https://edisonreport.com/2025/01/21/president-removes-ban-incandescent-bulbs/

January 21, 2025

Back in 2010, I had the honor of serving as the chair for what was then known as the IES Annual Conference. One of the event’s key highlights was The Great Debate: The Banning of the Incandescent Bulb, featuring a discussion between Howard Brandston and Kaj den Daas, who was then the Executive Vice-President of Philips Lighting, B.V. Unfortunately, due to illness, Howard was unable to participate, but the debate went on.

On January 20, 2025, President Donald Trump signed the “Unleashing American Energy” executive order, which, among other provisions, removed the ban on incandescent light bulbs. This action aims to “safeguard the American people’s freedom to choose from a variety of goods and appliances, including but not limited to lightbulbs.”

Background on the Incandescent Light Bulb Ban

The move to phase out incandescent light bulbs began with the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, which set energy efficiency standards that effectively limited the production and sale of traditional incandescent bulbs. In 2019, the Trump administration rolled back certain aspects of these standards, allowing continued use of some incandescent bulbs. However, in 2022, the Biden administration reinstated and expanded the regulations, leading to a full ban on the sale of most incandescent light bulbs by August 1, 2023.

President Trump’s Executive Order

By signing the “Unleashing American Energy” executive order, President Trump has reversed the 2023 ban, permitting the manufacture and sale of incandescent light bulbs once again. This decision is part of a broader initiative to promote consumer choice and reduce regulatory constraints on various household appliances. The executive order emphasizes the importance of market competition and innovation within the manufacturing and appliance industries.

“By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered:

(f) to safeguard the American people’s freedom to choose from a variety of goods and appliances, including but not limited to lightbulbs, dishwashers, washing machines, gas stoves, water heaters, toilets, and shower heads, and to promote market competition and innovation within the manufacturing and appliance industries…”

Implications of the Policy Change

Supporters of the policy change argue that it restores consumer freedom, allowing individuals to select lighting options based on personal preference, cost, and specific needs. They contend that some consumers prefer the light quality and immediate illumination of incandescent bulbs over alternatives like compact fluorescent lamps CFLs or LEDs.

Howard Brandston must be smiling right now.

Go Deeper: https://edisonreport.com/2025/01/10/un-ban-incandescent-bulb/

https://archive.nytimes.com/green.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/24/a-defense-of-the-incandescent-light-bulb/

-A Defense of the Incandescent Light Bulb–

By Leora Broydo Vestel April 24, 2009 10:01 amApril 24, 2009 10:01 am

Howard BrandstonConcerninglight.com “The quality of light from the compact fluorescent is about the worst of the major light sources manufactured today,” said Howard Brandston, a lighting designer.

Howard Brandston, an award-winning lighting designer, has worked on a number of high-profile projects in his career — from a makeover of the Statue of Liberty in the 1980s to helping to develop the nation’s first standards for energy-efficient building design.

Now, amid a growing raft of legislation around the globe aimed at phasing out the standard incandescent light bulb (and in some corners, popular resistance to that idea), Mr. Brandston is stepping out of retirement and into the debate over energy-efficient lighting.

Specifically, Mr. Brandston accuses “energy zealots” of using faulty science to determine the efficiency of light bulbs, and he says that simplistic lumens-per-watt comparisons obscure questions of how well different bulbs do what they’re supposed to do: light up a room.

The government, manufacturers and efficiency advocates, in pushing the adoption of compact fluorescents, are “forgetting the lamp has to serve a purpose for the area it’s lighting,” Mr. Brandston said in a recent series of chats with Green Inc. “It has to work within a system which includes the luminaire — the fixture — and it has to work within the room. The room is part of that system. And when you ignore the fixture, the room and the purpose, you’re going to come up with something that is not going to serve well.”

“The system efficiency is really what counts,” Mr. Brandston added, “not lumens per watt, not how much light per watt is produced, but how much of that produced light is actually put to purposeful use.”

Excerpts from an interview with Mr. Brandston follow.

•

>>22420999

https://edisonreport.com/2025/01/10/un-ban-incandescent-bulb/

A Defense of the Incandescent Light Bulb

By Leora Broydo Vestel April 24, 2009 10:01 amApril 24, 2009 10:01 am

Howard BrandstonConcerninglight.com “The quality of light from the compact fluorescent is about the worst of the major light sources manufactured today,” said Howard Brandston, a lighting designer.

Howard Brandston, an award-winning lighting designer, has worked on a number of high-profile projects in his career — from a makeover of the Statue of Liberty in the 1980s to helping to develop the nation’s first standards for energy-efficient building design.

