Front-loading washing machines meet federal standards more easily than top-loaders.
Because they don't fully immerse their laundry loads, they use less hot water and therefore less energy: But, as Americans are increasingly learning, front-loaders are expensive, often have mold problems, and don't let you toss in a wayward sock after they've started.

The culprit is the federal government's obsession with energy efficiency:
In their quiet destruction of a highly affordable, perfectly satisfactory appliance, washer standards demonstrate the harmfulness of the ever-growing body of efficiency mandates.
In 2007, after the more stringent rules had kicked in, Consumer Reports noted that some top-loaders were leaving its test swatches "nearly as dirty as they were before washing." "For the first time in years," CR said, "we can't call any washer a Best Buy."
Contrast that with the magazine's 1996 report that, "given warm enough water and a good detergent, any washing machine will get clothes clean." Those were the good old days....
Newer types of [front-load and modified top-load] washers cost about twice as much as conventional top-loaders, but [in the 2007 test] they didn't clean as well as the 1996 models. The situation got so bad that the Competitive Enterprise Institute started a YouTube protest campaign, "Send Your Underwear to the Undersecretary." With the click of a mouse, you could email your choice of virtual bloomers, boxers or Underoos to the Department of Energy. Several hundred Americans did so, but it wasn't enough to stop Congress from mandating even stronger standards a few months later.

Now Congress is at it once again.
On March 10 [2011], the Senate Energy Committee held hearings on a bill to make efficiency standards even more stringent.
The bill claims to implement "national consensus appliance agreements," but those in this consensus are the usual suspects:
politicians pushing feel-good generalities, bureaucrats seeking expanded powers, environmentalists with little regard for American pocketbooks, and industries that stand to profit from a de facto ban on low-priced appliances.
And there are green tax goodies for manufacturing high-efficiency models—the kind that already give so many tax credits to Whirlpool, for example, that the company will avoid paying taxes on its $619 million profit in 2010.

Amazingly, the consensus also includes so-called consumer groups such as the Consumer Federation of America and Consumers Union.
At last week's hearing, the federation touted a survey supposedly showing overwhelming public support for higher efficiency standards. But not a single question in that survey suggested that these standards might compromise performance. Consumers Union, meanwhile, which publishes Consumer Reports, claims that "new washers can't be compared to old ones" — but that's belied by the very language in its articles.

We know that politics can be dirty.
Who'd have guessed how literal a truth this is?

The Federal Government is considering new energy efficiency mandates for icemakers.
Before starting down this path it should carefully examine the differences between the rosy promises and the real results from other household appliance efficiency standards that it has imposed.....
The savings from federally mandated energy efficiency standards for household appliances are often overstated. The Cato Institute found that U.S. energy efficiency standards will cost consumers up to $56 billion through 2050, excluding the government’s costs.
Energy-saving washing machines, for example, can initially cost twice as much as the machines they replace, but it is argued that they pay for themselves with lower utility bills. These “green” washers use up to 70 percent less water, but optimal results require a specially formulated [low sud] detergent, which can be more expensive. Even under the best conditions, the benefits are drastically overstated. According to Forbes, it could take an average of nine years to recover through energy savings the high price of an energy-efficient washing machine. Because the average lifespan of a machine is 12 years, by the time the consumer realizes savings, it is nearly time to buy a replacement.
The government that took away our light bulbs and our well-functioning high flow toilets now wants us to use icemakers that use less energy to freeze water. I fear the result will be higher prices for freezers that often don’t make fully solid ice – you may find water running out of your freezer or food spoiling. The government should stop dictating to consumers what products they buy and how much energy they use – The feds can’t get their own fiscal house in order, and they should certainly stay out of telling us how to run ours.

"The green stimulus packages being implemented to tackle the financial crisis in several countries all include investments in energy efficiency.....They may be a lot less effective at reducing energy use than expected because of the rebound effect."

"That is potentially important because it will lead to us over-estimating what certain policies will achieve" adds Steve Sorrell, a researcher at the UK Energy Research Centre and an energy policy expert at the University of Sussex.

Do CFLs actually reduce our consumption of electricity?
Even for this seemingly unquestionable claim, the answer isn’t clear...the town of Traer, Iowa, persuaded most of its residents to turn in their incandescent bulbs for free fluorescents. The results? Electricity use increased by nearly 10 percent. People figured that, because running the new lights was cheaper, they might as well keep them on longer.

"Delaying the date for compliance with Canada’s efficiency standards for general service lighting for 100/75/60/40W light bulbs (general service lamps) is required in order to strengthen communication activities, to allow for technological innovations and to consider the concerns expressed about the availability of compliant technologies and perceived health and mercury issues, including safe disposal for compact fluorescent lamps"

It's a strange world that bans safe-to-use products, when banning unsafe-to-use products was previously the norm.

It's a stranger world still, that here turns that idea on its head, so that it is the pushed replacement products that are questionably safe to use, while a safe product is banned.

More precisely, it is a ban on the simple safe versatile cheap quick responding bright broad-spectrum incandescent light bulb.

Why ban it then?

The political talk is as seen of enhancing the energy saving capability of a light bulb, of pushing manufacturers to make such better energy saving bulbs, to "everyone's advantage":

Forgetting that there is no free lunch,
that energy usage limitations compromise other characteristics,
usually increase price, and for many reasons do not give supposd savings.

And, as for the "stimulation of manufacturers to make better products"
that would instead arise out of increasing, not decreasing, competition,
and out of increasing, not decreasing, the variability of products on offer,
where a positive usage saving advantage can always be marketed with bulbs as it is with other products, as will be seen.
Overall, competition also delivers more - not less - energy savings than regulation does, as covered in a concluding essay.
Do politicians want to help consumers, or profit-seeking light-bulb manufacturing executives?
Because in "pushing manufacturers", why are the manufacturers so happy to be "pushed" by politicians who tell them what they can or can't make?

So why are the light bulbs being banned?

Because of their overwhelming popularity.
There is no point in banning an unpopular product.
There are no "Big Savings" from banning what people would not have bought anyway.

But should not the manufacturers be delighted to be selling popular bulbs?
No, not the major manufacturers:
Too easy to make and sell the cheap bulbs, for unwelcome local "upstarts" as it is for them.
Not so easy to make and sell the more profitable expensive bulbs, even when you get the cheapest Chinese labor you can to make them.
So if politicians wave funny bulbs around to show they are doing something to save the earth, the major manufacturers are not going to cry... on the way to the bank.

Again, as a decision supposedly "to save electricity" (ignoring the amount):
There is no foreseeable shortage of future electricity supply sources, that warrant a restriction on how the electricity can be used by those who pay for the electricity and how it is generated.
More and more electricity source alternatives, including emission free alternatives, are appearing.

Stranger still:
If there was a shortage, the price rise would make people use less electricity anyway.
More precisely, any shortage of finite fuel sources for electricity, such as coal, raises its price and reduces its use anyway.
Which also means what?
Which also means electricity saving products become more desirable to buy, just as more fuel efficient cars are sold when energy markets dictate it.
No need for regulations to achieve it, if and when such usage reduction is needed.

If there nevertheless is a problem, deal with the problem:
Light bulbs don't burn coal, and they don't release CO2 gas.
Power plants might - and might not.
Supposed savings are always given in 2020-2050 year terms, when more relevant and significant supply side changes can (and will) have taken place.

Stranger still:
The consumption savings are hardly there anyway, for many reasons, and even if they were, there are still other and better ways to reduce consumption.

Even if that was not true,
other lighting related policies (stimulated market competition, bulb taxation) not only increase the sales of energy efficient lighting at low prices, but competition in particular also promotes efficiency in a wider sense, while keeping choice for consumers.

But no!
Nearly all politicians, journalists, environmentalists agree!
The simple -overhelmingly popular- light bulb has to go!
Even the manufacturers, as seen, agree!
"Please pass laws that tell us what we can or can't make!"


Welcome to the mad world of the light bulb ban...

"We are not banning any light bulbs!
We are setting energy efficiency standards on them!
We stimulate manufacturers to make lights that save on electricity, and therefore:
We save energy for society,
We save money for consumers, and
We save CO2 emissions that helps save the planet!"

You can still use energy efficient varieties of incandescents that are similar to ordinary bulbs, like Halogens!
Good CFL and LED alternatives will be available!

Page 23:
Cooperation with the Electric Company USA (GE):
In 1906 the new tungsten lamp was demonstrated to a delegation from the General Electric Company [GE] of New York. Soon afterwards Auer and GE signed a patent licence agreement for tungsten filament lamps and a know-how exchange agreement for lamps with extruded metal filaments. The agreement gave GE the exclusive patent rights for America.
This was the start of friendly cooperation between DGA and GE... [DGA: Deutsche Gasglühlicht-Aktiengesellschaft...became Osram]

...As a show of gratitude for help given in setting up the American tungsten lamp factory, the Americans [GE] gave DGA the rights to use their drawing process and the associated patents. A patent exchange agreement was signed. This was then extended to cover the entire incandescent lamp sector....

The Patent Interest Association of 1911
Each of the three German incandescent lamp manufacturers had a know-how exchange agreement with the General Electric Company, with the result that since 1910 technical developments at all three companies had been going in the same direction.
On March 15,1911 the “Patent Interest Association for Incandescent Lamps” was formed by the three Berlin companies and GE..... Licences were granted to other incandescent lamp companies......For the companies involved the patent association was a stepping stone to even closer cooperation in the future....

In subsequent years, cooperation among the three major German incandescent lamp manufacturers was not restricted to lamp technologies and the joint development of methods of manufacture. Even before the first world war the management of the companies were aware of the competitive advantage that a concentration of their powers, at all levels including economic, would give the young German lighting industry on the international stage.

The world light bulb agreement (Phoebus agreement):

Soon after OSRAM was founded its chairman, Dr. William Meinhardt, made it his mission not only to unite the German light bulb industry but also to achieve international cooperation among similar companies. His aim was to build bridges and make connections to bring the world’s leading companies closer together. The conditions for preparatory negotiations lasted many years until finally in 1924 Dr. Meinhardt’s initiative bore fruit in the form of the “General Patent and Development Agreement”.
A company called Phoebus S.A. was founded under Swiss law. Its highest decision-making body was the general assembly. The chairman of the administrative board (supervisory board) was Dr. Meinhardt.

This “world light bulb agreement” was one of the most far-reaching international agreements. It included the most prominent manufacturing companies in the world, with the exception of those in the USA and Canada (through with their agreement) as direct members.
Representing Europe were OSRAM from Germany, Philips from Holland, G.E.C. from the UK, the Compagnie des Lampes from France, Kremenezky from Austria, Tungsram from Hungary, the Società Edison Clerici from Italy and companies from Spain. Swedish and Swiss companies provided a representative together with medium-size German light bulb manufacturers. The initial agreement was set to run for ten years but it was extended in view of its success...

