No "Green" for Green Light Bulb...

A few weeks ago, I came across a press release from Philips announcing the first entry for the Department of Energy's Bright Tomorrow Lighting Prize (L Prize) -- full details on the rules can be found at http://www.lightingprize.org. The entry criteria for this competition is a replacement for the standard 60W incandescent light bulb that consumes less than 10W, provides a lifetime of 25,000 Hrs, and can work with dimmers down to 20% of full illumination.

This is a significant milestone, and will help to reduce energy consumption for general lighting in our homes and offices. Of course, one motivating factor is an award of $10 million, but more importantly there is the anticipation of huge government contracts not too far behind.

Why am I writing about this achievement?

Well, it is something that can really help most of us take a responsible approach to reducing our consumption of energy (electricity costs), while replacing the standard incandescent with something that has similar brightness, color rendering, and color temperature. In addition, this will be great for those who are sensitive to the subtle flicker of compact fluorescent light bulbs, CFLs, and others who simply enjoy the perceived warmth of the dependable incandescent.

However, what really caught my attention today is the realization that prize money is not yet allocated! Apparently, congress has not got around to setting aside the funding, so perhaps Philips, and the other companies expecting some reward, could be out a fair chunk of change. One estimate is that just the cost of the light bulbs submitted for evaluation by the DOE was as much as $0.5 million. This does not include all the years of research and development.

On another point, because the L prize rules require each entrant to commit to manufacturing the product, what is the expected retail price for the consumer? No doubt the LED light bulb will cost more to produce, compared to an incandescent, but I believe it should be priced less than a CFL once economies of scale are reached. The cost of the internal electronics are probably very similar, plus there is no need for a gas-filled glass tube to be used.

The only downside that I see is for residents of our colder regions. Many have come to accept, and embrace, the heating and comfort benefits of incandescent light bulbs. With the reduction in energy consumption for lighting, there will clearly be an incremental increase in energy consumption required for heating.

I guess it is all "swings and roundabouts" as usual.

© 2009 Advocates for Responsible Energy Consumption

CEC conflicted on CEA's position for TV Energy Limits.

This morning, October 13, 2009, the California Energy Commission, CEC, held a hearing on proposed California regulations limiting energy consumption of TV sets, for both active and standby modes, that can be sold in California starting in 2011. The workshop started with an overview and formal presentation from the staff, then was opened up to participants present in the meeting room and others joining by telephone.

Of course, there were those from utility companies, such as PG&E and SoCal Edison, plus several representing environmental concern groups, all of whom were supportive of the regulations. What I found interesting was that throughout the session, the Consumer Electronics Association, CEA, was criticized many times for their position, and it was claimed they presented contradictory viewpoints on this topic. So, when the time came for the CEA to talk, I paid extra attention.

What I realized quickly was that the CEC is apparently ignorant to the nuances between mandatory and voluntary regulations. This made a strong suggestion to me that their mind is closed, there is no alternate approach, and one basis for the contradictory statements claim. In fact, it is a misunderstanding on the part of the CEC, not conflicting statements from the CEA. Communication is best when clear statements are made, which was the case from the CEA, but unfiltered and unbiased understanding needs to happen as well on the part of the listener.

Several times the CEC asked if the CEA was suggesting that California should adopt Energy Star limits, which currently represents about 25% of TVs available on the market. This was a bizarre statement, and completely overlooked the point that Energy Star is a voluntary program, and allows a manufacturer to place the Energy Star logo on an approved product to help consumers make a responsible choice regarding their purchase. In fact, the new Energy Star 4.0 standard is more stringent than the California proposals, but once again, the CEC wants to mandate limits for all television sets sold after Jan 1, 2011.

Another confusion is limitations on innovation, especially after several participants had presented breakthroughs on new materials and techniques for reducing energy consumption of LED, LCD, and Plasma TV sets. The CEA's position is that unless there is a good balance between regulation and market forces, innovation will suffer. For instance, consider what would have happened if energy consumption regulations were in effect in 2001 when CRT TVs were prevalent. The answer is that we would probably not have Plasma, LCD, LED, OLED displays as they would not have met the limits, and therefore the manufacturer would not have found an economic reason to introduce these type of products. Looking forward, the case can be logically made that regulations, such as those proposed by the CEC, will deter innovation of new display technologies that have not yet been discovered.

In addition, the CEA made claims that data considered by the CEC is outdated, and that there is a major mathematical error in the PG&E analysis. Also, the extra cost involved in complying and registering for the new regulations, other overestimates on savings, and underestimates on cost increases, possibly completely erode the claimed $8.1B economic savings for California.

Well, what is next? My belief is that after Nov 2, 2009, when public comment period closes, the CEC will make a decision to adopt the new regulations at their next business meeting on Nov 4, 2009. The real concern is that other States will introduce similar regulations, and that is when the real damage to choice and innovation begins.

For those who would like to review the CEC documents, they can be found at: http://www.energy.ca.gov/appliances/2009_tvregs/documents/index.html#101309. If you are interested, and would like to support a coalition to halt these unnecessary regulations, please sign up on-line at: www.CAsmartEnergy.com.

© 2009 Advocates for Responsible Energy Consumption