Now, amid a growing raft of legislation around the globe aimed at phasing out the standard incandescent light bulb (and in some corners, popular resistance to that idea), Mr. Brandston is stepping out of retirement and into the debate over energy-efficient lighting.

Specifically, Mr. Brandston accuses “energy zealots” of using faulty science to determine the efficiency of light bulbs, and he says that simplistic lumens-per-watt comparisons obscure questions of how well different bulbs do what they’re supposed to do: light up a room.

The government, manufacturers and efficiency advocates, in pushing the adoption of compact fluorescents, are “forgetting the lamp has to serve a purpose for the area it’s lighting,” Mr. Brandston said in a recent series of chats with Green Inc. “It has to work within a system which includes the luminaire — the fixture — and it has to work within the room. The room is part of that system. And when you ignore the fixture, the room and the purpose, you’re going to come up with something that is not going to serve well.”

“The system efficiency is really what counts,” Mr. Brandston added, “not lumens per watt, not how much light per watt is produced, but how much of that produced light is actually put to purposeful use.”

cont:

>>22421013

cont: https://archive.nytimes.com/green.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/24/a-defense-of-the-incandescent-light-bulb/

Excerpts from an interview with Mr. Brandston follow.

•

Question

You’re not happy with the direction the government is going with respect to setting efficiency mandates for lighting products. Why not?

Answer

I think the government’s use of lumens-per-watt as a metric is a mistake. It doesn’t follow lighting practice. It’s one tiny part of what lighting design is all about. And by using that one metric, you are limiting the choices of all lighting designers and not following good lighting practice.

Question

But is lumens-per-watt an accurate measure of efficiency?

Answer

It’s not even an accurate measure of efficiency because in order to make their case they are to some extent misrepresenting the value of these lamps that they’re suggesting, which are compact fluorescents to replace incandescents. That is the biggest issue.

The quality of light from the compact fluorescent is about the worst of the major light sources manufactured today. And, aside from that, they don’t say anything about the problems of disposing of these lamps, nor do they talk about the additional power that it costs to manufacture these lamps. When you look at how they work, the entire process they are suggesting is filled with errors. And it’s misleading.

Question

What’s a more accurate way to measure efficiency, in your opinion?

Answer

The only way to really look at efficiency in a lighting system is to do a system analysis. It is the installed working operation of the system, not the lumens-per-watt of the lamp. You have to do a total holistic system evaluation to tell the true cost and the true energy savings.

Question

This doesn’t sound like something everyday people can figure out. Are you saying we need to hire lighting designers to find the best solution for lighting our homes?

Answer

You don’t need to hire a professional. Your basic subjective judgment is all you need. What really would be nice is if the federal government would not mislead the public and seduce them into doing things which are really inappropriate.

But the average person’s subjective judgment that they utilize when they buy their clothes, when they buy their furniture, when they buy whatever, is more than adequate.

Question

Are you saying that if people like incandescents, it’s the smarter choice in terms of efficiency?

Answer

I’m saying that in all probability, in a residential application, I think they would be more efficient. Using my home system as an example, I have literally dozens of incandescent lights in here. The quality of light in this house is superb, as one would expect from a lighting designer like me, but the interesting thing is, since I put a 1,250 square foot addition on here 12 years ago, I’ve been tracking the life of the lamps. And in that 12 years I’ve replaced 3 lamps. This is under normal residential use, and a fully occupied dwelling.

The calculations used by the government and others promulgating or promoting use of compact fluorescents is strictly mathematical conjecture and nothing to do with reality.

>>22420999

cont:

>>22421032

cont: https://archive.nytimes.com/green.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/24/a-defense-of-the-incandescent-light-bulb/

Question

How do dimmers and other devices factor into all this?

Answer

That is a big factor. My house does have dimmers on almost all of the lights. And that is part of the reason why we’ve replaced so few lamps.

If someone really wanted to do a green household, they could use dimmers, they could use occupancy sensors to turn off the lights in case they forgot to. Control of the light is really the most energy efficient way to gain benefit. If you dim an incandescent lamp from 120 volts to 110 volts you will increase its life by approximately three times. If you dim it a little more, you increase it even more. And then they will surpass the lifespan of a compact fluorescent lamp.

Question

You take particular issue with the way government is pushing efficiency, but it is fueling the development of new technologies such as LEDs. Isn’t this positive?

Answer

The biggest boost in new light sources came during the energy crisis when all kinds of progress was made and that has been continuing nonstop because this is an important issue.

