333 

 

Shedding Light:  The Role of Public Utility 

Commissions in Encouraging Adoption of 

Energy Efficient Lighting by Low-income 

Households 

Angelina Liang
*
 

Introduction ........................................................................................... 334 
I.  Increased Use of Energy Efficient Lighting is a Low-cost, 

Immediate, and Self-sustaining Method of Improving Electricity 

Delivery Systems ............................................................................ 336 
A.  Public and Private Benefits of More Efficient Lighting .............. 337 
B. General Barriers to Household Adoption of Efficient Lighting 

and Special Difficulties for Low-income Households ................ 342 
C.  Current Efficiency Programs:  Problems, Growth, and the 

Continued Failure to Accommodate for Low-income 

Household Needs ........................................................................ 352 
II. Public Utility Commissions Have the Unique Authority Over and 

Relationship with Households to Increase Efficient Lighting 

Adoption.......................................................................................... 358 
III. Adapting Efficient Lighting Adoption Programs to Address 

Specific Needs of Low-income Households ................................... 364 
A.  Free and Subsidized Bulbs .......................................................... 365 
B.  Free Audits .................................................................................. 367 
C.  Information Programs .................................................................. 369 

1.  Educating Consumers About Lighting Labels ......................... 370 
2.  More Detailed Metering and Billing Practices ........................ 371 

IV.  Conclusion ..................................................................................... 374 
 

 

 *  J.D. 2013, Columbia Law School.  The author would like to thank Professor Michael Gerrard 

for his thoughtful insights and guidance, and her parents for their lifetime of support. 



 

334 COLUMBIA JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAW [Vol. 38:2 

 

INTRODUCTION 

In the United States, increasing residential lighting efficiency is a cost-

effective, though underused, method of addressing high energy prices, 

energy security and independence, air pollution, and climate change.
1
  

Despite programs that encourage residential adoption of energy efficient 

light bulbs,
2
 adoption rates have been low; the majority of residential 

lighting continues to be supplied by the standard incandescent
3
 even 

though lighting alternatives like compact fluorescent lights (“CFL”) are 

75% more energy efficient.
4
  This Note argues that present programs 

should be more narrowly applied to reach an untapped population that 

would greatly benefit from efficient lighting: low-income households.
5
 

This Note assumes “that policymakers seek measures that will achieve 

the short- and long-term emissions reductions targets with a minimum of 

political cost.”
6
  Thus, this Note considers the relative attributes of 

proposed efficient lighting programs, including government cost, 

 

1. PHILIP MOSENTHAL & JEFFREY LOITER, OPTIMAL ENERGY, INC., GUIDE FOR CONDUCTING 

ENERGY EFFICIENCY POTENTIAL STUDIES 1-1 (2007), available at http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy 

/documents/suca/potential_guide.pdf. 

2. Philippe Menanteau & Hervé Lefebvre, Competing Technologies and the Diffusion of 

Innovations:  The Emergence of Energy-Efficient Lamps in the Residential Sector, 29 RESOURCES 

POL’Y 375, 384 (1999) (dating the “first large-scale measures to promote diffusion of energy-

efficient lighting technologies in the residential sector by the American electric utilities” to the mid-

1980s). 

3. See, e.g., Jeff Johnson, The End of the Light Bulb, CHEMICAL & ENGINEERING NEWS (Dec. 3, 

2007), http://pubs.acs.org/email/cen/html/120607171848.html (noting that in 2006 roughly 10% of 

the 1.7 billion bulbs sold in the U.S. were compact fluorescent lights (“CFL”)); see also STEPHEN 

BICKEL ET AL., U.S. DEP’T OF ENERGY, CFL MARKET PROFILE:  DATA TRENDS AND MARKET 

INSIGHTS 8 (2010), available at http://www.energystar.gov/ia/products/downloads/CFL_Market_Pr 

ofile_2010.pdf (“One in 6.6 medium screw-base lamps shipped today [using estimates from 2009] is 

a CFL, down from a peak of 1 in 4.5 in 2007.”). 

4. Sandy Bauers, New Light Bulbs:  Confusing but Enlightening, CHI. TRIB., Feb. 22, 2011, 

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-02-22/classified/sc-home-0221-lightblubs-20110221_1_bu 

lbs-cfls-efficiency-advocates. 

5. Thomas V. Chema, In Support of Demand-Side Management, PUB. UTIL. FORT., Jan. 18, 

1990, at 11, 14 (“This is true partly because there is often much efficiency to be gained in this sector 

and partly because this sector is most likely to be subsidized for fuel costs anyway.”); see also 

MARTIN KUSHLER ET AL., AM. COUNCIL FOR AN ENERGY-EFFICIENT ECON., MEETING ESSENTIAL 

NEEDS:  THE RESULTS OF A NATIONAL SEARCH FOR EXEMPLARY UTILITY-FUNDED LOW-INCOME 

ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAMS 7 (2005) (“The need for low-income energy efficiency programs is 

ongoing and even growing as energy costs rise and the numbers of low- and limited-income 

households also increase.”). 

6. Michael P. Vandenbergh et al., Individual Carbon Emissions:  The Low-Hanging Fruit, 55 

UCLA L. REV. 1701, 1709 (2008). 



 

2013] Shedding Light 335 

 

personal cost, and other psychological barriers.
7
  In general, this 

framework emphasizes the use of efficiency measures over conservation 

measures. Conservation “reduces the level of demand for a useful 

service, and is often associated with the loss of amenity,” whereas 

efficiency “reduces the amount of energy required to meet a given level 

of demand.”
8
  Household consumers favor the latter.

9
  Government 

regulation of product efficiency standards is one important example of an 

efficiency tool that has been applied to household lighting.
10

  Based on 

these premises, this Note examines the “effectiveness” of energy 

efficiency programs by evaluating each program’s relative cost, time 

delay before implementation, and “self-sustainability,” the ability to 

produce permanent behavioral change. 

This Note proposes harnessing the abilities of state public utility 

commissions (“PUCs”)
11

 to tailor preexisting efficient lighting programs 

for low-income households, which are particularly susceptible to the 

common barriers to efficient lighting adoption.
12

  Although the exact 

mandate differs by state, most PUCs regulate and monitor utility services 

and ensure reliable delivery of electricity at just and reasonable rates.
13

  

 

7. See generally id. (identifying reductions in personal motor vehicle idling, reductions in 

standby power use, and other “low-hanging fruit” programs). 

8. Charlie Wilson, Social Norms and Policies to Promote Energy Efficiency in the Home, 38 

ENVTL. L. REP. 10,882, 10,882 (2008). 

9. Vandenbergh et al., supra note 6, at 1709; see also Hope M. Babcock, Responsible 

Environmental Behavior, Energy Conservation, and Compact Fluorescent Bulbs:  You Can Lead a 

Horse to Water, but Can You Make It Drink?, 37 HOFSTRA L. REV. 943, 948–49 (2009) (explaining 

that encouraging energy efficient behavior “is difficult to do because of personal habits, which arise 

from ‘[r]epeated interactions’ and which are a major determinant of individual behavior.  It is also 

extremely difficult to get people to refrain from consuming products that improve the quality of their 

lives” (footnotes omitted)); Elizabeth B. Forsyth, Education for Reengergization:  Overcoming 

Behavioral Barriers to Energy Efficiency in the Residential Sector, 41 ENVTL. L. REP. 11,030, 

11,031 (2011) (“[I]n the absence of political will to change the production of energy, the Barack 

Obama Administration should focus even more strongly on changing how we use energy.”) 

(emphasis in original). 

10. See, e.g., John C. Dernbach et al., Energy Efficiency and Conservation:  New Legal Tools 

and Opportunities, 25 NAT. RES. & ENV’T, Spring 2011, at 7, 7–11 (discussing programs such as 

encouraging states to improve and fund building energy efficiency, as well as mandatory appliance 

and equipment efficiency standards).   

11. The exact name and function of public utility commissions differ by state, but for the sake of 

simplicity and consistency, this Note refers to them generally as “PUCs” and provides exact names 

when discussing examples. 

12. See infra Part I.B. 

13. This is generally referred as a PUC’s “ratemaking authority.”  See, e.g., N.Y. PUB. SERV. 

LAW § 135-o (McKinney 2011); Roger A. Greenbaum, Annotation, Special Commentary:  Recovery 

of “Stranded Costs” by Utilities, 80 A.L.R. FED. 1 (2012) (explaining that the PUC ratemaking 

decisions are approved unless it is shown that the PUC’s determination is “without any rational basis 

or without any reasonable support in the record” (citing Energy Ass’n of N.Y. v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n 



 

336 COLUMBIA JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAW [Vol. 38:2 

 

Within this relatively undefined area, PUCs may extend the scope of 

their rules to encompass energy efficiency schemes by characterizing 

such programs as a method of promoting the reliability and decreasing 

the costs of the entire electricity grid.
14

  This Note identifies three 

approaches that, if applied together, accommodate for special needs of 

low-income households and satisfy general policy goals: free and 

subsidized light bulbs, free audits, and educational projects.  The 

combination of these approaches is low-cost and self-sustaining: PUCs 

already regulate utilities, meaning no additional procedure or oversight is 

necessary,
15

 and reduced electricity bills, once initial barriers are 

overcome, will likely compel consumer adoption without significant 

funding from the state.
16

  Using no more than their currently vested 

powers, PUCs may significantly influence efficient lighting adoption 

rates by low-income households and thereby generate low-cost, system-

wide benefits for those individuals, the  state electricity grid, and the 

global environment.  This Note focuses primarily on New York’s PUC as 

a promising example of the potential for such a program. 

Part I of this Note discusses the individual and system-wide benefits of 

extensive residential adoption of efficient light bulbs, market barriers 

hindering low-income households from adopting efficient lighting, and 

present laws and programs that should be amended to focus on low-

income household behaviors.  Part II considers the role and incentives of 

utilities, and the unique position of PUCs to effectively coordinate 

system-wide interests.  This Part studies New York State as an example 

and highlights statutory text that can be interpreted to provide authority 

for different lighting adoption regimes.  Part III applies these statutory 

texts to a selection of efficient lighting programs to illustrate how PUCs 

can more effectively promote efficient lighting adoption among low-

income households.  Part IV concludes. 

I.  INCREASED USE OF ENERGY EFFICIENT LIGHTING IS A LOW-COST, 

IMMEDIATE, AND SELF-SUSTAINING METHOD OF IMPROVING 

ELECTRICITY DELIVERY SYSTEMS 

The effectiveness of widespread adoption of efficient lighting arises 

from its relative ease and low cost of implementation, by adopting and 

 

of N.Y., 653 N.Y.S.2d 502 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1996))); see also infra notes 224–228 and accompanying 

text.  

14. See infra notes 37–42, 217–221 and accompanying text. 

15. See infra notes 207–210 and accompanying text. 

16. See infra notes 47–52 and accompanying text. 



 

2013] Shedding Light 337 

 

adapting already existing methods of information and program delivery, 

to combat present deficiencies of the electricity sector.  A handful of 

states have reformed their electricity delivery systems by legally 

redefining relationships between electricity retailers and consumers.
17

  

Adoption of efficient lighting is a less burdensome option for states that 

are unwilling or unable to restructure their electricity markets and are 

still interested in reaping the benefits of increased electricity efficiency. 

