EDITORIAL: Light bulb law probably isn't a bright idea

South Carolina's feisty, anti-federalist streak is once again shining brightly for all to see.

As brightly as a good old-fashioned, energy-sucking incandescent light bulb, in fact.

The source is he inspiringly named "Light Bulb Freedom Act," a piece of legislation currently wending its way through the state house that seeks to illuminate and redress the ills of a recent light bulb bill passed by the U.S. Congress. The federal legislation, turned into law in 2007 by George W. Bush (who was not always thought of as the brightest of bulbs himself) calls for phasing out incandescent lights in the U.S., starting with 100-watt bulbs in 2012 and other, lesser wattages a few years after that. The old bulbs will be replaced by those cute little, curly cues known as compact fluorescent bulbs, of CFLs, or possibly by some other future technology, such as enhanced LED bulbs (which are currently on the market in a limited way but are quite expensive – more than $100 per bulb).

The point of banishing the stone age incandescent light bulb from American sockets is to save energy (and probably money). CFLs use about one seventh as much energy as an incandescent bulb and last thousands of hours longer.

Nobody really thinks saving energy is a bad idea, but some South Carolinians, and most importantly, state representative Bill Sandifer (R-Oconee), think the feds telling us what to do and when to do it is. Sandifer, a conservative (but not, apparently, of energy), is the chief sponsor of the Light Bulb Freedom Act. He told the Greenville News he drafted the legislation because he doesn't like CFL bulbs and because he wanted to stand up for states rights (again).

Sandifer's not a lone light in the light bulb darkness. U.S. Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina

is sponsoring a senate bill that would repeal the federal law, and legislators in three others states (Texas, Georgia, Minnesota) are waving the state's right bulb flag as well, having launched state legislation that's akin to Sandifer.

The Light Bulb Freedom Act is a clever bill in that it attacks the foundation of the federal bill, not its upper stories. It proposes to allow the sale of incandescent bulbs in South Carolina to continue – so long as the bulbs are all sold in state. That's a potential winner, legally anyway, because the feds' ability to give us orders stems in large part from the interstate commerce clause in the constitution. If there's no interstate commerce, then the clause is moot.

Whether Sandifer's cleverness is usefully employed is another matter.

There are problems with CFLs. The bulbs run on mercury, which is toxic metal. That makes both handling and disposal more complicated than with a conventional bulb. And CFLs are more expensive to buy, although they will actually save money over their life because of the savings in power useage.

But the savings in energy useage – enough to make a real dent in U.S. power needs – would seem to trump all that. Estimates do vary, but a recent United States Department of Energy report suggested that the almost 400 million CFLs shipped to the U.S. in 2007 would save 111 billion kilowatt hours, which is about what the state of South Carolina uses in a year.



Both patriots and tree huggers can rally round a technology that reduces the need for imported fuels in the country.

Yes, that will mean letting the feds tell us how to screw in a light bulb, or which one to screw in, but if we did otherwise the joke would be on us.