Obama and his fellow dim bulbs

Are they really so brazen that they'll force Americans to buy a product millions don't want? Yes. It seems the Obama administration is as brazen as that.

New Flare-Up in Light-Bulb Wars

Critics of Greater Federal Regulation Push a Fresh Challenge to 2007 Law

Associated Press

The light-bulb wars are back on.

Energy Secretary Steven Chu came out swinging Friday against a House bill that would repeal a 2007 federal law effectively outlawing older forms of incandescent bulbs—an effort at energy conservation that has inflamed a wide swath of Americans who don't care for the more expensive alternatives.

In a conference call with reporters, Mr. Chu said the more-efficient bulbs required would save consumers money over the life of the product, even if the up-front price is higher.

"We are taking away a choice that continues to let people waste their own money," he said.

The light-bulb issue has become a flash point in a broader debate about the expansion of federal regulation into areas of personal choice, such as what to eat, how to save for retirement and how much gasoline to use.

The controversy also spotlights a shift in the Republican party's stance.

A House vote on repealing the light-bulb efficiency standard, expected Monday, would reverse part of an energy bill President George W. Bush signed four years ago and that received widespread support in both houses of Congress.

Rep. Fred Upton (R., Mich.), who said in 2007 that the light-bulb mandate was a "common-sense, bipartisan approach ... to save energy as well as help foster the creation of new domestic manufacturing jobs," now wants to repeal the law. "It was never my goal for Washington to decide what type of light bulbs Americans should use," he said in a statement Friday.

It isn't clear that the latest flare-up will change anything for consumers, as the measure's prospects are dim in the Senate.

The 2007 law means cheap incandescent bulbs will become harder to find, and fluorescent, halogen and LED bulbs—as well as more-efficient incandescent bulbs—will take their place in stores. The new bulbs need less energy to produce a brighter light and last longer than conventional incandescent bulbs.

Supporters of the new standards say the more-efficient incandescent bulbs only cost about $1 more than older ones.

The bulb issue has become fodder for conservative critics of the federal government.

"The American people want less government intrusion into their lives, not more, and that includes staying out of their personal light-bulb choices," Minnesota congresswoman Michele Bachmann, now a presidential candidate, said in March.

Representatives of the lighting industry joined environmental groups in a letter to Congress Friday opposing the GOP bill. Kyle Pitsor, vice president of the National Electrical Manufacturers Association, said companies had made investments in anticipation of the new standards taking effect on schedule.

Jim Presswood, federal energy policy director at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said Friday there were several more-efficient bulbs on the market and such technology "wouldn't have been out there but for these standards."

But critics say the government shouldn't compel consumers to buy more expensive bulbs.

"I will concede over the life of the bulb...that you probably do save some money, but it takes a long time to save it," said Rep. Joe Barton (R., Texas), a sponsor of the bulb bill, in an interview.