Paragraph 1 of the world light bulb agreement:
“The purpose and intent of this agreement is to secure the cooperation of all the parties to the agreement, to ensure that their production capacities for manufacturing lamps are properly exploited, to safeguard and maintain a uniformly high quality standard, to improve profitability in the distribution of sales, to increase the effectiveness of electric lighting and to increase the use of electric light for the benefit of users.”
The agreement related to all electric light bulbs used for illumination, heating or medical purposes. Arc lamps, neon lamps, x-ray lamps and radio tubes were excluded. If, during the course of the agreement, new light sources of general importance were developed they could be included in the agreement. This applied later to fluorescent lamps...

Compliance with the declared purpose of the agreement was achieved by means of a far-reaching patent and know-how exchange arrangements, typing and standardisation of the lamps, safeguarding of market shares for each member, reporting of all sales to the administration company and auditing of these sales...

European cooperation in bulb production:
Growing pressure on prices led to the realisation that the manufacture of glass bulbs for lamps had to be rationalised. Because only large-scale production is profitable, the European Company for the Production and Sale of Lamp Components was set up jointly with European lamp manufacturers in Lommel, Belgium... "

During World War I, the War Industries Board was a government-authorized, industry-staffed effort engaged in industrial planning. General Electric executives such as Gerard Swope participated:
By so doing, and by watching Hoover in action in the sister agency, the Food Administration, they got the idea that by participating in such government authorized planning efforts, they could keep out competitors, control the market, and maximize their profits.

When Swope was named president of General Electric in 1922, he immediately set about applying those principles to the electrical lighting market.
Swope knew that the tungsten patent [vital to well-working light bulbs] would expire in 1927.
How was he going to maintain his monopoly?
In the free market, the only way to maintain continued dominance was to continue to innovate...

The Phoebus Cartel
In 1924, General Electric, along with several major European corporations, and with the implicit blessing of Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover, formed a cartel
- a cooperative group of competing firms who agreed to fix prices, share technology, establish production standards, and use common marketing practices.
By sharing incandescent light bulb patents that kept competitors out, and by agreeing on exclusive geographic spheres of influence, the member companies could maintain high market shares and high profits.
Called "The Phoebus Cartel" after the Swiss company Phoebus, they set out to keep track of all their activities around the world.

Under the agreement, General Electric got the United States, Associated Electrical Industries got the United Kingdom, Osram got Germany, Philips got Holland, and Tungsram got Eastern Europe. The European companies got to share the British overseas territories, and they all could compete in the rest of the world. General Electric was guaranteed that none of the other major manufacturers of incandescent light bulbs would enter the American market.
When the agreement began, General Electric had a 90 percent market share.
When it ended fifteen years later, General Electric still had a 90 percent market share.

Only a few dozen small, scrappy Japanese manufacturing companies dared to enter the American market and take on General Electric:
They ignored General Electric and related Phoebus Cartel patents, copied what they could, and shipped their less expensive, shorter-lasting incandescent bulbs into the United States. When they began to show some increase in sales, General Electric got its friends in Congress to slap a tariff on imported incandescent bulbs, and the price advantage disappeared. Japanese inroads were stopped.

When the cartel was first organized, the life span of the average bulb was 1,000 hours. Fifteen years later, when the cartel came to an end due to World War II, it remained the same.
This is not the kind of progress you would expect if the full engineering and research capabilities of General Electric had been tasked with expanding the life span.
Word in our family has always been that this was intentional:
Every 1,000 hours, you had to buy a new incandescent light bulb. Why expand the life span to 2,000 hours? You would just cut your sales in half...

In 1995, Mirabella challenged Philips world registered patent for compact fluorescent lamps. After long-drawn-out legal battles, including two appeals by Philips, the High Court ruled Philips’ patent to be invalid causing repercussions worldwide within the CFL manufacturing industry.

The German scientist and film-maker Professor Klaus Stanjek has an historical overview of the CFL push by manufacturers.
This was part of a general ecological impact assessment (original German language version) of CFLs made for Greenpeace Hamburg in Germany, so it is hardly research biased in favour of ordinary light bulbs.
Slightly condensed quotation:

"Fluorescent lamps have been subject to criticism ever since they were introduced in the 1930’s. Physicians, ergonomists and trade unionists repeatedly reported various forms of discomfort of employees who constantly had to work under fluorescent light: eyestrain, inflammations, headaches, and loss of performance.
The lighting industry have always rejected this criticism and continued the distribution of these lamps. In the 1980’s they even managed to put through the use of fluorescent lamps in residential use – without much objection by those affected.
Essentially this was accomplished on the basis of one single argument: the customers could save money. While the campaigns admitted that customers would pay much more per lamp, this would supposedly still be cheaper [in running costs] considering the lifetime and energy consumption of the lamps.
Campaigns also targeted the ecological conscience of customers.
Through a clever information strategy Osram and other lamp manufacturers convinced many newspapers and magazines to print their argumentation, and they gained the support of Stiftung Warentest [equivalent to “Which?”], “Globus” (a TV programme on environmental issues), the German Federal Environmental Agency, and even critical organisations such as the B.U.N.D. (German Association for the Preservation of the Environment and Nature). By now the ministries even prompt their administrative offices to install “energy saving lamps”. These fluorescent lamps were not even assessed by others than the manufacturers themselves."

Representatives of Philips and General Electric, two of the biggest lightbulb makers, say there's nothing to be concerned about.
And Larry Lauck of the American Lighting Association says, "I think everyone's pretty happy" with the new law.
But then, the lighting industry has no reason not to be:
People will need light, whatever the law says--according to Randy Moorehead of Philips, there are four billion standard-size (or "medium base") light sockets in America alone.

So if you're GE or Philips or Sylvania, the demise of the plain vanilla lightbulb is less a threat than an opportunity--an opportunity, in particular, to replace a product that you can sell for 50 cents with one that sells for $3 or more.
Yes, the $3 bulb lasts longer. Yes, it cuts your electricity bill.
Mr. Moorehead says that when every one of those four billion light sockets has an energy-saving bulb in it, the country will be saving $18 billion a year on its electric bill. That's $4.50 per bulb--and the bulb makers are standing by to make sure a substantial portion of those "savings" get transformed into profits for them.
Now it may be that those bulbs are worth more--because they last longer, etc. But some of those bulbs, like compact fluorescents and Philips' new "Halogena-IR" bulb, are already available. Currently they command all of 5% of the lightbulb market.
That means that, whatever value proposition GE and Philips are selling, consumers aren't buying. What we bulb buyers needed, it seemed, was a little nudge. Or, if you want to be cynical about it, the bulb business decided to migrate its customers to more-expensive--and presumably higher-margin--products by banning the low-cost competition.
"I was kind of involved at the very beginning" of this legislation, Mr. Moorehead says modestly.
Indeed, in December 2006, Philips announced a campaign to encourage governments all around the world to phase out low-cost bulbs by 2015.
What's remarkable about this bit of market interference is that there is, basically, nothing wrong with the present-day, Edison-style lightbulb.
It's not a lawn dart or a lead-painted toy or a magnet that will perforate your kid's intestines if he swallows it. It is what it is, and for most people in most applications, it was good enough. So the lightbulb makers and the environmentalists convinced Congress to ban them for no better reason than they believed everyone would be better off with something else.

Note that the lightbulb makers shouldn't need a ban to convince consumers to "upgrade." Microsoft, Dell, Apple and any number of other companies manage to convince the Joneses that they need a better "one"--whatever it is--every few years.
If Philips wanted a Halogena-IR bulb in every socket, it had only to put them on the market at a price that made them irresistible compared to the 50-cent bulb of yore. Likewise with the much hailed compact fluorescent. They have been on the market a good deal longer than Philips's fancy new incandescent. The prices have come down and the quality has gone up. But not, apparently, enough for 95% of the bulb-buying public.
A few years back, one could have argued with a straight face that consumer awareness of the benefits of CFLs was inadequate.
No more.
The sticking point lies at that ineffable nexus between price and quality--with all that "quality" implies, whether it be service life, the delay between flicking the switch and full power, or color temperature or the look of the thing.

There are billions to be made--and spent--figuring out how to get consumers to pay more for something.
This year Steve Jobs convinced a million people to pay $400 for a cell phone in a market in which many people believe that the phone should come free with a service contract.
But why worry about making a product so good people feel they have to have it, when you can instead get the government to tell them they have no choice?

Meanwhile the NEMA (National Electrical Manufacturers Association) Lamp Subcommittee was conducting its own research and internal hearings that culminated in a recommendation to ban the incandescent light bulb.

The NEMA Lamp Subcommittee was composed of General Electric, Osram Sylvania, and Phillips, the same industrial giants who formed the old Phoebus Cartel back in 1924.
When I asked NEMA for help in fighting the incandescent light ban, I was politely told that they could not be involved in any research program like that.
In April 2007, ahead of Congress hearings, NEMA then announced its support for energy efficient lighting policy...

In 2007, Philips urged an incandescent ban as a way to force the market toward high-efficiency bulbs, complaining that without such laws, "purchase price and functional performance often take precedence over environmental concern."

Why did GE, founded by Thomas Edison, support a bill that killed the traditional incandescent light bulb?
The company said in 2007 it wanted to make sure it was working under a single federal efficiency standard, rather than a patchwork of state regulations. GE also touts its compact fluorescents as one of the green products in its “eco-magination” initiative.
So, GE gets environmentalist brownie points for selling “clean” light bulbs, and they also get to charge more for their bulbs. But there’s another advantage—they save on labor with fluorescents, because they make the fluorescents in China.
Not only are wages lower there, but so are the regulatory burdens, both environmental and labor. The Times of London recently reported, “Large numbers of Chinese workers have been poisoned by mercury, which forms part of the compact fluorescent lightbulbs.”

"The original version of this article stated that GE “lobbied to kill the incandescent bulb.”
This was imprecise. In 2007 GE opposed proposals to explicitly outlaw incandescents. Instead, the company advocated simply setting efficiency standards for all bulbs, regardless of what type of bulb. This had the known effect of outlawing all traditional incandescents, but leaving open the possibility of high-efficiency incandescents."

So some years ago, Philips formed a coalition with environmental groups including the Natural Resources Defense Council to push for higher standards.
“We felt that we needed to make a call, and show that the best-known lighting technology, the incandescent light bulb, is at the end of its lifetime,” says Harry Verhaar, the company’s head of strategic sustainability initiatives.

Philips told its environmental allies it was well positioned to capitalize on the transition to new technologies and wanted to get ahead of an efficiency movement that was gaining momentum abroad and in states like California. Other manufacturers were more wary, but they also understood the downside to selling a ubiquitous commodity:
the profit margin on a bulb that sells for a quarter is negligible. After much negotiation, the industry and environmental groups agreed to endorse tightening efficiency by 25 to 30 percent.

“It’s a different sale than we’re used to,” said Ed Crawford, a top executive in Philips’s lighting division. Over lunch at its corporate offices in Somerset, N.J., near Edison’s old lab, Crawford told me he started out with the Philips subsidiary Norelco, retailing electric razors. “The sale is really the same,” he said. You can buy a razor for a dollar that you can use to shave your face — or you can buy an appliance. An Ambient LED will last as long as an electric razor, and while that means Philips will be giving up many disposable-bulb sales, the comparatively high prices (and 20 to 30 percent margins) currently prevailing in the L.E.D. marketplace will make the tradeoff extremely profitable, at least in the short term....

President Obama on Monday was scheduled to give a pep talk for American manufacturing at a factory in Durham, N.C., where Cree Inc. makes LED light bulbs. Cree embodies Obama-era capitalism: profiting from government grants, political connections, revolving-door lobbyists and regulations that force people to buy your product.
From its 10-Q: "Historically, government agencies have funded a significant portion of our research and development activities. In addition, government agencies have purchased products directly from us and products from our customers for which we supply components."
Since 2001, Cree has received more than $78 million in federal grants, according to USASpending.gov, and more than $96 million in federal contracts. And overseas, the Chinese government is Cree's biggest customer. State and local governments also subsidize the company.
Company Vice President Greg Merritt spoke about the LED boom in April 2009 at a green-tech conference. "We are in a perfect storm in some respects," he said. After talking about new manufacturing efficiencies, Merritt added, "The political environment for sustainable technologies and energy efficiency is perhaps more favorable today than it's been for quite a while."
Merritt should know -- he and his colleagues helped shape that "political environment." Merritt lobbied Congress on the 2007 energy bill, "Specifically, provisions related to energy-efficient lighting." That is, Merritt and Cree's other lobbyists supported the law that will effectively outlaw the [much more popular] incandescent bulb, thus creating unwilling demand for their more expensive LED bulbs.
President Obama doesn't see this as the regulatory robbery it is.
He sees it as stimulus.
After all, the regulation has helped Cree hire new workers....
Well, except for the hundreds of former General Electric factory workers who used to make the old incandescents in factories in Winchester, Va., Niles, Ohio, and Lexington, Ky. Those factories closed last summer thanks to the same law that is benefitting Cree. (Don't cry for GE, though -- the company's lobbyists also supported the regulations, which will drive business to their more profitable fluorescents and LEDs.)

Another loser: the American consumer, who loses the freedom of choice...

With such great endorsement on the industrial side to a political program [that tells the manufacturers how they must manufacture], the suspicion is therefore gradually aroused if it might not also be the other way round:
The globally ruling industry wants a ban, since they have been unable to influence buyer behavior to their satisfaction, and politicians compliantly follow along...

UNEP en.lighten initiative:
Private sector and the UN in partnership to en.lighten the world [their words]
The UNEP en.lighten initiative was created in 2009 as a partnership between UNEP, Philips Lighting and OSRAM, with support of the Global Environment Facility (GEF) [more on GEF follows].
The initiative addresses the challenge of accelerating global market transformation to environmentally sustainable lighting technologies by developing a global strategy in support of the gradual phase-out of inefficient lighting.

• the development of a global policy strategy to gradually eliminate inefficient and obsolete lighting products;
• the promotion of high performance and efficient lighting technologies in developing and emerging nations;
• the substitution of traditional fuel-based lighting with efficient alternatives.

The en.lighten initiative has created global taskforces where international experts from developing, emerging and developed countries and sectors are working on a global approach to phase out inefficient incandescent lamps.

"Market forces are not sufficient to achieve the rapid transformation needed in the lighting market to respond to the climate change challenge.
Instead, a multi-stakeholder global partnership is required to support countries as they embark upon efficient lighting transformation programmes.
As two of the biggest lighting manufacturers in the world, we have chosen to focus our efforts on transforming the lighting market in partnership with UNEP through its en.lighten initiative.
With its unparalleled global network, UNEP can provide leadership by inspiring and enabling nations to prioritise efficient lighting and reap the benefits of lowered energy costs."

The Global Environment Facility (GEF) unites 182 member governments — in partnership with international institutions, civil society organizations (CSOs), and the private sector — to address global environmental issues.
Established in 1991, the GEF is today the largest funder of projects to improve the global environment.

"CFL household saturation is still low throughout the United States, even in regions with successful and long-standing energy efficiency programs.... the residential sector contains 90 percent of CFL-appropriate sockets, but has only 11 percent CFL saturation. Thirty percent of households still own no CFLs, and 64 percent of households that own CFLs have five or fewer."

"The CFL market owes much to the sustained work of Energy Efficiency Program Sponsors (EEPS):
Despite the tremendous potential for energy savings, CFLs might well have languished as niche specialty products, held back by a high price point and lack of consumer familiarity, if not for the investment and assistance of EEPS. These utilities, state agencies, and advocacy and non-profit have worked to promote CFLs as a cornerstone of energy efficiency. In many cases, CFL promotions by EEPS drove the market, allowing manufacturers and retailers to build consumer demand.
EEPS typically collaborate with manufacturers and retailers to promote CFLs to their customers.
Many promotion programs are designed to offset some or all of the price premium for CFLs, allowing them to gain a foothold in the market...
Customer Coupons (mail-in or instant): Program sponsors provide coupons for customers to redeem when purchasing CFLs.
Manufacturer Buy-Down: Program sponsors pay CFL manufacturers to reduce the wholesale product price. The price discount is subsequently passed on to consumers as a lower retail price.
Retailer Mark-Down: Program sponsors pay retailers to reduce retail price product.
Direct Install: Program sponsor uses field staff to install CFLs in homes, usually low-income homes, or other targeted populations."

Marketing and Consumer Education
Identify niche markets (building sub-markets) where the benefits of the new technology make especially good sense, and where initial sales can be built. The hotel and multi-family housing markets, where energy savings and reduced maintenance costs were important drivers to the use of CFLs, were initially targeted by DOE and some utility programs.
Focus message on areas where the technology can meet expectations, and reshape consumer expectations where new lighting technologies fall short. For example, CFLs are often a good choice for general illumination, but not for applications where a focused beam is needed (i.e., spotlight and narrow floodlights).
Marketing literature should show comparisons of savings to the standard technology, e.g. the 1 CFL = 10 incandescents [!!]

Consumers find that long-life claims are hard to believe and hard to relate to, unless backed up by guarantees or trusted labeling.
Consumers want to see how a new technology performs before they buy it; (i.e., they want to see lit CFLs in in-store displays). It is generally also better to show the new technology clearly in transparent “blister packs” than to hide it in an opaque cardboard box. Don’t apologize for differences from standard products; celebrate them.
Consistent, meaningful terminology across the industry is important for new products. Get consumer feedback on terminology early on and use education to counter any image problems. Consider adopting a new industry-wide name, for example with CFLs that avoids the word “fluorescent” all together.
[yes "energy saving" lights sounds much better...]

Product advertising should be specific about benefits. How much longer do they last? How much energy do they save?
Shift consumer focus from product price to product value, including non-energy-efficient attributes like longevity and convenience.
Consider using educational and marketing campaigns to celebrate the distinct advantages of energy efficient lighting and the disadvantages of incandescent light bulbs.
[no advantages with ordinary light bulbs, of course...]

Conducting in-store product demonstrations is a good way to educate consumers.
[educate...as in "convince"]
Promote CFLs through several different mediums to reinforce customer familiarity and positive associations with product.
Consumer education activities might include utility bill stuffers, and CFL product demonstrations at local fairs, home shows, and energy shows. Education tools like brochures, posters, demonstrations, and wall displays should be provided to retailers.
Public service advertising should be supported to educate consumers and bring efficiency forward as a lighting selection criterion.
Utilities should offer education programs like telephone hotlines and websites to consumers and training programs for builders, designers, and retailers.
Arrange shelf displays by lighting application rather than manufacturer and identify good/better/best options that correlate to longer product life and greater energy efficiency. For example, a customer going to the store seeking a bulb for a reading lamp would be presented with good/better/best options for reading lamp bulbs.
[yes, like a dim bulky UV-radiating light, that doesn't fit his reading lamp...]

Ideally, new lighting technologies should be available where consumers typically purchase bulbs – in grocery stores. However grocery stores are unlikely candidates for new lighting technologies. Therefore, consumers will need to need to be educated on where to shop for new energy efficient lighting products (hardware and home improvement, mass market discounters where higher priced items are norm instead of grocery stores).
Build a message of value (costs more/worth more) rather than the short-term fix of a rebate.
[Manufacturers already advertise costs more/worth more, with "Energizer" batteries etc. People will buy CFLs too if they are good enough, without the need of "consumer education". Amazing, isn't it?]

Mass media is vital to widespread adoption of a new technology. Pay attention to both paid and unpaid. Paid advertising would include advertising on TV, radio, newspapers and magazines. Unpaid means getting messages to media through news releases, press events and being ready with media messages when spotlight turns to energy efficiency (like the California energy crisis of 2000 or Earth Day) or safety (like halogen torchieres).
[...As bad as an easily duped politician is an easily duped journalist. Too many of each]
Packaging needs to be more clear concerning warranties and replacement of failed products.
Use a color label on packaging that clearly indicates the warmth or coolness of a CFL product’s light output.

Program Design
Utility giveaway programs can increase buyer awareness but don’t create lasting market transformation by themselves, because they bypass normal market distribution routes. They may also undermine retail sales.
If providing incentives, utilities should consider developing a program that focuses on retailers and manufacturers. This allows for a lower price to the consumer and involves manufacturers in the process. Retailers are another good focus for incentives since the incentives can be coordinated with retailer training.
As with most new technologies, prices are highest initially when sales volumes are low and manufacturing processes may not be optimized. Manufacturers should keep in mind however that it’s hard for consumers to assign a value to a product (i.e., know when they are getting a good deal) if price keeps fluctuating (from free to $25+). Utility rebates are likely to have exacerbated this problem with consumers.
Energy efficiency is often not the leading factor in energy-efficient lighting sales. Safety, for example, led to 1 million units sold in a year for the 1998 introduction of ENERGY STAR torchieres. Product marketing should focus on the product attributes deemed most important by consumers.

Products shouldn’t be given away unsolicited. Some action on the part of the consumer should be required, if not a purchase then mailing in a card. Action yields higher installation rates and greater awareness.
Utilities have found that developing enthusiastic and ongoing retailer participation is a key to market introduction programs. Lighting manufacturers, who generally have regional sales staff, should ensure that these staff are well trained on the new technology and can provide information to retailers. Utilities have found that building retailer trust can take 2 to 3 years, so ongoing communications are important.
Programs that start with low-quality, poor performing (often low-cost) products to keep costs down may find that this approach can backfire.
It is difficult to convince consumers to buy something they once received for free, especially if the initial experience wasn’t a positive one.

Several studies showed that retailers were a primary source of information about lighting for consumers but surveys of retailers showed that they felt inadequately prepared to discuss energy efficient lighting. Retailers need and want more training so that they can feel more knowledgeable about energy efficient lighting. They also want tools to get the message across to the consumer: in-store displays, signage, brochures, more informative packaging, etc.
[Just show retailers the money they make by telling dumb Joe Public what light he wants to use...]

"Some argue that CFL cost is no longer a barrier. Non-incentivized prices for CFLs have come down dramatically in the last few years, with retailers selling the basic spiral types for two dollars apiece or less.
Michael Siminovitch, director of the California Lighting Technology Center at the University of California, Davis, believes incentive programs can be very effective, but only if they go hand in with good products.
"Government officials [depend too much on incentives]...“We’ve had CFL incentive programs for years and years. You have to have a sustainable product that survives on its own attributes.” Mr. Siminovitch said...
...CFLs subsidized by California ratepayers are “being resold on eBay all over the country and even in Canada,” said Mindy Spatt, spokesperson for the Utility Reform Network. “The utility companies need to do more to provide real, on the ground savings to consumers, not just dump a few thousand light bulbs imported from China at Home Depot.”