But hoping that lighting is going to make a major contribution borders on ridiculous. The real areas that should be looked at that would make big gains are in all commercial office buildings if they raised the temperature in the summer that they would cool to and lowered the temperature that they would heat to, and gave everybody a sweater or allowed them to come lightly dressed in the summer, we would save more energy in a few months than all the lighting watts per square foot baloney that’s going on now.

Question

Don’t you think it’s worthwhile to attack the problem from all angles?

Answer

I think we should be attacking this from all angles, but not change the light bulb. … Control the amount of time you have the lights on, and you will do well. People leave the lights on all the time. We’ve got to get new habits. We’d be better off promoting occupancy sensors and dimming controls and recommending all dimmers be set to only provide 95 percent of the power to the light sources. Then we would be making real headway.

>>22420999

>>22420999

https://edisonreport.com/2025/01/10/un-ban-incandescent-bulb/

Time to Un-Ban the Incandescent Bulb?

by Randy Reid

January 10, 2025

With DOGE, is it time to Un-Ban the Incandescent Bulb?

As most in our industry know, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has raised lighting efficiency standards. Specifically, the minimum requirement for standard light bulbs has increased from 45 to over 120 lumens per watt. This effectively bans the incandescent bulb. With the new administration’s less regulatory stance, is it time to un-ban the incandescent bulb? Advocates for deregulation argue that easing these policies could reduce costs and stimulate economic growth.

In 2010, your humble editor was the chair for what was then called the IES Annual Conference. The conference headliner was “The Great Debate: The Banning of the Incandescent Bulb, a debate between Howard Brandston, and Kaj den Daas, former Executive Vice-President of what was then Philips Lighting, B.V. Unfortunately, Howard fell ill and could not attend, but the discussion still occurred. Here we are 15 later, and the debate continues.

Health Concerns

I interviewed Martin Moore-Ede of the Circadian Lighting Research Center and Scott Zimmerman of Niral Lighting. While I do not support all of their claims, their voices need to be heard. They make some good points. They believe that health is being sacrificed in the name of energy efficiency.

Martin highlights that focusing solely on lumens per watt emphasizes brightness efficiency, potentially neglecting the health benefits of specific light wavelengths. He notes that blue-rich LED lights, which meet the new standards, can disrupt circadian rhythms, leading to health issues like sleep disorders. Additionally, the standards exclude infrared and ultraviolet wavelengths, which may overlook their therapeutic benefits.

Scott points out that the stringent standards could stifle innovation in lighting technologies that incorporate beneficial wavelengths.

Martin has initiated a petition to reconsider the 120+ lumens per watt rule, responding to these concerns. They argue for a more holistic approach to lighting standards that balances energy efficiency with human health considerations. Emphasizing the need for regulations that include beneficial light spectra, they aim to promote well-being and innovation in the lighting industry.

As the debate continues, policymakers must weigh the benefits of energy savings against potential health implications. A comprehensive approach that considers both efficiency and well-being could lead to lighting solutions that are both sustainable and supportive of human health.

Explore an earlier interview featuring Scott Zimmerman and Robert Soler of BIOS Lighting.

https://youtu.be/1Qpe94vQ96Y?si=pwFkV3YFVcUlf7QM

>>22420999

>>22421013

>>22421032

>>22421037

>>22421052

>>22420999

On January 20, 2025, President Donald Trump signed the “Unleashing American Energy” executive order, which, among other provisions, removed the ban on incandescent light bulbs. This action aims to “safeguard the American people’s freedom to choose from a variety of goods and appliances, including but not limited to lightbulbs.”

>President Trump’s Executive Order

By signing the “Unleashing American Energy” executive order, President Trump has reversed the 2023 ban, permitting the manufacture and sale of incandescent light bulbs once again. This decision is part of a broader initiative to promote consumer choice and reduce regulatory constraints on various household appliances. The executive order emphasizes the importance of market competition and innovation within the manufacturing and appliance industries.

“By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered:

(f) to safeguard the American people’s freedom to choose from a variety of goods and appliances, including but not limited to lightbulbs, dishwashers, washing machines, gas stoves, water heaters, toilets, and shower heads, and to promote market competition and innovation within the manufacturing and appliance industries…”

Implications of the Policy Change

Supporters of the policy change argue that it restores consumer freedom, allowing individuals to select lighting options based on personal preference, cost, and specific needs. They contend that some consumers prefer the light quality and immediate illumination of incandescent bulbs over alternatives like compact fluorescent lamps CFLs or LEDs.

<Howard Brandston must be smiling right now. >>22421013 >>22421032 >>22421037

>>22421052