Panel Rejects Bill Amid LED Standard Brouhaha

A bill aimed at slowing or derailing a proposed California Energy Commission energy efficiency standard to require improved color rendering for light-emitting diode bulbs sold in California failed to clear the Assembly Utilities & Commerce Committee April 13.

Lawmakers on the panel voted 7-4 for the measure, but it failed because it needed 8 votes to pass.

The color rendering index is a measure of how perfectly colors appear under different sources of light, with colors as displayed in sunlight scoring 100, which is considered perfect.

The measure, AB 213 by Assemblymember Sebastian Ridley-Thomas (D-Culver City), would have required the California Energy Commission to study the cost impacts of raising the color rendering bar for LED manufacturers selling their bulbs in the state before going forward with its proposal.

At issue is an Energy Commission proposal to raise the minimum color rendering index score for LEDs sold for general lighting from 80 to 90. The federal Energy Star standard for LEDs is 80.

However, raising the minimum index slightly diminishes energy efficiency gains from replacing conventional incandescent bulbs with LEDs and also raises their cost, according to manufacturers, including Phillips and General Electric, which are backing AB 213. Besides that, the manufacturers contended that most people can’t tell the difference between a bulb scoring 80 and 90.

“This is simply about oversight of a regulatory agency,” maintained Ridley-Thomas. “We don’t pick one or the other in this bill, we simply ask for a cost analysis.”

However, the Culver City lawmaker ran into stiff opposition during the hearing, both from environmental groups and state utilities.

For instance, Pacific Gas & Electric State Agency Relations Manager Valerie Winn told lawmakers the measure would create rigidity when it comes to technical advancement in LED technology, thereby setting “a bad precedent.” That concerns utilities, which have to meet evermore ambitious energy efficiency goals set by the California Public Utilities Commission.

Assemblymember Bill Quirk (D-Hayward) noted new Phillips LEDs with a score of 90 have been shown to have slightly better energy efficiency than LEDs that score 80. On top of that, he added, they go for $9.60 apiece, a price considered good for LEDs since they last for 20 years unlike compact fluorescents which last just a few years and incandescent bulbs that may last only months.

Quirk added that “the Energy Commission is the proper one to decide” on state energy efficiency standards.

In addition to voting to promote distributed generation and let the California Energy Commission pursue its own standard for light emitting diode bulbs unimpeded, the committee okayed five other energy measures.

They were:

• AB 793 by Quirk, which requires utilities to include in their energy efficiency and weatherization programs subsidies for installing home energy management systems for low-income utility customers and to educate residential and small business customers in general on how to make use of energy consumption data generated by their smart meters;

• AB 825 by Assemblymember Anthony Rendon (D-Lakewood) establishes a variety of reforms at the California Public Utilities Commission aimed at increasing transparency, including a more user-friendly website, the ability to challenge potential violations of open meeting requirements in Superior Court instead of a Court of Appeal, and allowing challenges to claims of confidentiality in utility filings;

• AB 865 by Assemblymember Luis Alejo (D-Salinas), which was amended to make sure the California Energy Commission’s grant recipients have plans for increasing involvement of minority businesses as subcontractors and also to create a commission diversity task force;

• AB 1008 by Quirk, which goes to the Assembly floor, to specify that companies that sell hydrogen as a transportation fuel to vehicle operators cannot be classified as public utilities; and

• AB 1119 by Rendon to give counties the right, on par with cities, to challenge installation of infrastructure by municipal utilities, such as sewer lines or utility power lines, on rights-of-way they control after a court ruled that counties don’t have that right because they are not included under the definition of “municipal corporations.” —William J. Kelly