One method is to increase the use of energy efficient light bulbs.  

Because this technology already exists, there are minimal research and 

development costs.
18

  Furthermore, because energy efficiency programs 

for light blubs have been in place since the 1970s, administrative 

infrastructure already exists.
19

  Finally, from a purely economic 

perspective, the electricity bill savings alone are sufficient to justify 

long-term adoption.
20

  Retargeting existing programs for low-income 

households will result in low-cost, immediate, and widespread electrical 

system benefits. 

A.  Public and Private Benefits of More Efficient Lighting 

In light of increasing energy demand
21

 and worsening environmental 

problems,
22

 finding new energy resources is critical.
23

  One solution is to 

 

17. Such reforms include revenue decoupling, which “is a policy mechanism that attempts to 

solve [energy inefficiency] by severing the link between a utility’s sale of electricity or gas and its 

revenues.”  JOSH CRAFT & JEFF ASLAN, NE. ENERGY EFFICIENCY P’SHIPS, REVENUE DECOUPLING 

IN THE NORTHEAST 1 (2008), available at http://www.neep.org/Assets/uploads/files/public-

policy/outreach-and-analysis/Revenue_Decoupling_Brief_Final_Version_1.30.12.pdf.  The New 

York Public Service Commission established decoupling provisions in April 2007.  Id. at 7.  

18. See infra Part I.B (discussing the variety and quality of currently available lighting products). 

19. Edward H. Comer, Transforming the Role of Energy Efficiency, 23 NAT. RES. & ENV’T, 

Summer 2008, at 34, 34 (“These early efforts consisted of distributing educational information on 

how electricity is used in the home and how consumers could make their home more energy 

efficient.”).  One key aspect of a program for efficient lighting as opposed to other efficient 

appliances is that “the turn-over time for light bulbs is much shorter than most other electrical 

appliances . . . so that adoption may occur in a relatively short period of time.”  Corrado Di Maria et 

al., Shedding Light on the Light Bulb Puzzle:  The Role of Attitudes and Perceptions in the Adoption 

of Energy Efficient Light Bulbs, 57 SCOT. J. POL. ECON. 48, 50 (2010). 

20. Di Maria et al., supra note 19, at 50 (“[T]here is unambiguous evidence that the payback is 

typically less than 1 year.”); see also Vandenbergh et al., supra note 6, at 1713–14 (concluding that 

efficient lighting technology results in “net social savings . . . even if we just account for the cost of 

energy at current prices and not for other potential cost savings . . . .”). 

21. See, e.g., Michael P. Vandenbergh & Jim Rossi, Good for You, Bad for Us:  The Financial 

Disincentive for Net Demand Reduction, 65 VAND. L. REV. 1527, 1536 (2012) (suggesting “that 

electricity use in the United States will increase by 45% by 2030” and global demand by 300% 

(citing ENERGY INFO. ADMIN., INTERNATIONAL ENERGY OUTLOOK 2011, at 209 tbl.D3 (2011))); see 

also Forsyth, supra note 9, at 11,031 (“[W]ith a continuation of existing policy, appliance 

consumption alone is projected to grow by 25% by 2020.”). 



 

338 COLUMBIA JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAW [Vol. 38:2 

 

adopt technology that uses less energy.  Increased energy efficiency
24

 

“avoids burning the fossil fuels normally needed to meet increasing 

power needs, and therefore, allows our energy needs to be met at a lower 

cost and with less environmental impact than continuing to build and buy 

more supply from new generation.”
25

  Efficiency adjustments can be 

made in all phases of electricity delivery to decrease overall greenhouse 

gas emissions:
26

  use of renewable resources during generation,
27

 

improved methods of transmission and distribution,
28

 and even 

adjustments to end-user consumption behaviors.
29

 

The electricity sector is the “largest and fastest growing source of 

GHG emissions globally, with 41 percent of energy-related carbon 

dioxide emissions in 2007.”
30

  In the United States, energy production 

accounts for 87% of total carbon dioxide emissions by metric ton.
31

  

 

22. Megan J. Hertzler & Mara N. Koeller, Who Pays for Carbon Costs?  Uncertainty and Risk in 

Response to the Current Patchwork of Carbon Regulation for Public Utilities, 36 WM. MITCHELL L. 

REV. 904, 907–09 (2010). 

23. See, e.g., Noah M. Sachs, Greening Demand:  Energy Consumption and U.S. Climate Policy, 

19 DUKE ENVTL. L. & POL’Y F. 295, 302 (2009) (“[T]he United States must cut its greenhouse gas 

emissions at least forty percent below current levels . . . to avoid dangerous climate disruption.”); 

Vandenbergh et al., supra note 6, at 1702–03 (“An emerging consensus suggests that reducing the 

risks of catastrophic climate change will require leveling off greenhouse gas emissions in the near 

term and reductions of 60 to 80 percent from present levels by 2050.” (footnotes omitted)). 

24. Calculating Energy Savings, EPA, http://www.epa.gov/statelocalclimate/state/activities/meas 

uring-savings.html (last visited May 31, 2013) (estimating efficiency impacts “by taking the 

difference between: (a) [a]ctual energy consumption after efficiency measures are installed [and] (b) 

[w]hat energy consumption would have occurred during the same period had the efficiency measures 

not been installed”). 

25. Sandra Levine & Katie Kendall, Energy Efficiency and Conservation: Opportunities, 

Obstacles, and Experiences, 8 VT. J. ENVTL. L. 101, 102–03 (2006); see also Brandon Hofmeister, 

Bridging the Gap:  Using Social Psychology To Design Market Interventions To Overcome the 

Energy Efficiency Gap in Residential Energy Markets, 19 SOUTHEASTERN ENVTL. L.J. 1, 8–9 (2010) 

(estimating that “investing in utility energy efficiency programs averages 2.5 cents in upfront costs 

per kilowatt-hour saved” compared to seven to fourteen cents or more per kilowatt-hour to build a 

new fossil fuel fired power plant). 

26. Forsyth, supra note 9, at 11,031–32 (noting how “[m]uch of the electricity generated to 

power homes is wasted” through inefficient transmission, home design, and household appliances). 

27. See, e.g., William Moomaw et al., Renewable Energy and Climate Change, in 

INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE, SPECIAL REPORT ON RENEWABLE ENERGY 

SOURCES AND CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION 161, 172–74 (Ottmar Edenhofer et al. eds., 2011), 

available at http://srren.ipcc-wg3.de/report/IPCC_SRREN_Ch01.pdf. 

28. See id. at 174. 

29. See id. 

30. INT’L ENERGY AGENCY, SECTORAL APPROACHES IN ELECTRICITY:  BUILDING BRIDGES TO A 

SAFE CLIMATE 3 (2009), available at http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/ 

sectoral2009.pdf. 

31. What Are Greenhouse Gases and How Much Are Emitted by the United States?, U.S. 

ENERGY INFO. ADMIN., http://www.eia.gov/energy_in_brief/greenhouse_gas.cfm (last updated June 



 

2013] Shedding Light 339 

 

Electricity generation is predominantly fossil fuel based and coal use 

alone resulted in 8.7 billion gigatons (“Gt”) of carbon dioxide emissions 

in 2007.
32

  To achieve the International Energy Agency’s (“IEA”) 

recommended “equilibrium temperature,”
33

 “global energy-related CO2 

emissions need to be lower than today’s levels by 2030 . . . and on a 

rapidly declining path thereafter.”
34

  As detailed below, efficient lighting 

both directly and indirectly reduces GHG emissions.
35

  Although an 80% 

reduction of GHGs by 2050 would have significant incremental costs to 

consumers, a 17% reduction of GHGs by 2020 could potentially be met 

at a net savings to consumers by aggressively pursuing energy 

efficiency.
36

 

A second benefit of increased energy efficiency is the reduction of 

peak demand, which increases the reliability of the United States’ power 

grid and reduces carbon dioxide emissions.
37

  In order to reliably provide 

electricity to end-users, each segment of the grid must have sufficient 

capacity to meet maximum load, known as “peak demand,”
38

 which 

fluctuates throughout the day.
39

  As a result of the need to meet peak 

demand, increased energy use requires the addition of more electricity 

plants, which means additional capital investment and environmental 

harm.
40

  In addition, forgoing new power plants is cost effective: as 

 

21, 2012); EPA, INVENTORY OF U.S. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS AND SINKS: 1990–2009, at 3-1 

(2011), available at http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/Downloads/ghgemissions/US-GHG-Invento 

ry-2011-Complete_Report.pdf.  

32. INT’L ENERGY AGENCY., supra note 30, at 25. 

33. Moomaw, supra note 27, at 169. 

34. INT’L ENERGY AGENCY, supra note 30, at 28. 

35. See, e.g., CHRISTIANA FIGUERES & MARTINA BOSI, ACHIEVING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSION 

REDUCTIONS IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES THROUGH ENERGY EFFICIENT LIGHTING PROJECTS IN THE 

CLEAN DEVELOPMENT MECHANISM 1 (2006), available at http://figueresonline.com/publications/lig 

hting_and_CDM.pdf (“Energy efficiency can reduce the need for capital-intensive supply 

investments and is one of the most promising sectors for improving the adequacy and reliability of 

power systems, increasing energy security and reducing emissions . . . .”); see also infra notes 36–51 

and accompanying text. 

36. Hofmeister, supra note 25, at 11. 

37. See, e.g., Eric Martinot & Nils Borg, Energy-Efficient Lighting Programs: Experience and 

Lessons from Eight Countries, 26 ENERGY POL’Y 1071, 1079 (1998). 

38. JONATHAN KOOMEY & RICHARD E. BROWN, THE ROLE OF BUILDING TECHNOLOGIES IN 

REDUCING AND CONTROLLING PEAK ELECTRICITY DEMAND 3 (2002), available at http://enduse.lb 

l.gov/info/LBNL-49947.pdf. 

39. STEVE HEINEN ET AL., INT’L ENERGY AGENCY, IMPACT OF SMART GRID TECHNOLOGIES ON 

PEAK LOAD TO 2050, at 6 (2011), available at http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/pub 

lication/smart_grid_peak_load.pdf; see generally KOOMEY, supra note 38 (defining peak demand). 

40. EUGENE HONG ET AL., NAVIGANT CONSULTING, INC., U.S. LIGHTING MARKET 

CHARACTERIZATION VOLUME II: ENERGY EFFICIENT LIGHTING TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS 9 (2005), 

available at http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/publications/pdfs/ssl/ee_lighting_vol2.pdf.  The 



 

340 COLUMBIA JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAW [Vol. 38:2 

 

compared to the $2.50 per watt it costs to build a new coal power plant, it 

only costs $0.025 per watt to decrease demand by replacing light bulbs.
41

  

Depending on the effects of efficient lighting on heating and cooling 

needs of buildings, adoption of efficient lighting alone could decrease 

peak electricity demand by between 7% and 11%.
42

 

Third, energy efficiency programs complement sustainable energy 

solutions, like renewable fuels.  Energy efficiency measures are often 

faster to implement than creating new energy supply in part because they 

“do not require lengthy siting, permitting, or construction processes.”
43

  

In response, efficiency standards can be first implemented to stabilize 

energy demand,
44

 giving time for new energy supplies like renewable 

fuel development to become cost effective.
45

  As estimated by the 

Department of Energy (“DOE”), renewable fuels could reduce electricity 

generation by 22% by 2020, and the combination of renewables and 

efficiency could result in a 44% drop in that same time.
46

 

Finally, increased efficiency across the electricity delivery path and 

decreased demand by end-users also makes economic sense.
47

  Despite 

 

United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) estimates that the average carbon dioxide 

emission rate of coal-fired electricity generation in the United States, the nation’s predominant 

source of electricity generation, is 2,249 lbs/MWh.  Air Emissions, EPA, 

http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-and-you/affect/air-emissions.html (last updated Oct. 17, 

2012).  This suggests that foregoing the creation of a single coal generator with a capacity of 

approximately 350,000 MW could eliminate the production of almost 400,000 tons of carbon 

dioxide per hour of operation.  See id. 

