Skip to content

Better Use of Light Bulbs Act -H.R.91 – CRS Summary – THOMAS (Library of Congress)

January 17, 2011

Every Republican in the 112th Congress should be Co-Sponsoring this bill.  Contact your local Representative…MB

Bill Summary & Status

112th Congress (2011 – 2012)


CRS Summary


Latest Title: Better Use of Light Bulbs Act

Sponsor: Rep Barton, Joe [TX-6] (introduced 1/5/2011)

Cosponsors (13)

Rep Akin, W. Todd [MO-2] – 1/5/2011
Rep Bishop, Rob [UT-1] – 1/5/2011
Rep Blackburn, Marsha [TN-7] – 1/5/2011
Rep Broun, Paul C. [GA-10] – 1/5/2011
Rep Buerkle, Ann Marie [NY-25] – 1/5/2011
Rep Burgess, Michael C. [TX-26] – 1/5/2011
Rep Burton, Dan [IN-5] – 1/5/2011
Rep Coble, Howard [NC-6] – 1/5/2011
Rep Lummis, Cynthia M. [WY] – 1/5/2011
Rep McClintock, Tom [CA-4] – 1/5/2011
Rep Paul, Ron [TX-14] – 1/5/2011
Rep Scalise, Steve [LA-1] – 1/5/2011
Rep Stearns, Cliff [FL-6] – 1/5/2011

Latest Major Action: 1/5/2011 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.



Better Use of Light Bulbs Act – Repeals provisions of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 concerning lighting energy efficiency, including provisions that: (1) prescribe energy efficiency standards for general service incandescent lamps, rough service lamps, and other designated lamps; (2) direct the Secretary of Energy (DOE) to conduct and report to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) on an annual assessment of the market for general service lamps and compact fluorescent lamps; (3) direct the Secretary to carry out a proactive national program of consumer awareness, information, and education about lamp labels and energy-efficient lighting choices; (4) prohibit a manufacturer, distributor, retailer, or private labeler from distributing in commerce specified adapters for incandescent lamps; (5) authorize the Secretary to carry out a lighting technology research and development program; (6) set forth minimum energy efficiency standards for incandescent reflector lamps; (7) sets forth requirements for the use of energy efficient lighting fixtures and bulbs in public building construction, alteration, and acquisition; and (8) require metal halide lamp fixtures and energy efficiency labeling for designated consumer electronic products to be included within the Energy Policy and Conservation Act’s (EPCA) regulatory oversight.

Provides that EPCA shall be applied and administered as if such provisions had not been enacted.

via Bill Summary & Status – 112th Congress (2011 – 2012) – H.R.91 – CRS Summary – THOMAS (Library of Congress).

In case you missed this…

New Zealand, where the light bulb ban created such a firestorm that it ushered in a new government that reversed the ban in 2008.

Here’s an excerpt from a dialog in the New Zealand Parliament in December of 2008 that you’ll never hear in the California Assembly:

12. AARON GILMORE (National) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: Will the Government be moving to ban the sale of incandescent light bulbs?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Energy and Resources): I am delighted to inform the House that I have issued firm instructions to the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority to stop its plans to ban the  sale of incandescent light bulbs. This Government, in stark contrast to the  previous Government and the previous Minister of Energy, David Parker, rejects the idea that the Government knows best and must constantly meddle in the lives of New Zealanders. If people wish to buy incandescent light bulbs, then this Government will not stop them from doing so.

Aaron Gilmore: Why is the Government not going to ban incandescent light bulbs?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: There are a number of excellent reasons why we have not moved to ban those light bulbs. The first is that this Government believes that choice not compulsion, and the ability for individuals to make their own decisions about what sorts of lives they want to lead and what contribution they want to make to climate change, is far better than nanny State telling them what to do.

One Comment
  1. Poornima Wagh permalink
    January 18, 2011 11:16 AM

    Ms. Snow:

    I’m a registered Republican here in Santa Barbara and an active member of the Montecito Hope Ranch Republicans. Here is my complaint: I’m sick and tired and frankly frustrated with the stupid and insipid issues the Republicans and Democrats alike bicker about. A good example is the above act regarding Light Bulbs. Give me a break. When a country such as the United States has dire and serious problems such as illegal immigration, you people who call yourselves patriots bicker about light bulbs? Where the hell are your priorities? Illegal immigration is a grave issue that the Republicans should be focused on as opposed to light bulb controversies dubbed as “tyranny.” What is surprising is that not a single Republican woman in the Montecito Hope Ranch group has ever expressed grave concern on the illegal immigration problem, considering it’s a HUGE problem here in California that needs to be dealt with urgently. The only people brandishing the torch on the issue and constantly sounding the alarm are myself (a legal immigrant from India) and former President Gwat Bhattacharjie (also an immigrant herself). I’m hugely disappointed at the actions or rather the inactions of the Montecito and Hope Ranch Republicans regarding big national issues. It’s time that these women get their priorities straight and concentrate on the IMPORTANT issues such as illegal immigration and the economy.


    Ms. Poornima Wagh (Santa Barbara)

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: