However, as Kim Freeman, spokesperson for GE Consumer & Industrial points out, a national policy on lighting efficacy would have a much greater impact on the environment and on energy savings than could a state-by-state effort. Also, a national standard would be more beneficial for lighting designers, who could refer to a single set of requirements and regulations rather than having to learn a different set for each state in which they work. The House bill would allow existing state lighting efficacy standards to continue to be enforced until the bill went into effect; however, the Senate bill would supercede state standards.
Lighting designers, on the other hand, are rightfully concerned that such legislation may tie their hands when it comes to design possibilities by limiting the type of lamps allowable in certain applications. Many already have experienced such immobilizing encroachment on their design prerogatives, particularly in California where every energy-consuming system is heavily regulated by Title 24.
For Charles Cameron, principal of Meeker Cameron Lighting Design Group in New York, the issue is less a question of whether legislation addressing lighting efficiency will pass, but rather how the lighting industry can influence the standards being set to ensure the legislation accomplishes the right objectives for designers, end-users, the environment, and lighting manufacturers.
“We [the design community] need to get out there and affect [the process] so that it’s actually good legislation and that it accomplishes the goal of really bringing the worst-performing, least-efficient lighting methods and technologies to their retirement; encourages people to design smarter, and encourages manufacturers to put the money into research and development of new product,” Cameron says. “There is a way to do this that doesn’t cut off legitimate use of some less-efficient technology.”
The conversation about lighting efficiency has grown in intensity and complexity over the past year. Phasing out the most inefficient lighting technologies appears to be favored by much of the lighting industry and by lawmakers, but many designers and manufacturers are quick to clarify that any legislation passed should be technology-neutral. As long as legislation remains non-specific on allowable lighting technologies, manufacturers have a chance to improve existing affordable technologies. As ACEEE’s Nadel says, “Set the performance standard and let the manufacturers meet it with the best mousetrap they can.”
But is it possible to develop a much more efficient incandescent, and if so, why haven’t manufacturers attempted it yet? According to GE’s Freeman, the timing just hasn’t been right—that is, until now. The current focus on energy efficiency has generated a perfect storm of demand for more efficient lighting and the coming-of-age of the necessary technology, she says.
In fact, GE announced in February 2007 that it will introduce an incandescent bulb in 2010, already in development for three years, that will be twice as efficient as current incandescents, operating at 30 lumens per watt. By 2012, the technology will be four times as efficient—60 lumens per watt, the company says. But what about cost? According to Freeman, it is too early to say definitively what the price tag will be, but she says the new incandescent likely will cost less than a CFL because it will not be a long-life product.
Regardless of whether lighting efficacy legislation passes this Congressional session, there is more focus on openness to energy efficient products and technologies in general among consumers and in the lighting industry. “The industry is moving toward the use of more energy efficient sources anyway, because more people are thinking of environmental responsibility and energy efficiency—more than ever before,” says Susan Bloom, director of marketing for Philips Lighting. If incandescents cannot keep up with an increasing demand for efficient lighting products, then they will become obsolete.