41. Forsyth, supra note 9, at 11,032–33 n.30 (quoting Thomas R. Blakeslee, Energy Saving: 

Much Cheaper Than Building Power Plants!, RENEWABLEENERGYWORLD.COM (Nov. 12, 2009), 

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2009/11/energy-saving-much-cheaper-than-

building-power-plants); see also Johnson, supra note 3 (“Using CFLs or solid-state lighting would 

save about 4% of this total electricity, savings which would avoid building the equivalent of roughly 

20 new 1,000-MW nuclear power plants.”). 

42. Jens Schoene et al., Energy-Efficient Lighting’s Impact on Peak Load, ELEC. LIGHT & 

POWER, http://www.elp.com/index/display/article-display/8776922390/articles/utility-automation-

engineering-td/volume-16/issue-7/features/energy-efficient-lightings-impact-on-peak-load-losses.ht 

ml (last visited May 31, 2013). 

43. Sachs, supra note 23, at 304. 

44. Rachel Kirby, Doing More with Less: Incorporating Energy Efficiency into a National 

Renewable Energy Standard, 8 SUSTAINABLE DEV. L. & POL’Y 26, 26 (2007). 

45. Id. 

46. Id. 

47. See Babcock, supra note 9, at 950 (“If every one of the 110 million households in the United 

States replaced a conventional sixty-watt incandescent bulb with one CFL, the energy saved by that 

small action would be enough to power a city of 1.5 million people.  One swapped-out bulb per 

house could power all the homes in Delaware and Rhode Island.  In terms of greenhouse gases not 

emitted into the atmosphere, one swapped out bulb per 110 million households is equal to taking 1.3 

million cars off the road and would save enough electricity to turn off two power plants permanently 

or avoid building the next two, assuming the demand level for electricity did not creep back up.  



 

2013] Shedding Light 341 

 

the higher purchasing price of efficient lighting, the use of less electricity 

over the life of the bulb provides households with overall savings.
48

  As 

estimated by the IEA, each $1 spent on efficiency projects avoids an 

average of $2 in investment in energy supply.
49

  Reduction in the overall 

electricity demand may also “lower the wholesale market clearing price 

for electricity because less energy is needed.”
50

  Finally, because the 

energy in lamps not converted to light is lost as heat, increased efficiency 

will mean less heat loss, which may help residents save on cooling 

bills.
51

  Hypothetically, then, so long as awareness of the availability of 

efficient lighting and information about its private benefits is properly 

understood, the inherent cost savings of adopting efficient lighting 

should be sufficient impetus to drive a self-sustaining adoption 

program.
52

 

Despite seemingly obvious private and public benefits, adoption rates 

of efficient lighting continue to be low.
53

  At present, the residential 

sector is one of the heaviest consumers of electricity in the United States, 

and wastes a significant amount of that electricity by utilizing inefficient 

light bulbs.
54

  The residential sector consumes 39% of electricity 

delivered in the United States,
55

 and, as of 2011, 13% of that was used to 

power lighting.
56

  In 2001, the average home had forty-five total light 

 

Therefore, if every U.S. household substituted just one CFL for one incandescent bulb, the savings 

in electricity and resultant environmental benefits would be impressive. Just one CFL can prevent 

690 pounds of greenhouse gases from being emitted into the atmosphere and 200 pounds of coal 

from being burned in power plants.” (footnotes omitted)). 

48. Levine & Kendall, supra note 25, at 102. 

49. Sachs, supra note 23, at 303; see also Levine & Kendall, supra note 25, at 102 (“Investing in 

energy efficiency results in achieving energy needs for about one-third to one-half the cost of buying 

more power on the open market.”).  This cost-savings is particularly apparent when the life-cycle 

cost of different lighting technologies is taken into consideration.  See, e.g., U.S. DEP’T OF ENERGY, 

LIFE-CYCLE ASSESSMENT OF ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF LED LIGHTING 

PRODUCTS, PART I: REVIEW OF THE LIFE-CYCLE ENERGY CONSUMPTION OF INCANDESCENT, 

COMPACT FLUORESCENT, AND LED LAMPS 3, fig.ES.1 (2012), available at http://apps1.eere.energy 

.gov/buildings/publications/pdfs/ssl/2012_LED_Lifecycle_Report.pdf. 

50. Levine & Kendall, supra note 25, at 102. 

51. HONG ET AL., supra note 40, at 14. 

52. See, e.g., T.M.I. Mahlia et al., Cost-Benefit Analysis and Emission Reduction of Lighting 

Retrofits in Residential Sector, 37 ENERGY & BUILDINGS 573, 573 (2005). 

53. See, e.g., Di Maria et al., supra note 19, at 51. 

54. Id. at 49 (“[C]ompared with the average efficiency of lighting in the industrial (80 lm/W), or 

the commercial sector (50 lm/W), the 16.8 lm/W estimated for residential use . . . demonstrates the 

enormous potential for energy savings.” (internal citations omitted)). 

55. Electricity Explained: Use of Electricity, U.S. ENERGY INFO. ADMIN.,  http://www.eia.gov/ 

energyexplained/index.cfm?page=electricity_use (last visited May 31, 2013). 

56. Frequently Asked Questions:  How Much Electricity Is Used for Lighting in the United 

States?, U.S. ENERGY INFO. ADMIN., http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=99&t=3 (last 



 

342 COLUMBIA JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAW [Vol. 38:2 

 

bulbs, 87% of which were incandescent lamps.
57

  Incandescent bulbs 

consume 90% of total energy used for residential lighting,
58

 but convert 

only 5 to 10% of electricity input into light and emit the rest as lost 

heat.
59

  In total, incandescent bulbs “consume[] the most energy and 

provide[] the least amount of light nationally,”
60

 but remain popular 

“because they possess many attractive properties that more efficient light 

sources cannot reproduce easily.”
61

  The current status of adoption 

demonstrates that broad distribution of information is not enough: 

households are interested in more than just economic savings.
62

  Broad 

adoption will require identifying and addressing those additional 

interests. 

B.  General Barriers to Household Adoption of Efficient Lighting and 

Special Difficulties for Low-income Households 

Unlike lighting consumers in the commercial sector, residential 

consumers utilize bulbs in a personal setting, which makes adoption of 

new technologies contingent on preferences other than just cost-benefit 

calculations.
63

  Many of these preferences result from the incandescent 

 

updated Jan. 9, 2013); see also U.S. ENERGY INFO. ADMIN., DOE/EIA-0383(2011), ANNUAL 

ELECTRICITY OUTLOOK 2011 WITH PROJECTIONS TO 2035, at 123 (2011), available at http://www.el 

ectricdrive.org/index.php?ht=a/GetDocumentAction/id/27843. 

57. U.S. DEP’T OF ENERGY, U.S. LIGHTING MARKET CHARACTERIZATION, VOLUME I: 

NATIONAL LIGHTING INVENTORY AND ENERGY CONSUMPTION ESTIMATE, at xiii (2002), available 

at http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/publications/pdfs/ssl/lmc_vol1_final.pdf.  A more recent 

study published in 2012 estimates that the average number of household bulbs has increased to 67.4 

per household.  U.S. DEP’T OF ENERGY, RESIDENTIAL LIGHTING END-USE CONSUMPTION STUDY: 

ESTIMATION FRAMEWORK AND INITIAL ESTIMATES 4.4 tbl.4.1 (2012), available at http://apps1.eer 

e.energy.gov/buildings/publications/pdfs/ssl/2012_residential-lighting-study.pdf. 

58. U.S. LIGHTING MARKET CHARACTERIZATION, supra note 57, at 38 tbl.5-7. 

59. HONG ET AL., supra note 40, at 12. 

60. U.S. LIGHTING MARKET CHARACTERIZATION, supra note 57, at 62. 

61. Id. at 11. 

62. See, e.g., Jabavu Clifford Nkomo, Consumer Choice in an Energy Efficient Lighting Context, 

16 J. ENERGY S. AFR. 14, 15 (2005) (“Another view is that rather than assuming economic 

rationality, preferences of consumers are affected by choices of other members of society, so that the 

different utility functions of different households are interdependent.”); see also Wilson, supra note 

8, at 10,883 (emphasizing the importance to consumers of “non-energy benefits” as deduced from 

behavioral research finding that “households do not consume energy.  Rather, they need and enjoy 

services . . . that are in turn provided or enabled by technologies that convert energy into useful 

work.”); Joel S. Gilbert, Consistency in Marketing: Sending the Right Message to Large-Volume 

Customers, PUB. UTIL. FORT., Sept. 28, 1989, at 19, 22 (“In most cases, the customer is buying 

productivity, comfort, control, and prestige.”). 

63. See, e.g., Babcock, supra note 9, at 952–53 (“[B]arriers to behaving in an environmentally 

responsible way,” include cognitive heuristics, social norms like autonomy and reciprocity, personal 



 

2013] Shedding Light 343 

 

bulb’s current monopoly over the residential lighting market.
64

  To 

ensure quick adoption, new lighting alternatives must meet or surpass the 

current incandescent offerings.
65

  Specifically, residential consumers are 

looking for the familiar low cost,
66

 a common Edison screw base,
67

 the 

typical warm color,
68

 and the average 1000-hour life.
69

  In addition to 

these physical concerns, which the lighting industry is addressing with 

technological advances,
70

 there are psychological barriers to efficient 

lighting adoption, including household members’ improper valuation of 

efficient lighting.
71

  As is discussed in detail below, low-income 

households are particularly sensitive to such barriers because of three 

commonly shared characteristics: such households have lesser total 

income,
72

 are generally less educated,
73

 and are more likely to be 

 

responsibility, and esteem.  As Babcock notes: “If external praise is not there, then it is less likely 

that an individual will feel proud of her good behavior and engage in it.”). 

64. Menanteau & Lefebvre, supra note 2, at 378; see also Babcock, supra note 9, at 953 (“These 

problems with CFLs can neutralize any guilt an individual may feel about not conforming to the 

energy conservation norm, which might otherwise propel her to switch bulbs.”). 

65. Menanteau & Lefebvre, supra note 2, at 379. 

66. Walmart was advertising standard incandescent 60-watt bulbs for $0.31 apiece.  Peter 

Bacqué, Fluorescent Light Bulb Prices Increasing, RICHMOND TIMES-DISPATCH (July 24, 2011), 

http://www2.timesdispatch.com/business/2011/jul/24/tdmony01-fluorescent-light-bulb-prices-increa 

sing-ar-1192522/.  This behavior is often referred to as the “anchoring effect,” which suggests that 

individuals “make estimates by starting from an initial, familiar value, that is adjusted to yield the 

final answer.”  Di Maria et al., supra note 19, at 53.  

