The Trump Administration is ending the Biden-era bans on incandescent light bulbs and household appliances.
U.S. Secretary of Energy Chris Wright announced Friday that the Department of Energy will delay the implementation of seven restrictive home appliance regulations introduced by the Biden Administration.
Secretary Wright said the decision aligns with President Donald Trump’s commitment to easing financial burdens on American households.
“A top priority for President Trump is lowering costs for American families,” Wright stated. “Today’s announcement will foster consumer choice and lower prices – it is a win for all Americans. The people, not the government, should be choosing the home appliances and products they want at prices they can afford.”
The postponed efficiency standards impact the following categories of home appliances:
- Central Air Conditioners
- Clothes Washers and Dryers
- General Service Lamps
- Walk-In Coolers and Freezers
- Gas Instantaneous Water Heaters
- Commercial Refrigeration Equipment
- Air Compressors
Additionally, the Energy department is introducing a new energy efficiency category specifically for natural gas tankless water heaters. This adjustment exempts these appliances from the previous administration’s stringent efficiency rules, giving consumers greater flexibility in choosing cost-effective options for their homes.
Under Biden, New non-condensing, natural gas-fired water heaters would be prohibited for sale starting in 2029.
The decision is part of a broader effort by the Trump Administration to roll back regulations that many economists say have led to increased prices and reduced appliance performance.
The DOE’s actions were announced alongside a parallel initiative by the Environmental Protection Agency to revise all Biden-era “WaterSense” specifications that curtailed through regulation bathroom and kitchen faucets, residential toilets, and sprinkler nozzles.
True “Leadership” at the helm now with Trump-Vance, a beacon of Logic, Reason, and Common Sense. Now, just imagine that all of the ‘thin-skinned’ and ‘mental’ folks protesting this Leadership of Common Sense, demanding non-compliance and udder resistance, a sea of: masked … colored hair … heavily pierced … satanic tattoo … goofy hats … unhinged talking heads on liberal TV. Are these the type of folks we should be listening to and/or following? Resoundingly, I think not!
Yeah, we’ll be able to wash our clothes, take a warm shower, refrigerate or freeze our perishable foods, inflate our tires…life is good.
Winning.
Freedom.
Yesssss!!
The chief incentive for people to be in government is control over the lives of others. The pollution apparatus under my pick-up looks like a cross between a computer and the super-charger on a P-47 aircraft. Control occurs at all levels of government. Government makes up science as a way to increase control, especially into areas of our lives where government has little or no control now. Very often in Alaska the controls are racist in that some racial profiles are exempted from compliance. Taxing income so that people who choose to not work can live on welfare like SNAP, WIC, etc. is another form of governmental control. Reducing the PFD amount so that people on the dole can be “held harmless” is one example of this insidious mentality running throughout government. Public employee union dues are another tax that goes to increase governmental control over us. The best way to thwart this, or at least attempt to do so, is to insist on smaller government. Alaska needs fewer municipal, state and government employees, and we need to have fewer government programs. We need fewer people on welfare.
Government subsidizes the growing of corn to a degree that farmers lose money if that subsidy is reduced. Then government turns around and requires that motor fuels use that corn. It’s the same with SNAP such that the agriculture industry, including suppliers like Deere, are the main lobbyists for SNAP. And this circular algorithm makes elected officials rich! They control us and we pay them to do so.
Maybe forcing us to buy a certain light bulb looks innocent enough but it’s anything but innocent. The Trump administration is making headway but drawing increasing push-back. The elections next year will determine whether government control can be reduced. Even now there are anti-Begich ads on Youtube and the controlling class is desperate to hand control of Congress back to the Democrats in order to stop Trump during the final two years of his administration.
Best comment right here.
LED light “bulbs” are bogus. So are “high efficiency” appliances, which perform so poorly that they are net resource wasters not net resource conservers.
Energy “efficient” is neither resource efficient nor economically efficient. Never was. Use of the word “efficient” has been a definitional sleight-of-hand to coerce consumers by legislative and/or EO fiat to have no choice but to buy inferior products and actually MIS-Allocate scarce resources.
LED lamps are among the most significant electrical innovations in recent decades. Longevity is better, efficiency savings of greater than 75% are not unusual and they’re now easily paying for themselves and more based on a simple ROI.
Look out over the city of Anchorage and you’ll recall that a decade ago outdoor lighting was the orange glow of a 250-400W HPS lamp. Now the city is nearly completely white light and it’s LED that is responsible for that difference. The entire city disagrees w/ you, Sarvagy.
Your primary assertion is false.
No it is not. You obviously missed what was actually being stated in the comment. Your retort focuses on energy (or technologic) efficiency only, which if you had read what was written is not actual efficiency. Technological efficiency as a sole measure is not the proper way to evaluate the efficiency of a product. So how should we evaluate it? When discussing efficiency as it applies to people’s choices, economic efficiency is king. The idea behind economic efficiency is there are lots of technologically feasible combinations of goods and services that can hypothetically be produced. The question is, which combination yields the most value? Economic efficiency is the criterion that separates the highest valued use of scarce resources from all other possible combinations. LED’s and “high efficiency” appliances rarely meet the highest value when ALL criteria are analysed. Just because LED bulbs (when they work) have a higher lumens per watt ratio, or an appliance that uses less energy, (or less water in a washer or dishwasher) doesn’t make them more efficient.