California Utilities have spent $548 million of customer rate payments over the last seven years to CFLs.
The subsidization has been a success:
Over 100 million CFLs have been purchased since 2006. In the year 2002, total CFL sales were 2.5 million. But by 2008, CFL sales in California totaled 52.1 million. This huge growth is even more startling when considering the growth of CFL sales outside California. During the years between 2003 and 2008, the rest of the nations CFL market grew just 37% per year. California’s market, with its subsidized CFLs, grew at a much higher rate.

At $1.57 per bulb, CPUC and the utilities have carried out the most effective subsidized CFL adoption program in the nation. This was designed to increase energy savings through home lighting efficiency. Unfortunately, CFLs did not save nearly as much energy as CPUC and CFL proponents had hoped. In 2010, CPUC released a report on the Upstream Lighting Program (ULP), the energy efficiency program providing subsidized CFLs to consumer, and found that CFLs underperformed energy efficiency goals by 75%.
The primary reason for this underperformance is the failure of CFLs to live up to their promised efficiency and endurance standards. The regulators expected CFLs to last 9.4 years on average. But with field-testing and actual deployment in high numbers, the estimate has been reduced to 6.4 years. Even though the program did not meet efficiency targets, utilities have been rewarded with taxpayer money for the program’s performance.
CPUC rewarded California utilities with $104 million dollars despite an administrative judge’s ruling to the contrary.
Following the decision, the Division of Ratepayers Advocates warned “if the CPUC does not make fundamental improvements to energy efficiency programs, ratepayers will receive little benefit to the billions they are investing.” In the face of unmet efficiency goals, consumer backlash, and ratepayer dissatisfaction, CPUC moved forward with its coercive CFL program while appropriating rate-payer and tax-payer money to fund the failing program.

Anxious to see what ratepayers got for their money, California utility regulators have devoted millions of dollars in the past three years for evaluation reports and field studies.

When it set up its bulb program in 2006, PG&E Corp. thought its customers would buy 53 million compact fluorescent bulbs by 2008. It allotted $92 million for rebates, the most of any utility in the state. Researchers hired by the California Public Utilities Commission concluded earlier this year that fewer bulbs were sold, fewer were screwed in, and they saved less energy than PG&E anticipated: One reason is that bulbs have gotten so cheap that Californians buy more than they need and sock them away for future use. Another reason is that the bulbs are burning out faster than expected....field tests show higher burnout rates in certain locations, such as bathrooms and in recessed lighting. Turning them on and off a lot also appears to impair longevity.

As a result of these and other factors, energy savings attributed to PG&E were 73% less than the 1.7 billion kilowatt hours projected by PG&E for the 2006-2008 program.

One complexity of California's incentive program is it seeks to reward utilities only for energy savings they directly cause. For example, utilities aren't supposed to get rewarded for bulbs purchased by people who say they would have bought them even without utility promotions.
Nevertheless, anxious to move on to the current 2010-2012 program, the commission last month gave the utilities $68 million of rewards, on top of $143.7 million of incentive pay previously awarded. PG&E pocketed $104 million total...

Dian Grueneich, one of two commission members who voted against the final incentive payment, said it rewarded utilities for subpar performance.
Commission President Michael Peevey, who favored the extra pay, said he didn't want to ding utilities for an incentive program that was "unworkable".

Ohio State law requires regulated, investor-owned utilities such as FirstEnergy to reduce energy usage by 22.2 percent by the end of 2025 and reduce peak demand by 7.75 percent by the end of 2018.
[Why? Where's the energy problem for Ohio and America?]

[So], the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio has approved a revised program for FirstEnergy Corp. to distribute free compact fluorescent light bulbs.
The program was postponed in late 2009 after customers and politicians sharply criticized the utility’s initial proposal to distribute two CFLs door to door in a mandatory program.

As part of the revised light bulb program, FirstEnergy customers can immediately begin calling 888-846-2235 to request up to six compact fluorescent bulbs, called CFLs, for "free":
All FirstEnergy customers will pay fees, regardless of whether they take the bulbs.
FirstEnergy residential customers using an average 750 kilowatt hours of electricity per month will pay about $1.50 a month over three years to fund the programs and will fund the associated “lost distribution revenue.”
That totals $54 over the three-year period.

While Todd Snitchler Public Utilities Commission of Ohio Chairman agreed with Wednesday’s decision [on the basis that the savings consumers can realize pay for the costs of energy-efficiency initiatives] he filed a two-page “concurring opinion” in which he states his concern with also allowing utilities to recoup lost revenue for electricity they don’t sell.
He said encouraging customers to save energy while still allowing utilities to recoup costs for electricity it doesn’t sell presents a significant risk of undermining public support of such programs.

Anthony Rodriguez, spokesman for the Ohio Consumers’ Counsel, said the state’s residential utility advocate agrees “that lost distribution should be revisited, and a mechanism that has periodic review and consumer safeguards is one that will best benefit energy efficiency and residential consumers.”

We're going to pay for the light bulbs whether we take them or not, and, when we end up using less electricity, FirstEnergy is going to be able to recoup the money we won't be paying as a result.
And just to highlight the ridiculousness of it all, this is a plan that is supposed to cover 2010-2012. How nice that it's finally gotten approval halfway through the term!

Let's take a look at how much this is 'really' going to save us. The company was originally going to give everyone two light bulbs and charge $.60 per month over three years for a total of about $21.60. In 2009, a four-pack of the same bulbs was only $8.
Under the plan just approved, we're going to get six bulbs and be charged $.30 per month over three years for a total of about $10.80 - half what was originally proposed.
However - and this is a BIG however - FirstEnergy isn't going to charge us just the $.30. They've received permission to charge customers $1.50 per month for three years to fund the program (the $.30 per month for the bulbs) and to cover "lost distribution revenue." That's the amount of money we won't be paying FirstEnergy because we've reduced our energy consumption.
So, I'm going to pay $54 for the 'privilege' of using six "free" CLF light bulbs when I could go to Walmart and purchase the same thing for $2.53 each - a total of $15.16 plus sales tax.

As I wrote two years ago, and I still believe:
Don't blame FirstEnergy for doing what the law requires. Blame the politicians and Governor who passed the law in the first place.
These elitist statists are trying to force us to conform to their opinion of how to save energy - but they're not telling us directly, because we'd revolt if they mandated what kind of light bulb we had to buy.
Instead, they've created a mandate on a supplier of a product, forcing the supplier to try and find a way to get their customers to use less of their product.
This is more than 'stuck on stupid.' It's insane!
I'll repeat: That's like telling Starbucks that people drink too much coffee and they need to get their customers to drink less. Is this not unrealistic and bordering upon 'insanity'?

As it stands today, I'm going to end up paying for a product I do not want and, if I return the product to the supplier, I'm going to be charged. In any other situation, I'd have legal recourse in the courts. Ohio has specific laws to prevent me from being billed for items I did not order and do not want. Apparently, though, when lawmakers crafted this law, they missed the irony of the contradiction.
Maybe I will pursue a lawsuit over the matter - wonder what my chances are of winning?

"If the public are bound to yield obedience to laws to which they cannot give their approbation, they are slaves to those who make such laws and enforce them." ~ Candidus in the Boston Gazette, 1772

"CFLs have been the bedrock of energy efficiency programs across the country, providing 60 to 80 percent of residential energy savings for mature program, yet regulators in a number of states are proposing to reduce or eliminate funding for programs that subsidize general service (bare spiral) CFLs. The reasons most frequently given are declining net-to-gross ratios, perceived market transformation, and the approaching effective date for lamp efficiency standards established in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007).
Recent research published by the Department of Energy based on reliable empirical data sets suggest that the CFL market is far from transformed, that socket saturation is low and highly imbalanced, and that CFLs offer substantial energy savings potential even in regions with long-standing CFL programs. EISA 2007 will indeed lead to major changes in the residential lamp market, but may also have unintended and unexpected consequences. Regulators, utilities, and other energy efficiency program sponsors that want to avoid losing the substantial aenergy savings still available from CFLs need to reframe their program objectives and pursue new implementation strategies."

Dear ENERGY STAR CFL Stakeholders
I understand some Energy Efficiency Program Sponsors are facing severe challenges to the continuation of programs for general service CFLs.
I am concerned, should these programs experience cuts in funding or outright cancellation, many of the gains we have achieved with this market in the last couple of years could be reversed. I feel compelled to take this opportunity to share my understanding of where the market for CFLs is at a national level and where it is likely to go in the near future.

• Sales of CFLs have declined 25% from their peak in 2007. Sales in some regions such as Vermont and parts of Massachusetts have declined 35-50% from their peak. Shipments of CFLs are down 49% in 2009 over 2007 levels.
• Only one in four bulbs [25%] purchased is a CFL. Seventy five percent of medium screw-based sockets still contain incandescents in regions that historically had invested strongly in CFL promotions. Other regions have even higher saturation levels of incandescents. Two thirds of these sockets require only general service CFLs.
[Note: The 25% CFL purchase level is itself questionable, the author might here rather be referring to usage: Far fewer lighting purchases are CFLs according to other DOE and industry data as dealt with later in the text]
• The great majority of households (60-70%) have fewer than 8 CFLs (20% saturation).
• Median household socket saturations are notably lower than mean saturations. This is because there are many households with few bulbs and a few households with many bulbs which skew the distribution.
[A good point: A few committed CFL households with lots of CFLs push up the (mean) household average.
At the same time the figures confirm that most households have tried CFLs - and obviously don't like them enough to want to buy more.]

These numbers paint a troubling picture.
In these tough economic times, CFL programs are especially important in getting consumers past the first cost barrier that often prevent adoption of energy efficient products. Based on additional data and analysis that DOE has continued to gather, it’s apparent that the market is headed in the wrong direction.
In my opinion, utility programs promoting CFL adoption throughout a residence should grow, not shrink. The market needs these programs to compete with well established technologies that cost a fraction up front, and use much more energy.
I encourage you to let me know how the Department can work with you to not only preserve these programs but to grow them. The consequences of curtailing these programs will jeopardize the great strides we have made since 2005.

Sincerely,
Richard H. Karney, P.E.
ENERGY STAR Products Manager

"Free" energy saving bulbs "cost £45"

More than 200 million free energy-saving light bulbs have been sent to households over the last two years by energy suppliers, by gas and electricity suppliers trying to hit Government targets to reduce carbon emissions.

However, Which?, the consumer watchdog has calculated that each household has ended paying £45 each through higher energy bills to fund the scheme, even though many consumers objected to being sent the bulbs. Many complained about having to go to the Post Office to collect what they thought was a parcel, only to find it was a bulb that did not even fit any of their lamps.
"Consumers unwittingly paid for them to help energy companies avoid fines," the Which? report said.
The bulbs were sent by all of the big six suppliers: British Gas, EDF, Eon, Npower, Scottish & Southern and Scottish Power. The companies were, crucially, allowed to pass on the cost of this obligatory Carbon Emissions Reduction Target (CERT) scheme to customers: Ofgem, the industry regulator, calculated that £84 out of the average dual fuel bill of about £1,200 goes on environmental levies, of which £45 goes directly towards funding CERT.