67. HONG ET AL., supra note 40, at 7; see also Peter Miller, A Brighter Idea:  The Untold Story of 

the CFL, 25 ELECTRICITY J., Aug.–Sept. 2012, at 56, 57 (“Lighting fixtures, sockets, and lamps are 

all designed to function with a bulb that is the same size, shape, and weight of a standard 

incandescent bulb.”). 

68. HONG ET AL., supra note 40, at 7; see also Menanteau & Lefebvre, supra note 2, at 382; 

Miller, supra note 67, at 57 (“[Consumers know] whether they want a bulb with the brightness of a 

100-watt bulb or the softer light from a 60-watt bulb, even though they may not have the slightest 

idea what a watt is.”). 

69. OSRAM SYLVANIA, 4TH ANNUAL SYLVANIA SOCKET SURVEY 9 (2011), http://assets.sylvan 

ia.com/assets/Documents/2009_SYLVANIA_Socket_Survey.d81a552e-cb6b-4779-9e56-5da47 

e838c7f.pdf. 

70. See infra notes 76–96 and accompanying text (discussing the technological improvements to 

efficient bulbs). 

71. See infra notes 105–107 and accompanying text; see also FIGUERES & BOSI, supra note 35, 

at 3; Di Maria et al., supra note 19, at 49; Martinot & Borg, supra note 37, at 1074, 1079. 

72. The value of money saved must be considered relative to income.  See, e.g., Roger D. Colton, 

Prepayment Utility Meters, Affordable Home Energy, and the Low Income Utility Consumer, 10 J. 

AFFORDABLE HOUS. & CMTY. DEV. L. 285, 293–94 (2001) (“Low income consumers are frequently 

forced to decide between competing household necessities (e.g., heat or eat), and are forced to 

engage in a wide variety of dangerous and/or unhealthy activities in an effort to keep paying their 

utility bills.”).  Furthermore, at least one study found “that a 1% increase in income is associated 

with an increase in the probability of adoption of 0.095%.”  Di Maria et al., supra note 19, at 64; see 

also Nkomo, supra note 62, at 17 (2005) (“By reducing household lighting costs without reducing 



 

344 COLUMBIA JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAW [Vol. 38:2 

 

renters.
74

  This Part surveys current bulb designs, addresses the 

implications of product and personal preferences among consumers, and 

proposes solutions to these market barriers. 

In response to new legally mandated efficiency standards,
75

 the 

lighting industry quickly developed new, more efficient bulb designs.  

Among the countless lighting efficiency improvements, three notable 

technologies are halogen incandescent lights, compact fluorescent lights 

(“CFLs”), and light emitting diodes (“LEDs”).  In comparison to the 

standard incandescent, which generates light at a rate of between ten to 

seventeen lumens per watt, these technologies generate light at rates of 

between twelve and twenty-two lumens per watt, fifty and seventy 

lumens per watt, and twenty-seven to fifty-four lumens per watt, 

respectively.
76

  The degree to which each of these technologies has 

penetrated the market varies, but each is advancing day-by-day.
77

 

Halogen incandescent bulbs are the most similar to the standard 

incandescent.  Both bulbs have the same shape and use the same 

mechanism to generate light.
78

  The efficiency of a standard incandescent 

increases with the filament’s temperature,
79

 but is limited by the 

temperature and rate at which tungsten evaporates; without the tungsten 

filament, no light is generated.
80

  Halogen gases lengthen the tungsten 

 

the lighting levels, it improves its cash flow and releases money for other household needs.  

Installation can reduce lighting expenditure by more than 70 percent . . . .”). 

73. See, e.g., Di Maria et al., supra note 19, at 51 (noting “the importance of education, 

information, and environmental awareness in the household’s adoption decision”); see also id. at 60 

(“Of those with primary education, only 13% report having installed CFLs in their dwelling.  This 

proportion increases to 23% for those who have completed secondary education.  For those with 

upper secondary or third level education, the proportion of adopters, 35% and 39%, 

respectively . . . .”). 

74. LUCAS W. DAVIS, NAT’L BUREAU OF ECON. RESEARCH, EVALUATING THE SLOW ADOPTION 

OF ENERGY EFFICIENT INVESTMENTS:  ARE RENTERS LESS LIKELY TO HAVE ENERGY EFFICIENT 

APPLIANCES? 5 (2009), available at http://urbanpolicy.berkeley.edu/greenbuilding/davis.pdf. 

75. See Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 § 325, 42 U.S.C. § 6297 (2012); see also 

infra notes 153–160 and accompanying text (discussing details of the statute). 

76. Types of Lighting, U.S. DEP’T OF ENERGY (July 29, 2012, 5:36 PM) http://energy.gov/energy 

saver/articles/types-lighting. 

77. Compare U.S. LIGHTING MARKET CHARACTERIZATION, supra note 57, at xiii, with U.S. 

DEP’T OF ENERGY, 2010 U.S. LIGHTING MARKET CHARACTERIZATION 82–84 (2012), available at 

http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/publications/pdfs/ssl/2010-lmc-final-jan-2012.pdf. 

78. Both halogen and standard incandescent bulbs produce light by heating a tungsten filament.  

HONG ET AL., supra note 40, at 12. 

79. Id. 

80. Id. at 12–13. 



 

2013] Shedding Light 345 

 

filament’s lifespan
81

 and increase the efficiency of the bulb by an 

estimated 25%.
82

 

CFLs, in contrast, use electricity to excite electrons that strike the 

bulb’s phosphor coating and thereby produce light.
83

  Notwithstanding 

aesthetic dissimilarities in early CFLs, recent models have successfully 

mimicked the majority of incandescent light bulb properties, including 

small size, warm coloring, limited flickering, and short start-up time.
84

  

However, CFLs continue to suffer from a shortened lifetime when 

rapidly turned on and off
85

 or operated with a dimmable switch.
86

  

Additionally, consumers have voiced concerns that CFLs contain 

mercury that may be hazardous in their homes,
87

 though government 

agencies maintain that the mercury concentrations are minimal and 

provide guides for proper use and disposal of CFLs in the home.
88

  

Finally, CFLs use 75% less electricity and on average last ten times 

longer than the standard incandescent.
89

 

Finally, the technology least similar to the standard incandescent in 

both appearance and function, but with the greatest promise for saving 

energy, is the LED.  Technically not considered light bulbs, LEDs are 

semiconductors that glow when electricity flows through them.
90

  The 

light intensity of LEDs can easily be tailored,
91

 but their light quality is 

 

81. Id. at 12 (gases like bromine “promote[] the regenerative halogen cycle” by “deposit[ing] 

evaporated tungsten molecules back onto the filament, enabling the tungsten filament to operate at 

higher temperatures without shortening its operating life”). 

82. Lighting Choices to Save You Money, U.S. DEP’T OF ENERGY (July 30, 2012, 7:56 AM) 

http://energy.gov/energysaver/articles/lighting-choices-save-you-money. 

83. Darian Unger, Modern Innovation Management Theory and the Evolving U.S. Lighting 

Industry, 17 J. MGMT. HIST. 9, 11 (2011). 

84. Menanteau & Lefebvre, supra note 2, at 386. 

85. Bradford F. Mills & Joachin Schleich, Why Don’t Households See the Light?:  Explaining 

the Diffusion of Compact Fluorescent Lamps, 32 RES. & ENERGY ECON. 363, 367 (2010). 

86. HONG ET AL., supra note 40, at 33.  Research is making headway in this area, but there are 

not yet any commercially viable options.  Id. at 34. 

87. See, e.g., Babcock, supra note 9, at 954–56 (describing difficulties of proper disposal in the 

residential setting); Nkomo, supra note 62, at 18 (describing potential harms of mercury). 

88. Nkomo, supra note 62, at 18 (“In the United States, for example, used or broken CFLs are 

sent to recycling centres that break the lamps and safely recover the mercury.”); Frequently Asked 

Questions:  Lighting Choices to Save You Money, U.S. DEP’T OF ENERGY  (Aug. 9, 2012, 9:20 AM), 

http://energy.gov/energysaver/articles/frequently-asked-questions-lighting-choices-save-you-money; 

see also Johnson, supra note 3 (remarking on Walmart’s “intention to pressure its manufacturer to 

reduce the small amount of mercury in CFLs”). 

89. Lighting Choices to Save You Money, supra note 82. 

90. Unger, supra note 83, at 11 (“[S]olid-state lighting devices with semiconductor chips that 

glow with electricity flow, and do not require light sockets.”). 

91. HONG ET AL., supra note 40, at 101. 



 

346 COLUMBIA JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAW [Vol. 38:2 

 

inconsistent when viewed from different angles.
92

  Moreover, the units 

rapidly degrade because of their own heat.
93

  LEDs have become 

increasingly more price-competitive in relation to CFLs and incandescent 

bulbs,
94

 particularly as retailers “transform light bulbs from a cheap, 

disposable product into something that consumers might show off to 

their friends” by “adding functions that could ultimately fit into a larger 

home automation system.”
95

  LEDs can use 80% less electricity and last 

twenty-five times longer than the standard incandescent.
96

 

The following table compares key features of incandescent, halogen, 

CFL, and LED lighting fixtures: 
 

Figure 1:  Summary Statistics of Alternative Lighting Technologies 

 Incandescent Halogen CFL LED 

Wattage
97

 60W 43W 13W 12.5W 

Estimated 

cost/year
98

 

$7.32 $5.18 $1.57 $1.50 

Estimated 

lifetime 

cost
99

 

$195 $180 $50 $75 

 

92. Id. 

93. Id. at 103. 

94. See, e.g., Diane Cardwell, LEDs Emerge as a Popular “Green” Lighting, N.Y. TIMES, Jan. 

21, 2013, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/22/business/leds-emerge-as-a-popular-green-lighting.ht 

ml?src=me&ref=general&_r=1& (“[$10 is] a tipping point that would speed mass adoption.”).   

95. Id.  For example, because “the light in LED bulbs comes from chips, companies have been 

able to develop software applications that let users control the bulbs.”  Id. 

96. Lighting Choices to Save You Money, supra note 82. 

97. To generate 800 lumens of brightness requires an input of sixty watts, the average 

specifications of a standard incandescent. Lighting, ENERGYSTAR,  http://www.energystar.gov/ind 

ex.cfm?c=lighting.pr_lighting_landing (last visited May 31, 2013) (follow “Brightness”). 

98. Id. (follow “Cost”). 

99. These estimates include “initial bulb price, light bulb replacement costs and energy costs 

over 25 years,” assuming that “bulbs are on for 3 hours a day.”  See The True Cost of a Light Bulb, 

ENERGYSTAR,  http://www.lightingfacts.com/downloads/TrueCost_FactSheet_06APR11.pdf  (last 

visited May 31, 2013). 



 

2013] Shedding Light 347 

 

Expected life 1x
100

 2x
101

 10x
102

 25x
103

 

 

These technological improvements demonstrate the significant energy 

savings such alternative technology provides, but the matter of 

widespread residential adoption remains unaddressed. 

In addition to overcoming the cost and product quality barriers to 

efficient lighting adoption, the market must overcome behavioral 

barriers.
104

  For low-income households, notable barriers include 

incomplete information,
105

 the landlord-tenant problem,
106

 and improper 

pricing of the value of efficient lighting.
107

  Addressing these problems 

requires a variety of complementary programming, all of which can be 

delivered effectively by PUCs through programs encouraging efficient 

lighting.
108

 

 

100. EPA, NEXT GENERATION LIGHTING PROGRAMS:  OPPORTUNITIES TO ADVANCE EFFICIENT 

LIGHTING FOR A CLEANER ENVIRONMENT 16 (2011), available at http://www.energystar.gov/ia/part 

ners/manuf_res/downloads/lighting/EPA_Report_on_NGL_Programs_for_508.pdf; see also Why 

Choose ENERGY STAR?, ENERGYSTAR, http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=cfls.pr_cfls_w 

hy (last visited May 31, 2013) (estimating a lifetime of 750–1,000 hours). 

101. EPA, supra note 100, at 16. 

102. Frequently Asked Questions:  Lighting Choices to Save You Money, supra note 88. 

103. Id.; see also CFL Glossary, ENERGYSTAR, http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=c 

fls.pr_cfls_glossary#rated_life (last visited May 31, 2013) (“For all light bulbs, lifetime is 

determined by operating a sample of bulbs according to industry test standards. . . .  The ENERGY 

STAR CFL criteria require additional testing to show that the sample can withstand a number of 

short start cycles and monitors early failures throughout testing.”). 

104. See, e.g., Miller, supra note 67, at 58–60 (providing an example of the progress that has 

been made with CFLs in California). 

105. Menanteau & Lefebvre, supra note 2, at 383. 

106. See, e.g., Davis, supra note 74, at 8 (describing the problem as a “principal-agent problem” 

where “[t]he principal (the tenant) is hiring the agent (the landlord) to provide housing services.  

Problems arise . . . because the two parties have different incentives.”); Hofmeister, supra note 25, at 

14–15 (discussing misaligned incentives of landlords and homebuilders, who bear the “capital costs 

of efficiency measures” and, respectively, tenants and homeowners, who are responsible for 

“ongoing energy costs”).  In 2010, an estimated 32% of homes in the United States were tenant-

occupied.  Forsyth, supra note 9, at 11034.  Of these renters, “approximately 70 percent of renter 

households had incomes below the national median and more than 40 percent had incomes in the 

bottom quartile.”  JOINT CTR. FOR HOUS. STUDIES OF HARVARD UNIV., RENTER DEMOGRAPHICS 17 

(n.d.), available at http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/sites/jchs.harvard.edu/files/ahr2011-3-demographic 

s.pdf. 

107. See infra notes 126–131 and accompanying text; see also Scott F. Bertschi, Comment, 

Integrated Resource Planning and Demand-Side Management in Electric Utility Regulation:  Public 

Utility Panacea or a Waste of Energy?, 43 EMORY L.J. 815, 828–29 (“Empirically, consumers will 

not invest in conservation measures unless they produce returns through reduced energy costs 

between 30-100 percent . . . utilities seldom receive over 15 percent return on their invested 

capital.”). 

108. See infra Part III. 



 

348 COLUMBIA JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAW [Vol. 38:2 

 

Electricity consumers lack basic information regarding both efficient 

appliance alternatives and their personal electricity consumption.
109

  

Although “[s]ocial actors are competent masters of their routines and 

habits . . . there is no reason to expect them to . . . know how to think and 

act responsibly about efficiency choices.”
110

  In particular, regarding 

efficient bulbs, “the packaging information about CFL performance is 

too technical and hard for the average consumer to understand.  

Consumers need the equivalent of a Rosetta stone to decipher the 

differences among CFLs.”
111

  Importantly, the federal government took 

key steps in addressing this problem when it introduced mandatory 

“Lighting Facts” labels.
112

  However, PUCs can still help improve upon 

this system by educating households about label components.
113

 

At present, residential consumers receive only limited electricity cost 

information: “most bills have a stable price for power that provides no 

incentive to use less power.”
114

  Current metering practices mean 

 

109. Mats Bladh & Helena Krantz, Towards a Bright Future?  Household Use of Electric Light:  

A Microlevel Study, 36 ENERGY POL’Y 3521, 3530 (2008) (“Information about the existence of low-

wattage lamps and their relative prices is one problem.  But knowledge about own use and 

consumption is another problem.”).  See generally MONICA NEVIUS ET AL., CONSUMER 

UNDERSTANDING OF KEY LIGHTING FACTS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR ENERGY SAVINGS (2012), 

available at http://www.aceee.org/files/proceedings/2012/data/papers/0193-000193.pdf 

(summarizing survey information regarding knowledge of information on the Lighting Facts labels 

instituted by the Federal Trade Commission collected from 650 New York consumers). 

110. Forsyth, supra note 9, at 11,038 (quoting Loren Lutzenhiser, Marketing Household Energy 

Conservation:  The Message and the Reality, in NEW TOOLS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION:  

EDUCATION, INFORMATION AND VOLUNTARY MEASURES 49, 56 (Thomas Dietz & Paul C. Stern 

eds., 2002)). 

111. Babcock, supra note 9, at 954 (footnotes omitted); see also NEVIUS ET AL., supra note 109, 

at 6-232 (“As common wattages of general purpose incandescent bulbs are replaced by multiple 

options . . . .  Consumers wishing to recreate the quality of incandescent lighting with EISA-

qualified bulbs will need to understand concepts such as lumen and color rendition.”). 

112. The labeling requirements came into effect on January 1, 2012.  FTC Extends Deadline for 

New “Lighting Facts” Labels to January 1, 2012, FTC (Apr. 7, 2011), http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2011 

/04/bulblabeling.shtm.  Furthermore, the Lighting Facts label takes advantage of the ENERGY 

STAR qualification system, which many households were previously aware of.  See U.S. DEP’T OF 

ENERGY, ENERGY EFFICIENCY TRENDS IN RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS 39 (2010), 

available at http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/publications/pdfs/corporate/building_trends_20 

10.pdf (reporting that 78% of responding households recognized the purpose of the ENERGY STAR 

label and 76% of consumers were “influenced at least partly in their appliance purchase decision by 

the presence of the label”).  Through 2006, ENERGY STAR program efforts are responsible for an 

estimated 4.8 exajoule (“EJ”) of primary energy savings.  MARLA SANCHEZ ET AL., LBNL-329E, 

SAVINGS ESTIMATES FOR THE UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY’S ENERGY 

STAR VOLUNTARY PRODUCT LABELING PROGRAM 18 (2008), available at http://enduse.lbl.gov/in 

fo/LBNL-329E.pdf. 

113. See infra III.C.i. 

114. Levine & Kendall, supra note 25. 



 

2013] Shedding Light 349 

 

consumers “cannot calculate how much electricity . . . any one item in 

their home or apartment uses, nor do they usually know their real-time 

energy use in the residence.”
115

  Lacking real-time estimates of electricity 

use and cost, consumers cannot adjust their consumption to account for 

electricity cost that varies based on season, time of day, weather, type of 

power, and geographic location.
116

  Providing user-friendly pricing 

information could help households recognize the savings available 

through efficient lighting.
117

 

Renters face additional behavioral barriers.
118

  First, almost 15% of 

renters pay a fixed utilities price, which is included in their rent, and 

never see the electricity bill at all.
119

  Because these tenants “do not face 

any marginal cost of using energy . . . they tend to use their appliances 

more intensively.”
120

  Second, due to the landlord-tenant relationship, 

renters are less likely to invest in energy efficient appliances because 

they are only concerned with short-term investments; long-term 

improvements will likely be used and enjoyed by another person.
121

  As a 

group, renters tend to use their appliances more intensively, but 

paradoxically invest in fewer efficient appliances.
122

  Delivering bills that 

itemize electricity usage to households could lead to both energy and 

monetary savings that landlords alone would likely not be able to 

incentivize.
123

  More detailed billing information is particularly useful 

when combined with appliance standards,
124

 which solve this landlord-

 

115. Sachs, supra note 23, at 309. 

116. Levine & Kendall, supra note 25. 

117. See Bladh & Krantz, supra note 109, at 3530 (“[O]nly the user of lamps can balance 

consumption and needs, since only he or she knows the latter.”); Forsyth, supra note 9, at 11,033 

(describing how consumers have difficulty “understanding which products save energy and on what 

payback periods, and which energy retrofits a consumer might need” and that obtaining such 

information, independently or with professional help “is burdensome and expensive”). 

118. See supra note 106 and accompanying text. 

119. See, e.g., Davis, supra note 74, at 3 (According to a 2005 estimate, “13.4% of all renters 

(4.2% of all households) have their utilities included in the rent.  These households do not face any 

marginal cost of using energy and thus tend to use their appliances more intensively.”). 

120. Id. 

121. Di Maria et al., supra note 19, at 59; Sachs, supra note 23, at 307 (Light bulb purchasers 

“have little incentive to identify, or pay extra for, the most energy-efficient tools and appliances if 

they are not internalizing the long-term operating expenses of their choices.”); see also Mills supra 

note 85, at 365 (discussing the “Double Hurdle” decision-making process wherein households first 

determine “whether to actively explore purchasing CFLs” and then determine “the intensity of 

adoption”). With respect to homeowners, “because society is increasingly mobile . . . [homeowners] 

may be reluctant to invest in conservation measures if [they] anticipate[] [they] will move to another 

residence soon.”  Bertschi, supra note 107, at 828. 

122. Bertschi, supra note 107, at 828. 

123. See supra note 106 and accompany text. 

124. See infra notes 153–160 and accompanying text. 



 

350 COLUMBIA JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAW [Vol. 38:2 

 

tenant problem by obligating landlords to purchase efficient 

appliances.
125

 

A final psychological barrier to residential adoption of efficient 

lighting is caused by the inability of households to properly price the 

value of efficient lighting; in other words, “to most people a CFL is 

merely another way to provide light after the sun goes down.”
126

  Studies 

indicate that it is the “perceived relative cost, rather than the actual one” 

that determines consumer behavior.
127

  The perceived costs are often 

higher than actual costs.  First, “consumers are not used to thinking in 

terms of global costs as far as electrical appliances are concerned,” and 

remain “highly sensitive to the first cost of appliances.”
128

  The relatively 

small savings from decreased energy consumption means consumers 

have “very high implicit discount rates and rarely consider additional 

initial costs that cannot be compensated for in several months,”
129

 which 

economists have estimated to range from 25 to 300%.
130

  Purchasing 

myopia may be corrected or at least mitigated by free bulb distributions 

and educational programs.
131

 

Second, economists observe that because consumers may be more 

drawn by a bargain as opposed to preference for a specific bulb type, “[a] 

sharp increase in sales following a significant reduction of prices does 

not necessarily lead to a permanent change in purchasing behaviour.”
132

  

Many of these new purchasers “do not wish to make further purchases 

unless there are financial incentives.”
133

  This outlook increases the 

likelihood of reversion: even if a marketing program induces a consumer 

to purchase one efficient bulb, the discontinuation of the program may 

result in the consumer returning to using cheaper incandescent bulbs.
134

  

In theory, therefore, subsidized products and services, once begun, would 

need to be indefinite, a conclusion that conflicts with the aim to limit 

government expenditures.
135

  Providing consumers with information on 
 

125. Davis, supra note 74, at 8. 

126. Miller, supra note 67, at 57. 

127. Di Maria et al., supra note 19, at 53. 

128. Menanteau & Lefebvre, supra note 2, at 383. 

129. Id. 

130. Sachs, supra note 23, at 309–10.  Returns to customers from CFLs range from $5 to $15 per 

lamp. Martinot & Borg, supra note 37, at 1078. 