My response focuses on objectivity and accurate interpretation of data. You are deeply confused Kalpana and your muddy logic is not supporting industry data.
In the recent two decades we’ve saved monstrous volumes of mercury from landfills every time a legacy fluorescent or HID lamp would have needed replacement. That their LED replacement is also known for consuming only a sliver of its predecessor’s power requirement is icing on the cake. You should let this one go and find something else to rail against.
The big problem with LED is the waste they generate.
Meanwhile, traditional incandescent bulbs, depending on the filament, produce far less toxic waste.
This is hilarious. So you Alaskans are cheering the fact that you can now use appliances that use more electricity when your state is already running short of energy. The results of the intelligence test are in.
So now hurry up and run down to your nearest hardware store to buy those good old incandescent bulbs that you will be changing every six months and paying 10 times the amount for the same amount of light. Good Lord, how people can act in ways that oppose their own self interest, just to prove that they are part of a political cohort.
Now, maybe you should all dash out and look for a nice old Ford with no seat belts, no air bags, or no antilock brakes. That would definitely take you all back to the decade to which you want the entire country to revert.
This would be pathetically hilarious, were it not so sad to watch.
Nearly as pathetic as your content free posts twisting the views of others into a baseless harangue that serves your need to berate others.
You find a way to disagree with every MRAK poster’s view and are at best an iconoclast. What joy do you derive from sh*tting in every thread?
I callout boorish, closed-minded, and mendacious comments wherever I find them. Simple as that.
Poor Dog…
So sad that you have a one note song that you repeat ad nauseam.
I’m really crying.
No, we Alaskans are not cheering appliance use.
.
Alaskans are cheering the removal of the all-powerful State’s boot from our necks. We are cheering a win for the individual over the collective.
.
And, we are not surprised at all that Whidbey cannot comprehend that concept, and is actually mocking people who do.
Now if we can only cancel the 300 acre solar farm in Nikiski, a product of Biden-Harris “renewable energy” giveaways.
An expensive 60W LED light bulb that is supposed to last a very long time actually lasts less that the same incandescent 130v 60W bulb. How do I know? I have several of both and side by side comparison is hands down in favor of the 130v 60W bulb. Do the LED’s save enough in the cost of electricity to make up the difference? I seriously doubt it.
Stop buying FEIT LED’s. They’re junk. You spend an extra buck getting a 130V lamp as opposed to a 120V and then compare your upgraded legacy purchase to the cheapest alternative capable of wearing the LED moniker.
Well George, challenge accepted!
I pulled out my trusty Excel and ran the calcs using the cost of 60W bulbs on Amazon, manufacturer’s data on the expected life of bulbs, and power costs in Anchorage AK. It turns out that incandescent bulbs will be 6.95 times more expensive than LEDs. For 10,000 hours of use of a 60W bulb, you will pay about $168.70 for bulbs and power as opposed to $24.27 for LEDs. Check my calculations if you wish. It’s not even close.
But you might also want to have your electrician check out your house. LED bulbs last 10 times as long as Incandescents. I changed all 100 or so bulbs in my house to LED 5 years ago, and have probably changed 5 or less since then. If used in vibratory service, filament LED bulbs can fail early FYI.
100 years ago, the Lightbulb Cabal offcially put a built in limit on the life span of an Incandescent bulb. There is one lightbulb that was manufactured before that limit was imposed on the whole world that is still lit continuously for over 100 years now.
Tell me why we should not force the lightbulb industry to remove those limitations? Why the push for LED only?
FYI; you can actually view the lightbulb:
‘https://www.centennialbulb.org/
Well, I’m sorry, but even if incandescent bulbs lasted 10 times as long, their economics would still be beaten by LEDs, simply on the basis of power cost. I’ve done the calculations, and you should too.
Dog, you are spot on. I have a home that has nothing but LED lamps. Not one has failed. They are super energy efficient. They last way longer than the old light bulbs.
The bonus? I can adjust the color of the lighting with my LED lamps- from 3000K to 5000K.
Even better? During the Summer I don’t have all the heat that would come from the old, hot incandescent light bulbs. LEDs are vastly cooler- so I save on energy by not having to cool the home as much.
With GVEA’s rates pushing 27 cents per kWh, we’d be nuts to not use LEDs.
Correct on all points! When something better comes along, embrace it! Thank you for being objective and logical.
When even light bulbs become a political cage match, you know something is badly wrong.
Weather something better comes along or not is not the issue. We should have the choice to waste our money.
“I changed all 100 or so bulbs in my house to LED 5 years ago, and have probably changed 5 or less since then.”
They failed in five years, but you said they lasted 10 years?
.
Do you even proof read your comments before you post?
.
