Joseph Farah, who campaigned to keep incandescents, and whose online store still carries the the bumper sticker, said at the time the ban by Democrats made no sense.
For one thing, he pointed out, the action exceeded Congress’s authority.
“Show me where in the Constitution it empowers Congress to ban a perfectly safe and useful product in use for 100 years?” he said.
He described it as a blatant power play.
“Let’s face it: If the government gets away with this, is there anything the government can’t do? Is there any substance or product the government can’t ban? Is there anything the government can’t tell you to do or not do?”