131. See infra Parts III.A, III.C. 

132. Menanteau & Lefebvre, supra note 2, at 385. 

133. Id. 

134. See, e.g., Babcock, supra note 9, at 969–70 (describing how, without a change in behavioral 

norms, inefficient habits will return in the absence of incentives, which only produce moderate 

results in the first place). 

135. See Vandenbergh et al., supra note 6, at 1709. 



 

2013] Shedding Light 351 

 

electricity use and efficient appliances is an important component of a 

“sustainable” program where subsidies can be reduced or eliminated and 

the program still remain in place.
136

 

Finally, even if consumers are convinced to install more efficient 

lighting in their homes, some studies suggest that there may be a 

“rebound effect”: taking advantage of the greater efficiency of their 

appliances, households keep these appliances on longer.
137

  Studies vary 

regarding the estimated effects, but one estimate suggests usage increases 

by 5 to 12% for household illumination.
138

  The literature discussing low-

income households appears even more diverse: one study estimates a 

rebound effect of 50 to 200%,
139

 whereas another suggests “any rebound 

effect resulting” may be “linked to situations of suppressed demand due 

to insufficient supply.”
140

  A recent study of the situation in the European 

Union, where incandescent bulbs were banned as of September 2012,
141

 

reported that a 10% increase in lighting energy efficiency led to a less 

than 5% reduction in energy consumed for lighting per capita.  The study 

concluded that “rebound effects in the lighting market were still 

strong, . . . [but did not] suggest backfire.”
142

  The rebound effect is 

harder to address, particularly given the relative uncertainty of its scope, 

but may be mitigated through educational programs.
143

 

Low-income households are especially prone to cost and psychological 

barriers,
144

 and would benefit from more information on their electricity 

 

136. See infra Part III.C. 

137. See, e.g., Roger Foquet & Peter J.G. Pearson, The Long Run Demand for Lighting:  

Elasticities and Rebound Effects in Different Phases of Economic Development (Basque Ctr. for 

Climate Change, Working Paper 2011-06, 2011) available at http://www.bc3research.org/index.php 

?option=com_wpapers&task=downpubli&iddoc=36&Itemid=279&lang=en (summarizing the recent 

literature on the rebound effect specific to lighting demand).  

138. Id.  (citing Lorna A. Greening et al., Energy Efficiency and Consumption—The Rebound 

Effect, 28 ENERGY POL’Y 389, 398 (2000)). 

139. Id.  (citing Joyashree Roy, The Rebound Effect:  Some Empirical Evidence from India, 28 

ENERGY POL’Y 433, 435 (2000)). 

140. FIGUERES & BOSI, supra note 35, at 7 (These considerations, which may be useful in 

evaluating the degree of rebound effects of low-income households in the United States, which also 

may have insufficient access to electricity for cost reasons.); see also Foquet & Pearson, supra note 

137, at 18 (“[A] 10% increase in per capita income appeared to generate 35% more lighting use and, 

all other things being constant, energy requirements.”). 

141. Foquet & Pearson, supra note 137, at 2. 

142. Id. at 17. 

143. See infra Part III.C. 

144. Stephen R. Tully, The Contribution of Human Rights to Universal Energy Access, 4 NW. U. 

J. INT’L HUM. RTS. 518, 521 (2006) (“[M]inimum levels considered essential to satisfying basic 

needs [in Brazil are defined as] . . . 80 kilowatt per hour (kWh) per month”); see also supra notes 

72–74 and accompanying text. 



 

352 COLUMBIA JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAW [Vol. 38:2 

 

use.  More efficient lighting options would enable them to better control 

their household consumption.
145

  Because electricity bill savings 

represent a greater proportion of a low-income household’s income, 

programs targeting low-income households are more likely to become 

self-sustaining in the long run.
146

  Support for low-income households is 

also wanting under many current efficiency-endorsing programs.
147

  

PUCs can bridge the gap. 

C.  Current Efficiency Programs:  Problems, Growth, and the Continued 

Failure to Accommodate for Low-income Household Needs 

Public programs promoting efficient lighting have been indispensable 

in creating and developing the residential sector niche markets that have 

led to increasing returns to adoption.
148

  In 2009 and 2010, slightly over 

70% of United States households reported using CFLs.
149

  Despite these 

improvements, federal action continues at a halting pace
150

 and state 

programs remain a patchwork of experiments.
151

  Furthermore, the 

results are not as strong as they might be, for example, the majority of 

U.S. residents are estimated to be internalizing less than 14% of potential 

benefits.
152

  Present infrastructure and programming should be directed at 

 

145. Nkomo, supra note 62, at 15 (“There is a lack of reliable data on energy use as well as low 

awareness levels, and households do not know the proportion of their electricity bill going to various 

end uses to enable them to optimise on energy usage.”). 

146. See supra notes 5 and accompanying text. 

147. See infra notes 190–194 and accompanying text. 

148. Menanteau & Lefebvre, supra note 2, at 388.  Examples include improved product 

performance responsive to consumer demands.  Id. at 385.  Because research and development costs 

for efficient lighting technology are steep, continued investment in bulbs likely would not have 

occurred without the certainty of consumer demand.  Id. at 379.  Overcoming initial development 

costs was necessary for efficient lighting manufacturing to become self-sustainably price 

competitive against standard incandescent bulbs.  Id. 

149. SYLVANIA, supra note 69, at 15.  United States survey participants report “using the CFL to 

replace an incandescent lamp that was operated an average of about four hours/day.”  Evan Mills, 

Evaluation of European Lighting Programmes:  Utilities Finance Energy Efficiency, 19 ENERGY 

POL’Y 266, 272 (1991).  If one replaces a sixty watt incandescent with a thirteen watt CFL, she can 

expect an annual saving of seventy kilowatts per year per replaced bulb.  Id.  Further assuming that 

the average household uses a total of 600 kWh per year for lighting, “households participating in the 

most effective programmes (four to six lamps/house) achieved at least 50% savings in electricity 

used for lighting . . . .”  Id. 

150. See infra notes 161–169, 175–178 and accompanying text. 

151. See infra note 188. 

152. U.S. DEP’T OF ENERGY, RESIDENTIAL LIGHTING END-USE CONSUMPTION STUDY, supra 

note 57, at xiii tbl.ES-3.  This calculation utilizes the report’s data that on average residential 

households have six CFLs per home and an average of forty-five bulbs in total. 



 

2013] Shedding Light 353 

 

low-income households to deliver immediate, cost-effective energy to 

the public and targeted populations. 

The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007
153

 (“EISA”) 

remains crucial for the promotion of efficient lighting technology.  The 

EISA has been described as the “strongest example of command-and-

control regulation for energy efficiency.”
154

  The Act “sets a performance 

standard [for bulbs] of light output (lumens) for energy used (watts)”
155

 

and requires that the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) develop new 

labels to “help consumers compare the brightness and estimated energy 

costs of various types of light bulb.”
156

  Once fully implemented in 2020, 

the EISA standards are projected to result in a 33% decrease from 2009 

levels in residential lighting energy demand,
157

 save the average 

American household upwards of $200 a year,
158

 eliminate the need for 

thirty new power plants, and prevent the equivalent of the carbon dioxide 

emissions from 17 million cars.
159

  The following table summarizes the 

EISA’s lighting standards: 

 

Figure 2:  General Service Incandescent Lamps160
 

 

Rated Lumen 

Ranges 

Maximum Rate 

Wattage 

Minimum Rate 

Lifetime 

Effective Date 

1490–2600 72 1,000 hrs 1/1/2012 

1050–1489 53 1,000 hrs 1/1/2013 

750–1049 43 1,000 hrs 1/1/2014 

310–749 29 1,000 hrs 1/1/2014 

 

 

153. Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 § 325, 42 U.S.C. § 6297 (2012).  The 

Energy Independence and Security Act (“EISA”) stipulates standards for other appliances as well, 

but these provisions are outside the scope of this Note. 

154. Forsyth, supra note 9, at 11,034. 

155. U.S. DEP’T OF ENERGY, CONSUMER LIGHT BULB CHANGES:  BRIEFING AND RESOURCES 

FOR MEDIA AND RETAILERS 8 (n.d.), available at http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/consumer_light_ 

bulb_changes.pdf. 

156. Id. at 9, 14; see also FRED SISSINE, CONG. RESEARCH SERV., RL 34294, ENERGY 

INDEPENDENCE AND SECURITY ACT OF 2007:  A SUMMARY OF MAJOR PROVISIONS 7 (2007), 

available at http://www.seco.noaa.gov/Energy/2007_Dec_21_Summary_Security_Act_2007.pdf 

(providing a section-by-section analysis of energy efficiency standards for certain types of bulbs). 

157. U.S. ENERGY INFO. ADMIN., supra note 56, at 64. 

158. Miller, supra note 67, at 62. 

159. Id. 

160. Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 § 321, 42 U.S.C. § 6291 (2012). 



 

354 COLUMBIA JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAW [Vol. 38:2 

 

Despite entering into effect on January 1, 2012,
161

 the EISA’s 

requirements have met resistance at the federal level that may prevent the 

Act’s effective execution.  Opposition peaked in July 2011 with the 

introduction of the Better Use of Light Bulbs Act (“BULB Act”),
162

 

which sought to repeal the EISA’s sections imposing energy efficiency 

standards for light bulbs, and to prohibit any federal, state, or local 

lighting requirement that could be satisfied by only mercury-containing 

bulbs.
163

  As described by its supporters, the BULB Act was intended to 

enhance consumer choice regarding “the cost, type, and efficiency of the 

lighting that works best for them,” instead of permitting the government 

to stipulate lighting options.
164

 

Although the BULB Act failed in the House of Representatives,
165

 the 

debates surrounding the prompt implementation of the EISA illuminate 

the political hurdles that efficient lighting faces at the national level, and 

indicate the types of issues that must be addressed through future 

policymaking.  Proponents of the BULB Act criticized the EISA for 

federally banning the manufacture and sale of incandescent light 

bulbs;
166

 for forcing consumers to purchase efficient bulbs instead of 

allowing them to choose to use cheaper incandescent bulbs;
167

 and for 

instituting mandates that could only be met with “bulbs that contain 

dangerous mercury.”
168

  Texas State Representative Joe Barton, who 

sponsored the BULB Act, also questioned the reliability of more energy-

efficient technologies, arguing that the “$6 CFL bulb won’t last 10,000 

hours if it’s turned on and off 2,500 times.”
169

 

Supporters of the EISA maintained that, “at a time when Americans 

continue to experience downward financial pressures, energy efficient 

light bulbs present an every-day solution to much needed cost-

savings.”
170

  Using evidence from the Natural Resources Defense 

Council (“NRDC”), EISA supporters estimated that “repealing the 

 

161. See id. 

162. Better Use of Light Bulbs Act, H.R. 2417, 112th Cong. (2011). 

163. Digest for H.R. 2417, GOP.GOV, http://www.gop.gov/bill/112/1/hr2417 (last visited May 

31, 2013) (summarizing the provisions of the bill).  