The Department of Energy and Climate Change admitted last year that the scheme was flawed and resulted in significant wastage, with no proof that the lightbulbs were being used in people's homes.
Campaigners, including Which?, have argued that the money should have gone towards installing solid wall insulation in Britain's 6.6 million old and poorly insulated properties, which would save the same amount of carbon emissions as all the lightbulbs put together and help consumers reduce their bills significantly.

Philips calls for global switch to LED lighting

Philips has called for a worldwide switch to LED lighting at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Durban, South Africa.
The company is stating that a tipping point has been reached in the development of LED lighting so that it can now be used for general high-quality lighting in almost all applications. A switch to LED lighting will help combat climate change, save energy and improve people's lives through increased well-being, safety and productivity where they live and work, the company said.
At the Climate World Summit, a high-level side event convening representatives from the public and private sector which ended past Sunday, Harry Verhaar, senior director for energy and climate change at Philips Lighting, challenged the world's governments and businesses to make a rapid switch to highly energy-efficient LED lighting.

"A new global initiative to accelerate the uptake of low energy light bulbs and efficient lighting systems was launched today by the Global Environment Facility (GEF) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). The close to $20 million initiative, the Global Market Transformation for Efficient Lighting Platform will be implemented in collaboration with the private sector companies OSRAM and Philips.
The new global project, which will include a centre of excellence of lighting, will build on and support further commercialization and market penetration among several developing countries that have already made efforts to promote the adoption of CFLs and to phase-out incandescent lamps with GEF support and the involvement of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)."

"Royal Philips Electronics today announces that it will unilaterally phase-out incandescent lamps in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) starting with 100W and higher incandescent light bulbs as per 1 September 2010, followed by the 75W in 2012; 60W in 2014 and in 2016 40W, 25W and 15W. With this plan, Philips is taking another step to help reduce energy consumption and carbon emission by supporting the switch to energy efficient lighting solutions. With the switch, consumers will save money without compromising on quality and style".

"With this switch, consumers will not only preserve the environment but also be able to save on their electricity bills without compromising on the quality of light, instead, creating the perfect ambiance at home.
Philips is aware that significant savings can be made in terms of energy consumption, carbon emission and costs by switching to energy efficient solutions, therefore, we continue our unilateral phase-out of incandescent lamps and simultaneously educate the public through different initiatives on the benefits of the switch."

"In most cases, the preferred approach to the phase-out of inefficient lighting systems in the region has been the provision of fiscal incentives to reduce the cost of CFLs. This is to address the barrier of heavy subsidies for electricity prices prevalent in most countries in the region, as well as the high initial cost of CFLs"

"Ayn Rand wrote a novel, Anthem. It’s a dystopian novel where individual choice is banned and the collective rules society. There’s a young man and his name is Equality 72521. He is an intelligent young man but he is been from achieving or reaching any sort of occupation that would challenge him. He is a street sweeper.

Over time he discovers an abandoned subway and rediscovers the incandescent light bulb. And he thinks, naively, that electricity and the brilliance of light would be an advantage for society and that it would bring great new things as far as being able to see at night, being able to read and the advancement of civilization.

He takes it before the collective of elders, and they take the light bulb, and basically it’s crushed beneath the boot heel of the collective. The collective has no place basically for individual choice.

Now, I’m not suggesting that this collective body is against electricity per se, or that your goals are to quash individualism. But I am suggesting that we’re against choice."

A PETITION From the Manufacturers of Candles, Tapers, Lanterns, sticks, Street Lamps....
...Producers of Tallow, Oil, Resin, Alcohol...
and Generally of Everything Connected with Lighting.

To the Honourable Members of the Chamber of Deputies.

You have little regard for abundance and low prices. You concern yourselves mainly with the fate of the producer......

[Therefore] we ask you to be so good as to pass a law requiring the closing of all windows, dormers, skylights, inside and outside shutters, curtains, casements, bull's-eyes, deadlights, and blinds — in short, all openings, holes, chinks, and fissures through which the light of the sun is wont to enter houses... and thereby create a need for artificial light... [ and all that is required in the manufacture of lighting...]
If France consumes more tallow, there will have to be more cattle and sheep, and, consequently, we shall see an increase in cleared fields, meat, wool, leather, and especially manure, the basis of all agricultural wealth.
If France consumes more oil, we shall see an expansion in the cultivation of the poppy, the olive, and rapeseed...... gilding, bronze, and crystal in candlesticks, in lamps, in chandeliers, in candelabra sparkling in spacious emporia...

Will you tell us that France will not gain at all, because the consumer will bear the expense?

"The ban would never have happened, without the large and extensive lobby campaign, in all member countries, as well as towards The European Commission and the media", Susanne Hammarström says.

She believes that a voluntary switchover to energy saving lamps would have been the preferred policy, without the systematic lobbying work."

"We represent the leading lamp manufacturers in Europe"
[quoting GE, Osram, Philips... names that came up in a certain cartel]

"What are our objectives?"
[Surely their priority is to provide consumers with good lighting they actually want to buy? Ah no...]

"To promote efficient lighting practice for the benefit of the global environment, human comfort and the health and safety of consumers.
To monitor, advise and co-operate with legislative bodies in developing European Directives and Regulations of relevance to the European lamp industry.
To act as the key discussion partner for the European Union (EU), as well as for European Industry federations, such as CELMA (luminaires and ballast), ORGALIME (metalworking, electrical and electronics industry) and UNICE (employers) on all topics concerning light sources"

"The ELC Federation is working at this moment with several EU municipalities and other EU federations in Bottom Up to Kyoto (ButK), a project funded by the European Commission via the Commission's Executive Agency for Competitiveness and Innovation."
[Of course you are... "Bottom Up" to you too!]

"The Bottom Up to Kyoto project is an initiative that relies on an expert partnership that ensures that the main objectives of reduction of CO2 emissions and a larger use of energy efficient lighting products are achieved and that each municipality is provided with a tailor-made energy efficient lighting strategy that can serve as a model for other municipalities in Europe."

[Do the mandates and subsidies never stop?
Why does no-one voluntarily want to pay for this magnificent lighting?]

Writing on his blog, Commissioner Piebalgs likened the negative reaction to energy-saving light bulbs from many consumers to the response generated by past inventions such as the automobile and the telephone. He recounted how the British Parliament had passed the Red Flag Act in 1865, which required early motor cars to have someone walking in front of them carrying a red flag.

His comments in his blog, on the Commission’s website, brought angry responses from across Europe.

One critic left a comment on the blog pointing out that when cars was invented, the authorities did not ban horses.
Martin Callanan, a Conservative MEP who opposes the bulb ban, said: “That is a stupid and ignorant assessment. Rather than forcing people to switch by removing their choice, we should be using the right incentives to encourage change.”

"With around €1bn allocated in the energy sector in developing countries, the EU is a leader in empowering the world. Our Energy partnership with Africa has already provided access to energy to 13 million people. We must join forces with the industry, academics and partner countries to foster access to sustainable energy to all by 2030. The EU will remain at the forefront of the actions to reduce poverty and tackle climate change....improving energy efficiency by 40 per cent"

4th February 2009

lightbulbs -background(engl)03.02.09.doc attached
Verordnung über Energieeffizienz(Glühbirne), 3.2.09.doc attached

Dear colleagues,

the decision of the regulatory committee concerning energy efficiency for lamps typically used in households has raised a lot of questions and debates in the constituencies. Therefore I organized a lunch debate on the topic today Wednesday. Experts of the European Commission, of environmental organizations and not least from the industry have given answers to a lot of important questions. A lot of colleagues were present. For those who could not attend, we have once again gathered the most important information.

Kind regards,

Peter Liese

"On 31st January 2008, the European Parliament adopted the report by Fiona Hall with an overwhelming majority. In this report, a measure on incandescent bulbs was once more demanded explicitly. Even colleagues who highly criticize the ban on incandescent bulbs now, adopted the Hall-report back then"!

Wed 2/11/2009 12:12 PM
Subject: !!! - URGENT - Lightbulbs - concrete questions for Commission

draft_measure_ecodesign_non_directional_household_lamps_D002953-02-00-EN.doc (225 Kb) attached
expl_memorandum_ecodesign_non_directional_houslehold_lamps_O002955-01-00-EN.doc (168.5 Kb) attached
link_to_technical_briefing.doc (29 Kb) attached

Dear Members,

Following the exchange of views on Lightbulbs that took place this morning in Committee, you are invited to send to the Secretariat (Andreas HUBER and myself) before 17.00 today your suggestions of concrete questions to be asked to the Commission.

On the basis of those concrete questions, Mr. OUZKY will send a letter to the Commission, asking for an answer by Monday 16.

A vote on procedural issues will then take place on Tuesday 17, during voting time.

Kind regards,

B. BASIN

It was clear to me, after having heard from a number of health groups, that there was a risk to health with low-energy bulbs. There is some evidence of these bulbs causing burns, migraines and affecting people with sight problems.
I am not totally against low-energy light bulbs, but I do not think incandescent light bulbs should be phased out until there are enough adequate alternatives.

The European Citizens Initiative will allow 1 million citizens from at least one quarter of the EU Member States to invite the European Commission to bring forward proposals for legal acts in areas where the Commission has the power to do so.
The organisers of a citizens' initiative, a citizens' committee composed of at least 7 EU citizens who are resident in at least 7 different Member States, will have 1 year to collect the necessary statements of support. The number of statements of support has to be certified by the competent authorities in the Member States. The Commission will then have 3 months to examine the initiative and decide how to act on it.
In accordance with the Regulation, it will only be possible to launch the first European Citizens' Initiatives from 1 April 2012

Could Wallström have foreseen the turmoil over the light bulb ban, which the European Parliament along with the Governments agreed to without discussion?

"I was very annoyed. The member states completely ignored their duty to explain the ban to their citizens. They thought it was a purely technical decision. They thereby overlooked how it would affect everybody, in their houses and apartments, and as consumers."  

A study by VITO consultants showed the following breakdown of lamp use in European homes:
•  54% incandescent (down from 85% in 1995 and still decreasing)
•  18% low-voltage halogen (and increasing)
•  5% mains-voltage halogen (and growing)
•  8% linear fluorescent
•  15% CFL

"Looking at overall energy consumption, including transport and industry, domestic lighting represents 0.76% of the total used in the 27 Member States.
If we assume that all remaining filament bulbs are replaced by CFL at some point in the future (unlikely, as use of halogen bulbs is likely to increase), that these bulbs are used to the same extent as those they replace and that the energy reduction per bulb is 80%, the total reduction in EU energy use would be 0.54 x 0.8 x 0.76% = 0.33%.
This figure is almost certainly an overestimate, particularly as the inefficiency of conventional bulbs generates heat which supplements other forms of heating in winter.
Which begs the question: Is it really worth it?"

