• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

Power Electronic Tips

Power Electronic News, Editorial, Video and Resources

  • Products
    • Power Supplies
    • AC-DC
    • DC-DC
    • MOSFETS
    • Power Management
    • Battery Management
    • RF Power
    • Resistors
    • Capacitors
    • Magnetics
    • Transformers
  • Applications
    • LED Lighting
    • Rack Mount
    • Wireless
  • EE Forums
    • EDABoard.com
    • Electro-Tech-Online.com
  • EE Learning Center
    • Design Guides
      • WiFi & the IOT Design Guide
      • Microcontrollers Design Guide
      • State of the Art Inductors Design Guide
  • Video
    • EE Videos
    • TI Power Videos
    • Teardown Videos
  • Resources
    • Design Fast
    • eBooks / Tech Tips
    • FAQ
    • LEAP Awards
    • Podcasts
    • Webinars
    • White Papers

Why we don’t need energy efficiency standards for lighting

February 3, 2020 By Lee Teschler 1 Comment

Leland Teschler | executive editor

Headlines were made recently when two national associations dropped a lawsuit attempting to squash light bulb efficiency standards in California. The California standards supposedly save Californians billions of dollars on their energy bills and avoid millions of tons of carbon-warming pollution.

The suit was brought by NEMA (National Electrical Manufacturers Association) and the American Lighting Association. At Lee-Teschlerissue were lighting regulations that had been expanded to cover specialty light bulbs like those used in bathroom vanities and recessed lighting, as well as candle-shaped lights. The DOE recently eliminated these bulbs from national lighting efficiency standards.

Green advocacy groups crowed about this legal development. Said the director of the Center for Energy Efficiency Standards at the Natural Resources Defense Council, “The lighting industry finally came to its senses and discontinued its desperate efforts to block California’s common-sense light bulb efficiency standards, which are poised to save consumers billions of dollars on their utility bills.”

Hold on there, Kemosabe. The thing to note about specialty light bulbs is that they are frequently in places where they’re not turned on all that often. As is in any energy-consuming application, energy costs are only one part of the equation. The initial cost of the bulb also factors in. If an energy-efficient bulb costs sufficiently more than a less-efficient version, buyers may be better off spending more on energy, particularly if the bulb isn’t used much.

This reality hit home for me because of a light bulb in a tiny cellar under the porch of my house. That bulb is on for a total of about ten minutes a year. For a while, it looked as though I would be forced to replace the inexpensive incandescent bulb lighting it (at about 50 cents each) with an awful compact fluorescent light bulb (at a few dollars), back when there was talk of regulating all incandescent bulbs out of existence. Fortunately, cooler regulatory heads prevailed.

At a total on-time of ten minutes annually, it’s doubtful that a CFL in my cellar would have paid back its additional cost in my lifetime, and I plan to live a long time. The cost equation for energy-efficient lighting has improved since those days – you can find 60-W equivalent A19 LED bulbs for less than a dollar if you shop around. But I’m pretty sure most consumers would rather choose the kind of light bulb installed in their own home, rather than let some bureaucrat do it.

The irony is LED bulb replacements for specialty incandescents are readily available now, no thanks to regulators. For example, I was able to find candle-shaped LED bulbs for less than three bucks each online. The 40-W incandescent versions seem to run around a dollar. If you’re curious about the payback time for these LED bulbs, we did a back-of-the-envelope calculation using the 16.7 cents/kWh average power cost in California. It turns out that a 4.5-W, three-dollar LED candle bulb pulls even in cost with a 40-W, one-dollar incandescent version after about 336 hours of use at those rates. That works out to being switched on eight hours daily for about 42 days.

Those economics will probably convince most consumers to make the switch to LEDs, with or without regulations in force. Thus the $2.4 billion that the Natural Resources Defense Council claims Californians will save on annual utility bills thanks to regulations would probably happen even if regulators sat on their hands.

And that brings us back to the recently dropped lawsuit. I suspect NEMA and the ALA looked at prices of specialty LED bulbs, shrugged, and decided to forget the whole thing. Besides, California’s lighting efficiency regulations are completely unenforceable unless, of course, the State plans to somehow prevent online vendors from shipping incandescent bulbs to Californians.

If that’s the plan, good luck.

You may also like:

  • Audi e-tron FE06
    EV advances come from Formula E electric racing

  • Researchers find ways to integrate GaN power circuits onto ICs
  • bye aerospace
    E-plane maker bets LiS battery technology could double the range…

Filed Under: Featured, LED Lighting

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. Shane Kennedy says

    April 17, 2020 at 4:25 pm

    I am sure that regulations greatly accelerated the development of LED lamps, and stimulated the market so that volume production ramped up and in turn brought the price down. In colder parts of the world, incandescent lamps aren’t actually inefficient, as most of the time that lamps are on, heating is also on … the lamps producing a little of the required heat.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Primary Sidebar

CURRENT DIGITAL ISSUE

A frequency you can count on There are few constants in life, but what few there are might include death, taxes, and a U.S. grid frequency that doesn’t vary by more than ±0.5 Hz. However, the certainty of the grid frequency is coming into question, thanks to the rising percentage of renewable energy sources that…

More from the digital archive

DesignFast

Component Selection Made Simple.

Try it Today
design fast globle

Subscribe to our Newsletter

The Power Electronic eNewsletter delivers breaking electronic and power component news, resources, product innovations and more.

Subscribe today

EE TRAINING CENTER CLASSROOMS

EE Classrooms

RSS Current EDABoard.com discussions

  • Tuning the antenna to be conjugately matched to input impedance of the die
  • about ATmega328 ADC pins
  • Netlist physical name update
  • nt1065_USB3 gnss receiver
  • LLC HB with synchronous rectifiers can be very dodgy?

RSS Current Electro-Tech-Online.com Discussions

  • PC/laptop working and processing so much harder when data is low quality
  • undefined reference header file in proteus
  • Capacitor to eliminate speaker hum
  • Decapped Chip On Board
  • Sony KV-A2913E (chassis AE1C) auto shuts off after one minute

Footer

EE World Online Network

  • DesignFast
  • EE World Online
  • EDA Board Forums
  • Electro Tech Online Forums
  • Connector Tips
  • Microcontroller Tips
  • Analog IC Tips
  • Sensor Tips
  • Test and Measurement Tips
  • Wire and Cable Tips
  • 5G Technology World

Power Electronic Tips

  • Subscribe to our newsletter
  • Advertise with us
  • Contact us
  • About us
Follow us on TwitterAdd us on FacebookFollow us on YouTube Follow us on Instagram

Copyright © 2022 · WTWH Media LLC and its licensors. All rights reserved.
The material on this site may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with the prior written permission of WTWH Media.

Privacy Policy