Seriously though. The life of a LED bulb can be 20 years, 10 years, or three minutes. The quality of the manufacture is the deciding factor here. Cost increases accordingly as well.
If you purchase the top of the line bulbs, the ROI time gets a LOT longer.
.
And, I want the decision to be mine, not some faceless bureaucrats. If I want to throw my money out the window, that is my call, not the all-powerful State’s.
The ones that failed early were filament LEDs in vibratory service in garage door openers as I mentioned and they failed early just as an incandescent would in similar circumstances. In this type of service it’s better to use a solid-state LED, which does not have the same vulnerability.
So you see, there is a good reason for my comment.
Game, Set, Match.
You placed LEDs in a garage door opener?
I guess you did not read in the manual that electronically controlled bulbs (LEDs specifically) will reduce the usable range of your remote.
.
Now, I do have incandescents in my garage door opener. Bought tough duty bulbs, the can deal with vibration just fine. It is exactly what they are made for. And, they do not limit my remote in any way.
.
And, I thought you were done answering my comments?
Yes and thanks for correcting me. I meant to say that LEDs last 10 times longer. Industry data says LEDS can last 10,000 hours as opposed to 1000 for incandescent.
1,000 hours is just over a month and a week. 10,000 is just over a year and a month. The incandescent bulb in my chicken coop stays on for the entire winter and if I remember to take it out at the end of winter they have lasted multiple years. I have incandescent and LED Christmas lights that stay on for months at a time, once again if I remember to take the incandescent out at when I turn the lights out for the year they last multiple years. Maybe I’ve just had really good luck with the longevity of my lights over what the industry data you’ve provided says.
If I recall, GW implemented this ban that was to take effect 10 years after he signed it.
Either way, glad we now have choices again.
I like George’s mathing on this issue.
Make America See Again! LED’s are especially poor if you have dirty power. They never make their stated life.
Now if we can just get a V-8 again and a dishwasher that actually cleans the dishes.
Well, your mileage may vary, but I put over 100 in my house about five years ago and I’ve only changed about five since then. So I don’t know where you’re getting your data.
If “mileage may vary” LED over Incandescent, then we still need the freedom and availability to have that choice. Limiting viable options for everyone is… get this, fascism.
You argued against yourself… again.
Do you ever get tired of being wrong?
This all started with congress in the Energy and Security Act of 2007 which allowed efficiency standards to be set for incandescent light bulbs. This opened the door for the EPA to set efficiency standards that effectively banned most of the common use incandescents. O’Bama piled on with additional regs in 2017 which swept up most of the specialty bulbs. Biden’s 2023 action was simply the last step.
Want to roll this back? Roll back the 2007 legislation. Note that Bush 43 was quite proud of this little “gift.” So was Lisa at the time. Cheers –
What about low flush toilets? I can possibly understand the reasoning for them in desert states, but what about the rest of us? You often have to flush twice, which totally defeats the purpose.
If the intention is improvements in energy use efficiency, it would seem as if the research statistics were available to justify a government promotion and subsequent rule. With all the push back currently expressed, perhaps that wasn’t the case and now there is new research that shows the opposite, then?
However I do enjoy the argument about flushing twice imagining our constipated elderly population, citizens with their large stool content as a result of immobility issues, irregularity, and low fiber, low fluid dietary consumption.
Mrs. N.
The issue is not whether on tech is better than another. It is the government mandating one tech over another, and subsequently removing self determination.
.
While you may like asking permission from a faceless bureaucrat before you make a decision, I do not. If LEDs are better for me and the environment, I can make the choice to use them or not. I do not want that choice removed from me.
I find your defense against waste hilariously hypocritical, Mrs. N. If low flush toilets “conserve” water but you have to flush at least twice, you’re wasting more water than previously.
You are not good at logic, are you?
Lumen for lumen CFL’s were some of, if not, the singular environmentally dirtiest lightbulbs ever invented and they were government mandated. LED’s can at least be tossed out with regular trash as universal waste, but they aren’t a “green” alternative to incandescent bulbs. Yes they consume less electricity to make light but they are largely made of un-recyclable evil petroleum based plastic and computer chips made with the remains of dead nearly extinct species, or some kind of metal, I can never remember which…oh and and they fill up landfills. If I were a treehugger who wanted to toot my horn I’d go on and on about how LED’s are the bestest source of light ever, but since I’m a practical kinda guy with a logical mind who understands basic math I’m more than willing to accept the destruction of the environment that my purchase of LED’s contributes to knowing that for the average bulb it will cost me less in the long run, even if they cause much more damage to the environment that I pretend to love but have never actually verified anything about while preaching to others about how they are the devil incarnate.
Oh and since I believe in my body my choice, I also believe it’s my choice to decide how I illuminate my surroundings. I don’t need government telling me what to do with my lighting situation just like I don’t need them telling me what to do with my body.
I’ve pretty much converted my house lighting over to LED, but I still have uses for incandescent bulbs to provide heat in critical confined spaces such as pumphouses, a root cellar and propane bottle enclosure during interior cold snaps.
‘https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0m1Qekrfs7w
Comments are closed.