Iceland is not the only country in Europe with a high percentage of its electrical energy coming from sources that do not emit greenhouse gases. If the benchmark is set for example at 60% or more, it is found that Austria, France, Lithuania, Norway (EFTA country), Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden, and Switzerland (EFTA country) fall into this category.These countries have a combined population of ca. 106.3 million people.
Banning the most popular lamp type on the market with the possible negative side effects shown in this research is questionable public policy.

For further discussion of these and other LED issues, see the relevant later section.

Regarding omnidirectional standard (non-phosphorescent) replacement LEDS of good light quality, currently there are some 40 Watt equivalent lights at 50 US dollars from different suppliers, and a 60 Watt equivalent light for 120 dollars (July 2009).
Brighter household replacement lights at CFL comparable cost is not expected for at least another 5 years (Professor Colin Humphreys of Cambridge University, who in a July 2009 BBC radio interview also goes into the latest research findings).
One problem is the so-called droop effect. August 2009 article: As the current in LEDs increases in an effort to increase brightness, the brightness suddenly plummets.

Also, a critical review of LEDs in current development by David Shepard (October 2009 in link via Professional Lighting Designers Association)

However, since the OLED sheet lighting form (more below) might become a common way of lighting larger areas, then a lack of such omnidirectional capability in ordinary LEDs may not matter, and the 2 lighting forms might simply complement one another.





CFLs,
compact fluorescent "energy saving" lights, have ionized mercury containing gas that cause the coated walls of tubes to fluoresce, so that light is given out.
CFLs keep improving in design, newer types with electronic ballasts (internal current change devices) unfortunately get confused with older less stable types.
Their light efficiency and long life are again recognized advantages compared to ordinary light bulbs, though not as great as LEDs and not as great in practice as in theory (ratings typically assume 20% light efficiency and 6000-8000 hour lifespans) because of the way brightness and lifespan are tested (more below).
Achieving small bright CFLs is a problem since their brightness is proportional to their radiating surface area.
Regarding light quality, there are daylight similarities that can give a preferable light for some, and new gas mixtures and filters on the market can to some extent emulate incandescents.
That said, the colour omissions and colour spikes that remain in the spectrum of all ionized gases, can also make fluorescent lights seem unnatural and/or cold to some, and with an eerie quality when dimmed.

Lighting expert Professor Howard Brandston is an active US campaigner against banning ordinary light bulbs, and particularly highlights the quality of light problems with CFLs: more, WSJ 30/8/2009 article.

There are also quality issues due to the encouragement of cheap Chinese imports of the lights, or their parts.
Cold or moist conditions affect CFL operation and lifespan, as does heat, including the heat of enclosing them.
Health and environmental concerns also apply, mainly due to radiation and to mercury content.








Using Lights at Home

Appearance, price and light quality can influence any decision of what lights to use at home.
That said, let's compare CFLs and ordinary light bulbs, by location.

In a kitchen a fluorescent light is very suitable:
Relatively frequent use and left on while doing so, and kitchens may not be specifically heated.
Also, the better white balance of fluorescents can make them better in seeing and using food in cooking.
large tube type fluorescent lights are twice as light-efficient as CFLs.

In hallways and shared spaces too, a CFL might be better:
Again, perhaps no ancillary heating, and may be left on a while.

An outside porch or a garage would use an ordinary light bulb:
Even modern CFLs are slow to come on in the cold,
porch sensors or auto-switches make light bulbs more suitable,
and porch/garage lights may be switched on and off for short periods only.

There is a case for living rooms and other frequently used rooms to vary seasonally:
wintertime light bulbs, with heat benefit and an appealing "warm glow",
summertime CFLs, with a cooler white light and better light-only efficiency.
Also, light bulb heat works against air conditioning cooling systems.

Rarely used rooms and lamps might use light bulbs:
Even if fittings allow other light types, cheap to buy light bulbs may also work out cheaper per year.

Reading lamps may use light bulbs:
For UV radiation reasons encapsulation is recommended for CFLs in frequent close use which adds to cost and may make fitting more difficult, small sized fittings may necessitate light bulb use anyway.
Moreover, small bright CFLs or LEDs are hard to make, and are unavailable in the brightest types. CFLs dim with age, and can't be focused like point-source ordinary lights can, under a lamp shade. That adds to the reasons why "there never seems enough light" with a CFL (more).



Halogen lights,
allowing for any special fittings, can often be used instead of light bulbs. However that is obviously no light bulb ban justification, as halogens still have different properties as described already.
In their own right, their small size brightness gives them advantages in recessed lighting, as down-lights, and also as side-lights, often in the 12-volt transformer based format.





LED lights,
are as mentioned still under development for general lighting purposes, currently mainly used as spotlights, downlights, sidelights...

Organic LEDs (OLEDs) offer an interesting contrast to ordinary LEDs - and indeed to LCD screens.
Unlike ordinary LEDs, which need a light distribution element, they use organic compounds in a thin light emission layer. OLEDs emit less light per unit area than LEDS - so are unsuitable as small light sources, unsuitable to directly replace current lights in the way ordinary LEDs might to some extent do.

But the thinness of OLEDs makes them suitable as sheet lighting. In this way they can complement current LEDs - diffuse large area OLED lighting, compared to bright limited area LED lighting.
So in future houses, several panels - or a whole sheet - may cover the ceiling, giving a diffuse variable daylight simulation.
OLEDs might also be used on table tops and some floor areas.

Moreover, since OLEDs remain a distribution of a large number of individual solid state units, they can be used as screens for computers and TV-sets, this time contrasting favourably with LCD displays, since the latter need backlighting:
OLEDs can display deep black levels (giving better contrast), draw far less power, and can be much lighter as well as thinner than an LCD panel.

Oled-Display.Net is a good site for the latest on all forms of OLED use. It includes a useful description and illustration of OLED lighting sheets.

"Although OLEDs used in lighting applications are not expected to become popular in the next few years and will initially target niche markets, the technology has several advantages over that of conventional lighting. First among the advantages is slimness. The thickness of OLED panels for lighting applications could reach less than 1mm. Such a characteristic could allow OLED lighting placed directly on ceilings rather than hang from them. In addition, flexibility is another advantage, which may allow OLED lighting to be used when designing for spaces with limited conditions..... OLED will substitute existing lighting technologies, but will mainly generate new applications, owing to the unique properties of large-area diffuse light generating with adjustable color. Starting in the near future, OLED lighting will boost the OLED fabrication worldwide. The market research company IDTechEx expects already for 2011 a billion dollar market."

"The European Union's new ban on incandescent light bulbs violates simple economic principles and imposes substantial hidden costs on the economy.
Fluorescent bulbs don't work as claimed and have considerable disposal problems. If the new bulbs were better, consumers would choose them naturally, and could be nudged to do so by a carbon tax.

The EU ban is an attempt to forward a policy goal -- combating global warming -- by statutory means. As such, it resembles the Corporate Average Fuel Economy restrictions, imposed on the U.S. automobile industry by Congress in 1975.
Such legislation imposes substantial costs on both consumers and the economy, but hides them so that legislators avoid blame. It often has perverse consequences; in the case of CAFE standards consumers switched to sport-utility vehicles, less fuel-efficient than comparable saloons but outside the scope of the initial law. The long-term cost of those standards arguably included a significant contribution to the bankruptcies of General Motors and Chrysler.

Such policy goals can better be met by explicit taxes, which are not fully dead-weights on the economy, but fund government and substitute for other taxes. They also impose clear costs on oil consumption or carbon emission, allowing consumers to make their own purchase decisions with those costs taken into account.

Compact fluorescent light bulbs' up-front cost, while higher than that of incandescent bulbs, is now low enough that if the claimed energy savings were real and inconveniences modest, rational consumers would switch.
However, CFLs emit considerably less light than is claimed, and a substantial percentage burn out before their expected lifespan, somewhat offsetting the net cost saving from installing them. Moreover, consumers are heavily inconvenienced in their disposal, since they contain toxic mercury, which is illegal to discard in ordinary trash.

Had governments enforced truthfulness in claims of CFLs' efficiency and lifespan, and provided convenient disposal mechanisms, many consumers would have switched voluntarily. Then the additional energy usage by the holdouts would have been modest and declining.
Forcing consumers to switch imposes arbitrary costs, especially on those who for health or other reasons want to remain with incandescent bulbs. It also violates market principles of consumer freedom of choice."

The problem is defined by the so-called "power factor" (PF) of the lighting used.

As in the Wikipedia explanation:
"The significance of power factor lies in the fact that utility companies supply customers with volt-amperes, but bill them for watts. Power factors below 1.0 require a utility to generate more than the minimum volt-amperes necessary to supply the real power (watts). This increases generation and transmission costs"
While industrial electricity company customers are cost penalized if they present a low power factor load to electricity companies, until now that has not been considered a problem with ordinary households.

Explaining power factor is not easy.. but people do their best.
The US Department of Energy compares with a horse pulling a load, while Sylvania light bulb manufacturer uses a foamy glass of beer analogy, before going into technical details - and light bulb comparisons.

There are several reasons why extra energy use and costs arise from a CFL low power factor:

1. The direct CFL power factor compensation.
The typical CFL PF of 0.5 to 0.55 means nearly twice the energy is used, to what the CFL wattage implies.
Balanced CFLs that have the same power factor as ordinary incandescent lights (PF=1) are expensive, and the power factor of such CFLs tends to decrease with age anyway, due to the heat effect on the internal (ballast) components.

2. Grid transmission loss compensation
"Every transmission line and every transformer in the grid is subjected to resistive losses in the wire that are related to the current being drawn by every customer attached to the power grid. A bad power factor increases the losses by a ratio that is inversely proportional to the total power factor of the attached loads. A total PF of 0.5 means that twice the current is drawn for the power delivered, and the [transmission] losses are not merely doubled, they are quadrupled."

3. Electricity generation capacitance compensation
"A poor power factor will also reduce the capacity of power generating equipment, so more machines [and inductors, capacitors] are needed to provide the same total load power."

In fact, there is also an issue that meters themselves may be affected by CFL use:
CFLs generate high frequency transients that are said to cause ordinary induction disk electric meters to read higher than they should, giving "pure profit to the electric company" (more, though I have not found other sources on this).

More information on CFL Power Factor and related problems:
Australian Rod Elliott's analysis.
Also good, the relevant section in a lengthy New Zealand report.

A USA magazine for electrical professionals, The Electrical Construction & Maintenance magazine, also covers the problem well, in an analytical article "The Hidden Costs of CFLs":

For a variety of reasons, U.S. manufacturers have not produced many power factor-corrected CFLs. A lower power factor allows them to keep the cost of the bulbs down, which greatly helps market penetration. “The original thought was to let the power factor go a little bit lower to reduce the first costs of the lamps,” Morante explains. “For a rating above 0.5, you have to add something to the electronics, so that will up the cost of the lamp.”

Size is another factor in setting the power factor rating standard. “Any device that uses some sort of power supply or power filter is going to put some harmonic distortion into the load, because the only way to make it yummy and clean is to make it huge and expensive,” says Alex Boesenberg, technical manager for the Lighting Systems Division of NEMA. “There are people that make high power factor CFLs — I think all my manufacturers have a design handy if they need it — but the cost and the footprint of those things have made them undesirable.”