164. Id. 

165. H.R. 2417 (112th):  Better Use of Light Bulbs Act, GOVTRACK.US, http://www.govtrack.us/ 

congress/bills/112/hr2417 (last visited May 31, 2013). 

166. Digest for H.R. 2417, supra note 163. 

167. 157 CONG. REC. H4823 (daily ed. July 11, 2011) (statement of Rep. Joe Barton); see also 

id. at H4825 (statement of Rep. Michael Burgess). 

168. H.R. 2417 (112th):  Better Use of Light Bulbs Act, supra note 163. 

169. 157 CONG. REC. H4823 (daily ed. July 11, 2011) (statement of Rep. Joe Barton). 

170. 157 CONG. REC. H4824 (daily ed. July 11, 2011) (letter of Holly R. Hart). 



 

2013] Shedding Light 355 

 

energy efficiency standards would cause a seven percent or $85 increase 

in energy costs for the average household.”
171

  Supporters of the EISA 

further argued that the BULB Act “would undermine job growth, strand 

investments that have been made to make sure that we meet these new 

standards, waste $12 billion a year on unnecessary electricity bills, . . . 

increase pollution,”
172

 and create legislative uncertainty.
173

  The 

supporters of the EISA also countered the critics by noting that passing 

the BULB Act would have provided an advantage to companies who had 

not made similar investments to improve bulb efficiency, essentially 

punishing lighting manufacturers who had previously invested in order to 

comply with forthcoming regulations.
174

 

Opposition to the EISA bulb efficiency requirements continued, 

despite the failure of the BULB Act, via federal restrictions on the 

DOE’s ability to spend money to enforce the Act.  A rider to the 2012 

appropriations legislation prohibited the DOE from using any allocated 

funds to enforce lighting energy efficiency standards in fiscal year 

2012.
175

  At the time, proponents of the EISA remained positive that the 

restrictions on DOE expenditures were only a nine-month setback.
176

  

However, this limitation has been extended at least another year with the 

adoption of an amendment to the fiscal year 2013 Energy and Water 

Appropriations Bills that again limits the DOE’s ability to spend money 

 

171. Id. 

172. 157 Cong. Rec. H4826 (daily ed. July 11, 2011) (statement of Rep. Henry Waxman). 

173. 157 Cong. Rec. H4827 (daily ed. July 11, 2011) (letter from NEMA); see also Menanteau 

& Lefebvre, supra note 2, at 384, 388 (explaining that a wide diffusion of efficient bulbs helps to 

ensure “that the expectations of agents, consumers, industrialists and distributors regarding future 

development of the technology [are] in harmony”). 

174. 157 Cong. Rec. H4827 (daily ed. July 11, 2011) (letter from NEMA). 

175. Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2012, H.R. 3671, 112th Cong. § 315 (2011): 

 

None of the funds made available in this Act may be used— 

 

(1) to implement or enforce section 430.32(x) of title 10, Code of Federal Regulations; or 

(2) to implement or enforce the standards established by the tables contained in section 

325(i)(1)(B) of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(1)(B)) with respect 

to BPAR incandescent reflector lamps, BR incandescent reflector lamps, and ER incandescent 

reflector lamps. 

 

176. As stated by Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), 

original author of the 2007 law, “the decision is likely to have ‘little practical consequence on which 

incandescent light bulbs are available in stores because, starting Jan. 1 [2012], it will be illegal to 

produce or import the inefficient, wasteful bulbs in the United States.’”  Congress Passes FY 2012 

Appropriations, Limits Funding for Energy Efficiency, ALLIANCE TO SAVE ENERGY, http://ase.org/ef 

ficiencynews/congress-passes-fy-2012-appropriations-limits-funding-energy-efficiency (last updated 

Jan. 5, 2012). 



 

356 COLUMBIA JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAW [Vol. 38:2 

 

to enforce EISA standards.
177

  Additional opposition has also been seen 

on a state-by-state basis, but only Texas has adopted an anti-EISA 

provision.
178

  Predictions by politicians and experts of the negative 

consequences of the lack of federal enforcement are substantially similar 

to the projected results of repealing the EISA.
179

  Despite this opposition 

from the House, the DOE in 2012 pushed back by announcing $7 million 

more funding to go to three companies “with a particular focus on 

technologies that help to lower the cost of LED lighting by improving the 

manufacturing process.”
180

 

In addition to public policy disagreements, many consumers have also 

been resistant to change.  A survey of preliminary studies indicates that 

“despite manufacturer preparation and support for the requirements, 

consumer awareness [of the EISA] remains low, with potentially high 

dissatisfaction as consumers do learn about the law.”
181

  Common 

misunderstandings include the belief that the “EISA bans the 

incandescent light bulb and requires consumer[s] to purchase CFLs.”
182

  

 

177. Pete Kasperowicz, House Votes to Block Enforcement of Energy Efficient Light Bulb 

Standards, THEHILL.COM (June 5, 2012, 9:14 PM), http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/2311 

17-house-votes-to-block-enforcement-of-light-bulb-standards. 

178. Compare Karl Stephan, Texas’ Light Bulb Law:  Not the Brightest Bulb on the Tree, 

MANUFACTURING.NET (Jan. 15, 2013, 2:11 PM), http://www.manufacturing.net/articles/2013/01/tex 

as%E2%80%99-light-bulb-law-not-the-brightest-bulb-on-the-tree (describing a Texas law that 

allows sales of tungsten-filament argon-filled light bulbs “in defiance of the federal EISA law”), 

with Joshua Cook, Why We Need the “SC Light Bulb Freedom Act,” Greer-TAYLORSPATCH (Jan. 7, 

2013, 5:20 AM), http://taylors.patch.com/blog_posts/why-we-need-the-sc-light-bulb-freedom-act 

(describing a similar South Carolina law that failed to pass the state Senate).   

179. See supra notes 169–173 and accompanying text; Congress Passes FY 2012 

Appropriations, Limits Funding for Energy Efficiency, supra note 176 (noting a “greater uncertainty 

in the marketplace, as states may choose to individually implement standards creating a patchwork 

of competing regulations for manufacturers” and describing how compliant manufacturers will 

further be disadvantaged by the “increase[d] imports of inefficient foreign bulbs”); NEMA Reiterates 

that Lightbulb Efficiency Standards Remain, Consumers Retain Diverse Options for Efficient 

Lightbulbs, NEMA (Dec. 16, 2011, 12:00 AM), http://www.nema.org/media/pr/20111216a.cfm 

(noting the potential harm to light bulb manufacturers and confusion to customers, and emphasizing 

that a lack of federal enforcement may also “allow those who do not respect the rule of law to sell 

inefficient light bulbs in the U.S. without fear of enforcement, creating a competitive disadvantage 

for compliant manufacturers”). 

180. Tina Casey, Congress Revives Zombie Light Bulbs as Energy Dept. Funds New Tech, 

TRIPLEPUNDIT.COM (June 11, 2012), http://www.triplepundit.com/2012/06/doe-funds-new-light-

bulb-research-despite-balky-congress/. 

181. SCOTT DIMETROSKY & KATIE PARKINSON, THE LIGHTS THEY ARE A CHANGING:  EARLY 

RESULTS FROM EISA 2007, at 2-148 (2012), available at http://www.aceee.org/files/proceedin 

gs/2012/data/papers/0193-000044.pdf. 

182. Id. at 2-149 tbl.2, 2-153 (“[In one study] 24% of the [seventy-two] lighting retailers 

[surveyed] said they had received negative feedback from customers . . . [including] frustration at the 



 

2013] Shedding Light 357 

 

Consumers’ fundamental misunderstanding of the EISA could result in 

failure to comply, consumer backlash, and stockpiling of incandescent 

bulbs, which “could severely delay, and possibly undermine, the intent of 

the legislation and the potential for energy efficient lighting in the 

coming years.”
183

  If program results in California, which accelerated the 

application of EISA standards by one year,
184

 are any indication of the 

potential national trend, availability of legacy incandescent bulbs may 

persist and consumer awareness may remain low for some time.
185

  

Complementary programming is needed to boost results.
186

 

Both federal
187

 and state
188

 legislation include provisions that 

supplement mandatory lighting standards, but, as currently designed, do 

not sufficiently benefit low-income households.  Program types include 

energy labels, ratings, and certification schemes; minimum energy 

performance standards; building codes; “[b]ulk procurement programs 

that seek to lower the information gathering and purchasing costs of 

large quantities of equipment and lighting systems”; rebates or tax 

deductions; and “[m]arket transformation programs that seek to 

positively influence consumer behavior and market trends on a voluntary 

basis through a combination of labeling, building, certification, technical 

support, and incentives schemes.”
189

  Unfortunately for low-income 

 

government telling them what to do, as well as dissatisfaction with the CFLs’ lighting quality and 

mercury content.”). 

183. DIMETROSKY & PARKINSON, supra note 181, at 2-159. 

184. California to Begin Bulb Phase-Out, RESIDENTIAL LIGHTING, http://www.residentialligh 

ting.com/california-begin-bulb-phase-out (last visited May 31, 2013). 

185. See, e.g., DIMETROSKY & PARKINSON, supra note 181, at 2-154, 2-156 (reporting that 

“almost half (48%) of retail storefronts indicated that they had legacy 100 watt bulbs available” one 

year after implementation of the EISA standards and that 45% of customers surveyed were aware of 

the EISA legislation). 

186. Sachs, supra note 23, at 298 (Because price signals do not sufficiently alter behavior and 

consumption habits, the “government needs to play an active role in surmounting these barriers 

through a toolbox approach that would include product performance standards, information 

disclosure requirements, and changes in utility regulation.” (footnote omitted)). 

187. See generally Kenneth Gillingham et al., Energy Efficiency Policies:  A Retrospective 

Examination, 31 ANN. REV. ENV’T & RES. 161 (2006) (reviewing literature on several types of 

federal energy efficiency policies). 

188. The majority of states have some combination of energy efficiency programs in place.  See 

Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency, DSIRE, http://www.dsireusa.org/ (last 

visited May 31, 2013) (providing state-by-state information regarding incentives for renewable 

energy and efficiency). 

189. FIGUERES & BOSI, supra note 35, at 2–3; see also Alexandra B. Klass & John K. Harting, 

State and Municipal Energy Efficiency Laws, in THE LAW OF CLEAN ENERGY:  EFFICIENCY AND 

RENEWABLES 57 (Michael Gerrard ed., 2011) (citing state energy efficiency programs including tax 

incentives, appliance rebates, building codes for both private and public buildings, and energy audit 

requirements). 



