Collin Peterson sides with Republicans in failed repeal of light bulb standards
Wednesday, July 13, 2011 at 3:24 pm
Minnesota Congressman Collin Peterson, a “Blue Dog” Democrat, joined Republicans in a failed attempt to overturn a law that will require more energy efficient light bulbs starting next year.
Peterson was one of five Democrats to cross the aisle in the U.S. House of Representatives vote Tuesday, which with a 233-193 vote failed to achieve the two-thirds majority necessary to overturn the provision. Peterson’s press secretary did not immediately respond to the Minnesota Independent’s requests for comment.
The 2007 law was passed under former Pres. George Bush. It required that light bulbs be nearly 30 percent more efficient than typical incandescent bulbs and that the bulbs be phased in over the next three years. The statute allows 22 exemptions on the bulbs, ranging from bug lamps to traffic signals, and stores will still be able to sell bulbs that are already in stock when the standards go into place.
A compact fluorescent light bulb that meets the new standards can save up to $40 in energy costs over the life of the bulb, according to Energy Star, a program of the U.S. government. Still, repeal of the lightbulb standard attracted Republicans who opposed what they saw as government intervention.
The House bill was authored by Texas Republican Joe Barton. In March, he told the Houston Chronicle that the repeal was about “personal freedom.”
“People don’t want Congress dictating what light fixtures they can use,” Barton said.
9 Comments
Comment posted July 13, 2011 @ 4:06 pm
Hope the democrats nominate somebody in his place. He seems to side with the Republicans fairly often. And this bill was just another example of lawmakers wasting time and NOT trying to help create jobs.
Comment posted July 13, 2011 @ 4:56 pm
Oh no, energy efficient light bulbs. This is where conservative ideology just gets ridiculous. Who wouldn’t want to save money on their electric bill?
Comment posted July 13, 2011 @ 5:36 pm
I would like to paint my house with lead paint, put leaded gas in my car, keep the skeeters away with DDT, and continue to use my low efficiency incandescent bulb.
This law does not even outlaw incandescent bulbs. They just have to be more efficient. They have incandescent bulbs now that meet the standard.
Comment posted July 13, 2011 @ 6:51 pm
hey i am a progressive liberal democrat, but, i am also a professional cabinetmaker. my shop has regular, 200 watt lightbulbs, lots of them. i am sorry, but flourescents just do not have the kind of bright light that i need in my shop. i have some of the flourescents at home, but, when i go into my shop on a cloudy winter day, i need the bright sharpness of good old fashioned incandescent light bulbs. i have tried the flourescents, and, they just do not work.
Comment posted July 14, 2011 @ 12:04 am
For those who dislike CFLs, why not switch directly to LEDs? They have dropped significantly in price in the last year alone. They are also superior to any CFL in color, energy efficiency, and last at least twice as long.
There’s no reason to use a 200 watt bulb instead of a 10 watt LED, unless you’re using it for heating. Perhaps it can be useful in the winter? However, during Minnesota’s summers, it would be hard to argue we need more heat.
Comment posted July 14, 2011 @ 9:48 am
Yes the old CFL’s were weak but the newer ones as well as LED bulbs blow incandescents out of the water in performance. Incandescents are an archaic relic of the past. This is just an easy way for us to get away from using that evil muslim oil that we are so dependent on. In no way is a persons stance on this issue going to influence me when I vote though.
woodbuck,
I too am a carpenter, I just do it part time though. You realy should have flourescent lights in your shop as they generate much less heat and will not cause a fire. Saw dust is a low flash fuel and varnishing or staining creates fumes which can be ignited by an incandescent light thus causing the saw dust to ignite.
Comment posted July 14, 2011 @ 10:13 am
I imagine back when we stopped using whale oil there were people who argued that they just absolutely had to use the stuff and there simply wasn’t any acceptable substitute.
Comment posted July 14, 2011 @ 2:46 pm
Why is this even an issue? The decision was made in 2007, there is absolutely no reason to argue that legislators have nothing better to do than argue about a 4 year old lightbulb law.
Comment posted July 15, 2011 @ 12:52 pm
The reason US cars are not getting 42 miles to a gallon, is because the industry pundits and CEO’s wanted to MAKE PROFITS and delay those pesky ole “changes that the republicans and prognosticatos of status quo screamed the loudest. There would have been no threat to the american car industry, if there had been the POLITICAL will for congress to do the right thing and raise auto gas mileage standards. When will we learn, business wants a profit and they want to take the cheapest route to the bottom line. So, the only way to “make change” is to say NO, this is bad for the common good. Come up with something better. And american engenuity will come up with something MUCH, MUCH better. The Bushies did this country a great disservice, not only in taking us into two wars of choice, but in altering TRUTH whenever that evidence was clear that their political goals were in jeopardy. It really is time for voters to stop the prevalence of FOR PROFIT DENIAL in govt, and take our country back from the republican fiscal phonies.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.