Even so, CFLs can cost three to 10 times more than comparable incandescent bulbs. In general, the higher the power factor, the higher the cost of the lamp. Under this rule, you get what you pay for, says Doreen LeMay Madden, founder and principal designer for Lux Lighting Design, Belmont, Mass., and chairman of the Residence Lighting Design & Application for the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA), New York. At a power factor rating of 0.5, a 15W screw-in CFL will actually use 30VA of energy and, in some cases, the consumer may not be receiving the same light output the incandescent provided. However, the consumer may be unaware of this exchange rate...

Power quality has traditionally been thought of strictly as an issue for the electric utility. The electric meters on residences measure watts, so consumers realize the wattage savings indicated on the lamp's packaging through savings in their energy bill. “They'll see that 75% savings,” Morante says. “The meter on the house doesn't measure power factor.”

This is still only the beginning of the CFL power utilizing woes.
Because of the way CFLs draw power in an irregular fashion (with, as mentioned, current and voltage phases out of alignment) they also set up what is known as "harmonic distortion" in the grid, contributing to further costs:
"It is worth noting that mains waveform distortion is now becoming big business. There are more and more companies selling large inductors for use as mains filters for critical applications. Likewise, complete filter units are becoming more readily available than ever before, because the cost of replacing motors that fail because of high harmonic currents is considerable ... both the cost of the motor and machine down-time make failures very expensive."

"Harmonics can cause a variety of network problems: transformer and cable overheating (hence lowering lifespan), motor overheating, premature ageing of capacitors, interference with telecoms systems, possible disturbances in ripple control systems (hot water). Yes, the prospect of cold showers once all households are converted to CFLs ..."
...as the New Zealand report wrily observed, before New Zealand abandoned plans to ban the ordinary light bulbs.

The mentioned US electrical magazine article also deals with these problems:
....electric utilities must still correct for the THD [Total Harmonic Distortion] caused by devices with power factors less than 1. To do so, they either add capacitors to the distribution system as close to the load as possible or increase generation capacity. A study from New Zealand estimates that correcting for low power factor electrical devices could cost electric utilities as much as $4 million for every million low power factor CFL bulbs installed. “Utilities have to compensate for this low-power factor distortion by purchasing more capacitors,” says LeMay Madden..... “They're using twice the amount of energy, plus they're causing distortion in the sine wave. The lower the power factor, the more distortion you get.” .... “Obviously, there is a cost to make these corrections,” Morante says. “It's there today. For residential customers, it's in their kilowatt-per-hour charge.”

All-in-all:
It is no surprise therefore that politicians are very happy to hide the true cost to consumers, in pushing low power factor CFLs.
This is called smart politics:
What you don't see now, you will not complain about later, because you will never know that your electricity bill is not as low as it should be.

Moving on from such greater than supposed energy use, there are then several factors why CFLs do not deliver their rated brightness for their rated lifespan, again giving misleading savings figures.

Rated brightness is an issue:

To begin with, from not using a recommended lighting position:
Unlike with incandescents, lights pointing upwards can have a different light efficiency than lamps hanging from the ceiling or facing downwards within table lamps.
Downward pointing (base up) is taken as the norm, also in testing (more).

Now then.
Why is it that people "can't see anything" using CFLs?
Because of the way CFL brightness is measured (more, as part of a Kevan Shaw presentation of CFL problems, also see Rod Elliott's article) they are in practice not as bright, and never seem as bright, as the supposed equivalent light bulb.
What people have sensed and suspected for years was also borne out (29 August 2009) in a simple light meter comparison test by the British newspaper the Daily Telegraph.
Another brightness comparison with incandescents found the CFL brightness claims to be false, for several reasons.

Even the EU Commission is changing it's tune about CFL brightness (more on the EU and its post-ban FAQ shortly)
BBC December 2009 article:

The European Commission's [new] advice is to divide the wattage of a traditional light bulb by four to get the equivalent brightness. So, to get the brightness of a traditional 60-watt bulb, choose a 15-watt CFL bulb.
But the Lighting Research Center in the United States goes further.
"We believe in the divide by three rule," says associate director Russell Leslie, who recommends a 20-watt CFL to match a 60-watt incandescent bulb. "The equivalent ratings you see on the box are usually got by testing in a laboratory environment."

That's far from all the CFL brightness issues, as Ed Kirshner explains, edited extracts from CFL-Kirshner.doc:

"The amount of light in lumens which is produced by a CFL, as shown on the packaging, is based on the peak output of the CFL, not its average level.
Further, the CFLs are not expected to reach their peak lumens until after 100 hours of use. In effect, there is a 'burn-in' period.
Projecting these figures over the life of a CFL, even the better ones would be considered acceptable if their average lumen level turns out to be only 75% to 80% of the amount stated.

Also, the light from an incandescent and that from a CFL is not perceived the same way by our visual system.
To obtain the same apparent brightness from a CFL as that from an incandescent, the CFL must generate about a third more lumens and thus use a third more energy.
For example, the environmentally friendly City of Seattle, which has its own municipal electric system and advocates CFLs, recognizes this feature and uses an efficiency factor of two-thirds, not the usual 75% shown on the CFL packaging. This lower factor is rapidly becoming the standard most often cited by organizations.

Moreover, most current CFLs do not distribute their light in the same way as a standard incandescent.
This (again) makes the CFL light, for example on a reading surface, effectively dimmer than an incandescent with the same lumens. This means still more lumens are needed from the CFL in order to match the apparent brightness of the incandescent light at the reading surface.

When all of these factors are considered, the energy savings of the CFL over the incandescent is (also) significantly reduced"

Continuing with CFL light output, and the time taken to achieve it:
The 100 hour burn-in time for CFLs that Ed Kirshner mentions is borne out by the above lab testing references. But that is not all.
As Ed Kirshner also covers in his document, it can take several minutes for CFLs to reach full brightness, after being switched on. As covered earlier, modern CFLs react quicker than older types, but still take some time to reach full operating brightness.

CFL test standard times reflect this fact:
Stabilized Light Output
The time to 75% of stabilized light output after switch-on shall not exceed 100 seconds, or, the time to 80% of stabilized light output after switch-on shall not exceed 120 seconds (measured in accordance with IEC 60969).

That is not all!
The temperature of the surroundings also affects CFL brightness.

The double irony here:
Not only do CFLs perform best at a relatively high 25°C (77°F) temperature,
they are also tested and rated for that 25°C (77°F) temperature.
As will shortly be seen, cooler - or indeed warmer - temperatures therefore mean less bright CFLs than switchover proponents suggest.
[Those with a more cynical bent - see the Light Bulb Politics section - might not be too surprised that stated performances, as with CFL lifespan and CFL energy usage (ignoring mentioned Power Factor and THD), and indeed as with LED brightness and lifespan ratings as covered later, is destined to maximize the positive glow around profitable CFLs and LEDs, data handed over by manufacturers to politicans for happy reiteration by them and their agencies and by the uncritical media, to an unknowing and unsuspecting population]

Best performance:
"A compact fluorescent light is designed to provide maximum light output at 25°C"
Lighting Research Center director Russell Leslie, in the aforementioned BBC article (as also seen on LRC information sheet and below links).

Temperature test conditions:
As with CFL lifespans (covered shortly), the CFL temperature test conditions do not reflect common use.
USA National Lighting Product Information Program (NLPIP), CFL testing 2005 (supplement):
The average ambient temperature measured at the center of each row of CFLs was 24.5 - 25.2°C (76.1 - 77.4°F).
The testing temperature inside the sphere was 25°C (+-1°C) or 77°F (+-2°F)

But 18-20°C (65-68°F) is a more common room temperature and central heating level, and clearly many lighting situations would not even have such ambient temperatures, in much of the world during the year.

In other words,
taking light bulb response and temperature together, higher or lower surrounding temperatures not only slow down the lamp response, the lamp is also dimmer at the end of that response time.

There are various ways to reduce these problems, all of which add to cost, are rarely found in common cheaper CFLs, and which still leave a certain brightness reduction.
More on environment temperature and other brightness reducing effects can be seen on the Lighting Research Center website of the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, New York.

There are other aspects to a less-than-supposed brightness.
As the EU technical report admits, any encapsulating outside envelope, giving the pear shaped CFLs, further lesssens their brightness, and being bigger, particularly at the base, may not fit reading lamps anyway.
Additionally, CFLs become dimmer with age - sometimes rapidly so (more below). The fact that US Energy Star labelled CFLs must not lose more than 10% of total light output at 40% of rated lifespan, that is at less than half their supposed life, is not particularly good.

The problem is further compounded by the fact that smaller lights are technically harder to make bright - whether for CFLs or LEDs - and when they are possible, are considerably more expensive. Currently, mid-2009, candle shaped small CFLs are at a rated 35-40 Watts maximum equivalence, bearing in mind the dubious testing mentioned.

With reading or other close up lamps, that might use smaller lights, the CFL brightness issue is particularly marked.

To summarize the bright small lights problem:

•  CFL brightness equivalence rating is an issue, and brightness decreases as the lights are used.
•  Small CFL or LED lamps technically can't be made as bright as incandescents - from the start, and whatever the rating.
This is likely to remain a problem particularly with CFLs, for the simple physical reason that their brightness is proportional to their coated surface radiating area - smaller tubes, less light, all else being equal.
•  The brightest possible CFL or LED types are expensive.
•  The base of CFLs always has to be bigger to accomodate their internal ballast circuitry, this gives particular problems in fitting them to smaller reading type lamps.
•  Encapsulation (covering fluorescent tubes) is recommended by health authorities like the UK Health Protection Agency to reduce close up UV and other CFL radiation but both increases size, and reduces brightness.
Capping LED lamps to try and spread their directional light more, poses similar problems of making them bigger and dimmer.
•  Clear incandescent point source light can be focused by lamp shades, maximizing brightness to make reading and other tasks easier.
CFLs can't be focused, while LEDs are directional, but in return don't spread the light well.
•  Frosted incandescent lights are popular as they soften the light and don't have the glare of naked filaments, and can still be manufactured to great brightness, but they are in the EU banned earlier, (without any justifiable efficiency reason, but simply to push people to use CFLs).

Switching on and off is an issue:

Modern CFLs are still slow to come on in the cold,
they have a switch on power surge,
and every time they are switched on and off their lifespan is lowered, far more than doing the same with ordinary light bulbs.
Frequent on and off use can bring lifespan right down to light bulb levels: more in the following section.

For all these reasons CFLs tend to be left on, which itself of course also increases energy usage and running cost:
Not least because people then tend to forget to turn off the lights.
As covered in the general lack-of-savings section above, a related issue of energy-efficient products may be "cheaper energy use = use more energy", such that in any case the switch to CFLs in the mentioned Iowa locality actually increased energy use there by 10%.

Rated lifespan is an issue:

Part of the problem, it turns out, is that the "lifespan" of a CFL bulb has been artificially measured.
International standards currently require a manufacturer to run the bulb in three hour cycles in the lab, only switching it on at the beginning and off at the end. In other words, the bulb burns for three hours straight with no interference.

