Levine's plan was to convince constituents to make the switch to compact fluorescent and . But his proposed ban on the sale of general service incandescent bulbs gained the attention of leading light bulb manufacturers, who pointed out that new technology could make incandescents more energy efficient. Now what started as a simple ban on one type of lightbulb may evolve into Energy Star standards for many types of bulbs in the state.
Q: On February 22, you introduced a bill for California that, if passed, would ban the sale of incandescent lightbulbs for standard household lamps by 2012. How would this switch theoretically change energy consumption in California?
Levine: Twenty percent of residential energy bills are in lighting. By making a change in lightbulbs, you would have a 75 percent reduction in your energy consumption. You would save roughly $62 per bulb over the life of the bulb by making a switch from an incandescent to a compact fluorescent. We used the California Energy Commission's average cost of a bulb and the average laboratory test lifespan of the bulb. A compact fluorescent bulb will last 10 times as long as an incandescent bulb.
Even though the alternative bulbs have been out for a while, I think people hear the word "fluorescent" and immediately picture the tubes in dimly lit office ceilings. Can you explain the difference between incandescent and compact fluorescent lightbulbs?
Levine: A CFL bulb uses 75 percent less energy to produce the same number of lumens as an incandescent bulb. The traditional method of measuring light has been in wattage, but really, wattage is an energy consumption measure. Ninety to 95 percent of the energy that's used in an incandescent bulb actually goes to heat and not light.
And how is that with a CFL?
Levine: I believe 25 percent goes to heat rather than light with a CFL. So there's a huge savings there in heat that's significant because you're capturing more of the energy for the bulb.
People think there are differences in the quality of bulbs. All of those old notions...really aren't true. I've got CFL bulbs in my office that come in an array of sizes, shapes and colors: frosted candelabra, miniature bulbs, large bulbs, a 2-watt bulb equivalent to a 15-watt soft lightbulb. I even have a three-way bulb.
I should tell you just so it's clear to you and the readers, I have done nothing special. All the bulbs that I have in my office (except for two) are from either my staff or I going to Home Depot, Target...We went to see what we could find as members of the general public.
Do they make them for outdoor use as well?
Levine: Any kinds you want--indoor, outdoor. I even have the yellow kind you put in any porch lamp so it doesn't attract bugs. The light quality of compact fluorescence is the exact same now as incandescence. You can now get full-spectrum compact fluorescent. They now come in different degrees Kelvin, which is the color temperature of light...any kind you could possibly want. But the people need to be educated on that.
My legislation doesn't actually just focus on compact fluorescents; it really focuses on the removal of the incandescents, but doesn't specify a substitute.
What else would replace the incandescent bulb?
Levine: The two most common I know right now are CFLs and LEDs, and actually there are LEDs in common usage today that are perfectly appropriate.
Most Christmas lights these days are
LEDs work really well for under-cabinet lighting or directional lighting in rooms. They're not quite as good for a nightstand because they're much more focused in one direction.
You had a successful vote in committee on April 23 in favor of your bill, AB 722(click here for PDF). What happens next in the process?
Levine: It goes to the appropriations committee and I expect I'll get a favorable vote there, and then it goes to the floor of the assembly.
There have been reports of a possible compromise to change the bill from an all-out ban, to allow for new types of incandescent lightbulbs that are energy efficient. General Electric announced in February it's working on a more efficient incandescent bulb that may be ready in 2010 before the 2012 ban would even start.
Levine: Yes, and I like the fact that they did that. They (said) they did that because of me.
You specifically drafted this bill to say incandescent lightbulb. Have GE, or companies like that, been lobbying you to change the wording of your bill? Are you considering backing down from a complete ban on that type of bulb?
Levine: Yes, they have. I've met with them; they've discussed it. We are right now doing research on the efficiency standards for lightbulbs. They're a little bit different in each company. Philips, for example, has already announced they're actually stopping production of incandescent lightbulbs--I believe next year.
GE on the other hand came out and said, "Hey, we're making an energy-efficient lightbulb, you know. What about that?" So they're all working with me, not in opposition, to try to craft legislation that works.
Maybe you can explain more. You seem to be very deep in this.
Levine: You have no idea.
But, you've just been saying how CFLs are great and they've been on the market for some time and they're readily available. What's the advantage to lessening the bill's rigorous intent to give GE time to develop a more efficient incandescent lightbulb? GE already sells CFLs. Why not just say, "Well, we're happy you're getting on the green wagon, but in the meantime, your old line of incandescent bulbs for the home are just going to be banned"?
Levine: Well, because there's a number of other bulbs we're looking at right now. We were just focusing on general-service incandescent, but with new efficiency standards we may be able to work with the companies in such a way that this applies to a broader spectrum of lighting.
We're talking about regulations with the Energy Star program.
You know, the idea behind this is to make lighting more efficient to reduce energy cost. Energy efficiency means doing the same thing but using energy less to do it...Your refrigerator today keeps the same amount of food, sometimes more, just as cold as it did 20 years ago. Yet it uses a fraction of the energy to keep that food cold.