In the real world, things are very different.
Many householders, particularly in these energy-conscious times, switch on and off lights frequently as they enter and leave rooms. Many modern CFLs are not built to withstand short switching cycles. One recent study shows the lifespan of a CFL can be shortened by a massive 85% under normal domestic household use conditions. In other words, if the lab lifespan was 2,000 hours, you might get only 300 hours (four months) out of that CFL if you were unlucky. A 6,000 hour bulb (five years) would give you only 12 months or so of light before dying unceremoniously."

Meanwhile the official advice...
"The cost effectiveness of turning fluorescent lights off to conserve energy is a bit more complicated. For most areas of the United States, a general rule-of-thumb for when to turn off a fluorescent light is if you leave a room for more than 15 minutes" USA Dept of Energy, which goes on to list several situations when leaving lights on for longer may be better or worse. Of course, "leave a light on if you might come back soon" is going to mean many lights left on much longer than foreseen - probably simply forgotten about - with the energy use that involves, in a US household with on average 45 lighting points.

The US Dept of Energy figures also show that the average household has only 2.5 lights that are on four hours or more per day — typically in the living room and kitchen.
Kitchen lights are often already fluorescent tubes or Halogen/LED downlights, leaving the living-room...
The "great household switchover savings" thereby involve a significant reduction in the lifespans assumed.

That is not all: The encouragement of cheap Chinese imports may have lowered quality, including lifespan.
German consumer testing October 2008 in any case showed lifespan problems (in whatever way multiyear lifespans are measured!). In the USA, the Lawrence Livermore National Lab (University of California) study concluded that the lifetime of the average CFL on the consumer market had a median life well short of its reputation or rating.

The gradual loss of brightness also reduces effective lifespan.
The US Department of Energy measurements have shown that a 1/4 of excellent (Energy Star) rated compact fluorescent lights do not reach rated brightness after 40% (less than half) of their life. To be passed they must not have lost more than 10% of light output: still a significant amount, at such a relatively early stage of their supposed lifespan. Ordinary light bulbs simply cut out, at the end of their life.

CFL use in dimmers for ordinary lights not only shortens CFL life, it can be a direct fire hazard (more).
However, early failures also apply when used with other equipment, such as timers:
"While CFLs can be used with mechanical timers, electronic or digital timers may cause interference with the electronic ballast, and can adversely affect product performance. Typically, CFLs used on electronic or digital timers will fail far before their rated lifetime"
(US Energy Star information)

Lack of sufficient warranty (guarantee):

Ordinary light bulbs are typically supposed to last 1000 hours, usually equated to around 1 year's use. Since they are the price of a postage stamp, few would bother to complain if they did not.
Similarly, the supposed 6000 or more hours lifespan for a CFL are held to equate to 5 or more years of use. But, as the above New Zealand study mentions, manufacturers certainly don't back up their lifespan claims - and they are not pressed to do so either...

See the US Energy Star website:
Basic warranty information, further details (pdf document, scroll to warranty):
To qualify for ENERGY STAR, CFLs must have a rated lifetime of 6,000 hours or greater.
For residential use: ENERGY STAR requires a minimum warranty of 2 years from the date of purchase.

Product packaging must state “Warranty” or “Limited Warranty” and have an "800" number, or mailing address, or web site address (if applicable) for consumer complaint resolution.

For Residential Applications:
Warranty or limited warranty statement must cover at least a minimum of 24 months, or 2 years, from date of purchase based on no less than 3 hour per day of use (follow the chart below):

ENERGY STAR Qualified CFL
Rated Lifetime Number of Years Claim, Based on minimum use of 3 hours/day
6,000 hours = 5 years
8,000 hours = 7 years
10,000 hours = 9 years
12,000 hours = 11 years

The point is that Energy Star clearly equates usage, even the heavy usage, of a 6000 hour bulb with a 5 year lifespan, and yet only asks for a 2 year warranty:
Also bearing in mind that it is a warranty that assumes a manufacturer defect, that consumers have to describe in filling out the claim forms, which in turn they'd hardly bother doing for a bulb costing a few dollars, unless they had good cause to do so.

US urban planner ED Contoski has unravelled much that is unsavoury behind the push to use CFLs, and the fire and other risks associated with them, as covered later.
He also covers the anomalies behind CFL guarantees, and the great difficulty faced by consumers not only in having to mail back CFLs to manufacturers (rather than just going back to the store with the CFL), but also in the special packaging then required...
Extract from a May 2011 American Thinker article:

In recognition of the problems of fires and exploding CFLs, Armorlite is marketing a product with a package labeled "A Safer CFL." It is a CFL inside what looks like the shell of an incandescent bulb made with some special coating. Notice that is says a "safer CFL" - not that it is "safe," just "safer." In other words, less dangerous. The package states: "We do not make any claims or provisions that mercury or glass cannot escape coating."
Armorlite claims a lifetime of 10,000 hours, or nine years, based on 3 hours of use per day, but the warranty is for only two years. So much for all the B.S. about how CFLs last so many thousands of hours longer than incandescents.

If the bulb fails in two years, you can get a replacement from the company. The package states: "This replacement is the sole remedy available and LIABILITY FOR INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQENTIAL DAMAGES IS HEREBY EXCLUDED," except for some states which do not allow such exclusion. So if your house burns down, all you are likely to get is a new bulb. And to get it you have to have saved your proof of purchase and your register receipt for two years and mail them together with the broken bulb to the company's Florida address. The warranty explicitly states: "Do not return to the store."

Of course, as I pointed out previously, state and federal environmental laws have effectively eliminated the mail-back programs of CFL manufacturers.
Researchers found the only legally acceptable shipping container is "a double box with a zip closure foil-plastic laminate bag between the cardboard layers" if CFLs are to be shipped by U.S. Postal Service or common carrier. To ignore this requirement would subject violators to the penalties of the law, which would surely exceed the value of a replacement bulb. The cost of the acceptable container and the postage/shipping charge must also be paid by the consumer returning the product.
The result is that probably nobody is ever going to return a broken CFL to Armorlite. It's not worth it. And I would wager that many disappointed customers will not consider it worth their time and gas to deliver a failed bulb to a recycling collection point either. Even if the government inspected everyone's trash - think of the cost of that! - to prevent people from "smuggling" CFLs into their discards, I suspect we would see an increase of CFLs in other people's trash or strewn along roads.

Putting all this in a political context:
Once a government ban on simple light bulbs is in place, with the attendant promises regarding the alternatives, what government official is going to care too much, when people complain that their CFLs are burning out a year or two later?

As for the manufacturers, for a general discussion of product obsolescence, involving shorter than expected product lifespans, short warranties, and other manufacturer tactics that consumers should be aware of, with a focus on light bulbs, see the "Standards and Markets" essay in the preceding section on Energy Efficiency.

More about the CFL issues covered above:
According to my research, EU and National government agencies do not acknowledge any of these factors, though end-March 2009 the EU in a new (post-ban!) FAQ admitted some of their calculation errors/omissions.
See the Greenwashing Lamps site runthrough of that and indeed subsequent EU FAQs, as the EU Commission tries to answer the considerable criticism of the ban.
The BBC, December 2009, in an article did not "buy" the EU arguments either, showing how the CFL brightness, lifespan and other measurements were exagerrated by the EU, and referring to actual measurements by various institutions.

As for the USA, this NCPA (National Center for Policy Analysis) report by H. Sterling Burnett and Amanda Berg covers some of the the above factors in the lack of user savings from switching to CFLs.
A long referenced account of CFL v Incandescent figures by an American (Montana) environmentalist who has turned against the CFL promotional policies (even then omitting the "power factor" and other mentioned ways CFL energy use is still higher than expected), can be found here.
Also, US lighting designer Don Peifer's referenced ban criticism (pdf document) with CFL related factors.
The March 2011 GSALCA paper with references also goes into the extensive California CFL subsidies involved.
Canadian electric/electromagnetic professional Walt McGinnis's April 2009 CFL article
Good and extensively referenced Austrian website (by Peter Stenzel, in German) covering CFL problems and other light bulb ban issues, from a European perspective.

LED usage

A judgment by the US Lighting Controls Association (administered by the National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) which supports the ban on ordinary incandescents) as reported by E3Living, which also supports the ban:

Department of Energy testing found many manufacturers of LED fixtures and replacement lamps overstating performance and offering performance equal to or only marginally better than incandescent, proving that just because a product is LED does not automatically make it energy-efficient. One LED A-lamp, in fact, promised 80-90% energy savings but produced less than 5% of the light output of a typical A17 or A19 incandescent that it was intended to replace. Sadly, these poor-performing LED products are not regulated by the (January 2012 commencing) Act, beyond the minimum CRI requirement, and so will continue to be marketed and sold as an “energy efficient” product.

Given the well known problems with CFLs, LEDs are increasingly touted as alternatives.
In a wider context, that includes any form of LED lighting, including OLED sheet types (see the earlier coverage of such light types). However, OLEDs are in 2011 still in early development stages, with even greater cost/brightness issues, and the main focus here will be on LED bulbs as replacements for regular incandescent light bulbs.

The 2 main development directions are, as seen, "modular" LEDs using combinations of pure color light diodes to produce white light and "white LEDs" using single (blue) light diodes to stimulate a phosphorescent bulb coat to give out white or whitish light.

All types of lighting have their advantages, so also LEDs, in terms of low energy use, long life, flexibility in appearance, and variability in light spectrum (especially with "tunable" modular bulbs).
As with CFLs, the focus here on LED disadvantages is simply because of their political promotion as being adequate replacements of regular incandescent bulbs - which they are not, just as the reverse is not the case either.

What then are relevant factors to consider in this section, that relate to LED cost and energy use and thereby to savings?

Price,
is the most obvious disadvantage for consumers.
50 dollar or so LEDs are the extreme lighting example of "paying lots upfront for possible savings over the following years", but not only can those savings be questioned, it is also hardly likely that an average 45-light US household would get enough use out of many of the replacement lights to make them worthwhile (let alone in breakages, losses etc).

Complexity,
is of course a main reason for their high cost.
They are even more complex than CFLs, since they must include conversion to DC (direct current), and additionally a heat sink system since, as with CFLs and unlike with incandescents, the heat is internalized rather than radiated externally, and adversely affects performance and lifespan, as well as giving a fire risk (more below).
So the heat reduction issue in particular therefore "limits the total LED power that can practically be fitted into replacement lamps", the problem of combining heat and power in LEDs dealt with in this wikipedia article.

Brightness,
is the major constructional issue, in particular in all directions, and is the reason to mimic the fluorescence of CFLs with coated "white LEDs" to keep down cost, though achieving 60W+ incandescent equivalent brightness is still expensive.
As with CFLs, ambient temperature also affects LED efficiency and brightness, as well as lifespan, see the below links.
A main problem is the so-called droop effect mentioned earlier.
Spectrum 2009 article: As the current in LEDs increases in an effort to increase brightness, the brightness suddenly plummets....
April 2011 Photonist article reiterates the problem, although current blue LED research (more) and research based on nitride use (more) may offer solutions.