 

358 COLUMBIA JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAW [Vol. 38:2 

 

households, some of these benefits, like rebates and savings resulting 

from energy audits, accrue only after unaffordable expenditures are 

made.
190

  Due to their small total income, residents of low-income 

households are also less likely to benefit from the current efficiency tax 

incentives, which provide tax credits but not refunds.
191

  Finally, energy-

efficient buildings codes apply to new buildings, not existing ones.
192

  

Low-income households as a population are more likely to rent than to 

own,
193

 and due to budget limitations are less likely to live in new, 

efficient buildings.
194

  Given that low-income households could benefit 

significantly from electricity bill savings,
195

 special efforts should be 

made to help these populations capture energy savings.
196

 

II.  PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSIONS HAVE THE UNIQUE AUTHORITY OVER 

AND RELATIONSHIP WITH HOUSEHOLDS TO INCREASE EFFICIENT 

LIGHTING ADOPTION 

The ideal agent to provide targeted efficient lighting services to low-

income households should be able to do so at a low political cost, with 

relative speed, and in a sustainable manner.  Federal action may be 

influential in this area, but does not promise to be a fast solution: the 

DOE is prohibited from spending money to enforce standards through 

2013,
197

 and debates regarding efficiency lighting standards indicate 

disagreement as to how to proceed at the national level.
198

  State 

legislatures are also valuable actors,
199

 but new legislation takes time to 

 

190. See supra note 72. 

191. Dernbach et al., supra note 10, at 8–9. 

192. Wilson, supra note 8, at 10,882 (describing how energy efficiency in existing houses resists 

regulatory approaches). 

193. See Davis, supra note 74, at 5. 

194. See, e.g., Bertschi, supra note 107, at 828 (arguing that a landlord can set higher rents for 

more energy efficient apartments). 

195. See Hofmeister, supra note 25, at 12 (estimating that low-income households spend 

between 15 to 35% of their income on energy bills).  

196. See supra Part I.C. 

197. See supra notes 174–176 and accompanying text. 

198. See supra notes 161–180 and accompanying text. 

199. See, e.g., Sager A. Williams, Jr., Limiting Local Zoning Regulation of Electric Utilities:  A 

Balanced Approach in the Public Interest, 23 U. BALT. L. REV. 565, 577–78 (1994) (discussing laws 

covering “siting of utility facilities, particularly power generating plants and associated transmission 

lines.  Some states also regulate a variety of business details, such as customer security deposits, 

customer late charges, failure to pay utility charges, and utility stock offerings and other corporate 

indebtedness.” (footnotes omitted)). 



 

2013] Shedding Light 359 

 

develop, even where political willpower is present.  Instead, PUCs,
200

 as 

regulators of the majority of utilities,
201

 are uniquely situated to overhaul 

the state’s electricity delivery system
202

 and should take immediate 

action. 

By imposing an overarching efficient lighting policy and focusing 

program delivery on low-income households,
203

 PUCs can overcome key 

market barriers
204

 and increase utility efficiency investments with only 

minor adjustments.  This Note engages the charter of New York State’s 

PUC, called the New York State Public Services Commission 

(“NYPSC”), to demonstrate how PUCs can interpret the language of 

their statutory mandates to encompass the provision of efficient lighting 

programs.
205

  Consistent with this Note’s goal to minimize public costs, 

the following discussion focuses on the NYPSC’s ability to take 

advantage of three broad categories of popular efficient lighting 

programs that already exist: free and subsidized light bulbs, free audits, 

and consumer education.
206

 

Although PUCs do not maintain direct relations with electricity 

consumers, the electric utilities that PUCs regulate do have such a 

relationship.
207

  At present, utilities already: 

 

set or affect retail prices in most jurisdictions; have monthly 
communications with retail consumers; control access to efficiency, 
conservation, and renewable energy generation options; determine the 
transaction costs households will occur in adopting new technologies or 
participating in conservation programs; [] lobby for and against demand-
related measures with federal, state, and local governments. . . . [;] provide 
information through bills and advertising that can promote or discourage 

 

200. This Note focuses primarily on state regulation, but PUCs are also regulated at the federal 

level by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) and the Securities Exchange 

Commission (“SEC”).  See id at 574–75. 

201. See id. at 576–77. 

202. See Hofmeister, supra note 25, at 61–62. 

203. William H. Lawrence & John H. Minan, Financing Solar Energy Development Through 

Public Utilities, 50 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 371, 407 (1982) (“Utilities can accord preferential 

treatment to some customers, provided that it is not unduly preferential, particularly if it ultimately 

benefits all utility customers.” (internal citation omitted)). 

204. See infra notes 214–215 and accompanying text. 

205. Although PUCs serve a similar purpose in their respective jurisdictions, the exact scope of 

authority differs based on each PUC’s organic statute, which details the contours of agency 

authority.  Extensive discussion and comparative analysis of different legal provisions across states 

is not attempted here. 

206. See supra note 188 and accompanying text. 

207. Lisa Wood, Efficiency Close-Up, PUB. UTIL. FORT., July 1, 2010, at 34, 35. 



 

360 COLUMBIA JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAW [Vol. 38:2 

 

demand reduction[; and] . . . maintain large staffs of technicians that 
interact with households on a frequent basis.

208
 

 

Such frequent interactions with consumers mean that “utilities already 

have information about how much electricity their customers are using, 

so there is no additional cost for collection, nor is there any additional 

intrusion on personal privacy.”
209

  Furthermore, because interactions 

occur through existing billing and service networks, utilities already 

accommodate for the capacity and cost of administrative oversight and 

additional efforts can be made with little expense or difficulty.
210

  

Furthermore, electric utilities have the scope, scale, and size needed to 

effectively make a significant difference in the promotion of efficient 

technologies.
211

  Utilities are “fully aware of the marginal cost of new 

energy sources” and are “therefore in a better position to appreciate the 

economic benefit of [conserving] energy.”
212

 

Despite the potential benefits of the close utility-consumer connection, 

this relationship can also be dangerous when left unattended because 

utilities are one of the only information sources consistently available to 

customers.
213

  Utilities serve as critical gatekeepers of information to and 

from households, a position that means utilities “can act aggressively to 

induce widespread adoption of new practices and more efficient 

equipment.  Or they can conduct widely publicized programs that 

comply with applicable mandates and generate goodwill without actually 

generating major reductions in demand.”
214

  Utilities have historically 

followed the latter path and generally underinvested in efficiency 

programs.
215

  This is primarily because of the traditional retail scheme in 

which utility profit depends on selling more electricity to end-users, 

which encourages utilities to prefer that less efficient bulbs remain 

dominant, despite public loss.
216

 

 

208. Vandenbergh & Rossi, supra note 21, at 1544 (internal citations omitted). 

209. Babcock, supra note 9, at 962 (internal citations omitted). 

210. Lawrence & Minan, supra note 203, at 405. 

211. Wood, supra note 207, at 34–35. 

212. Lawrence & Minan, supra note 203,at 402–03 (internal citation omitted). 

213. Vandenbergh & Rossi, supra note 21, at 1531.  Furthermore, customers have limited ability 

to monitor utility choices themselves.  See Sachs, supra note 23, at 307. 

214. Vandenbergh & Rossi, supra note 21, at 1531. 

215. See Michael Malecek, Note, Money for Nothing:  Restructuring Rates to Encourage 

Conservation, 11 VA. ENVTL. L.J. 589, 591–92 (1992) (“Traditional cost-of-service ratemaking 

continues to provide incentives primarily to produce and to sell as much electricity as possible.”).   

216. Bertschi, supra note 107, at 829 (discussing how this relationship between profits and 

kilowatt hours sold should not exist, because a “revenue requirement is determined in advance of the 

actual sales, necessitating reliance on estimated sales. Because the cost of producing each additional 



 

2013] Shedding Light 361 

 

Widespread adoption of efficient lighting is an appropriate goal for the 

NYPSC when one considers the system-wide benefits of efficient 

lighting.  The NYPSC’s primary mission is “to ensure safe, secure, and 

reliable access to electric . . . services for New York State’s residential 

and business consumers, at just and reasonable rates”
217

 and “to stimulate 

innovation, strategic infrastructure investment, consumer awareness, 

competitive markets where feasible, and the use of resources in an 

efficient and environmentally sound manner.”
218

  Increasing the 

efficiency of lighting satisfies the NYPSC’s mandate by increasing 

reliability of electricity delivery,
219

 decreasing the cost of electricity,
220

 

and providing the consumer demand necessary to fuel bulb manufacturer 

investments to further cheapen and improve efficient lighting 

technologies.
221

  Such benefits have an immediate and proportionally 

greater impact on low-income households, which are less able to make 

future investments in alternative lighting technology
222

 and spend a 

significant portion of income on electricity.
223

 

First, the NYPSC can incentivize utilities to independently propose 

and implement efficiency programs by making it a policy to permit 

utilities to increase electricity rates to recoup some of their investment 

costs (its ratemaking authority).  The NYPSC may permit a utility to 

“recover as normal operating expenses through rates the just and 

reasonable costs of carrying out its responsibilities and home 

conservation plan under [the Home Insulation and Conservation Act], as 

determined by [the NYPSC] after public hearing upon reasonable 

notice.”
224

  The New York Court of Appeals has held that the NYPSC “is 

free to entertain, ignore, or assign whatever weight it deems appropriate 

to factors in setting utility rates.”
225

  Further, the NYPSC’s determination 

 

unit decreases as more units are produced, the utility can make a higher profit by selling more 

units.”) (internal citation omitted)); Malecek, supra note 215, at 590–92, 596–600. 

217. Mission Statement, N.Y. STATE PUB. SERV. COMM’N,  http://www3.dps.ny.gov/W/PSCWeb 

.nsf/ArticlesByTitle/39108B0E4BEBAB3785257687006F3A6F?OpenDocument (last visited May 

31, 2013). 

218. Id. 

219. See supra notes 37–42 and accompanying text. 

220. See supra notes 47–52 and accompanying text. 

221. See 157 CONG. REC. E2321-04 (daily ed. Dec. 16, 2011) (statement of Rep. Rush Holt), 

2011 WL 6372537 (discussing the need for regulatory certainty for private sector investment). 

222. See supra note 72. 

223. See supra note 195.  

224. N.Y. PUB. SERV. LAW § 135-o (McKinney 2011). 

225. Abrams v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 67 N.Y.2d 205, 211–12 (1986); see also Multiple 

Intervenors, 569 N.Y.S.2d 522, 524 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991) (New York courts have permitted rate 



 

362 COLUMBIA JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAW [Vol. 38:2 

 

of rates can only be overruled where there is no “rational basis or 

reasonable support in the record.”
226

  In previous ratemaking decisions 

the NYPSC has referred to energy efficiency as a “lawful criterion for 

determining just and reasonable rates.”
227

  However, NYPSC should 

clarify its position on the issue and assure utilities they will be able to 

recover at least some of the costs expended on efficient lighting 

investments.
228

  Greater certainty of reimbursement for investing in 

efficiency programs targeted at low-income households will encourage 

greater investments in these beneficial programs. 

Second, the NYPSC has the authority “to prescribe from time to time 

the efficiency of the electric supply system, . . . of the lamps furnished by 

the persons, corporations or municipalities generating and selling electric 

current”
229

 (called the lighting supply authority).  Efficiency of the 

electric supply system is a broad term and can be read to include the end 

user’s choices.
230

  Specifically, the NYPSC can require that utilities 

providing light bulbs to customers must provide ENERGY STAR 

bulbs
231

 by pointing to the system-wide benefits of reliability and cost 

savings that broad adoption of efficient lighting produces.
232

  A 

requirement that only energy efficient light bulbs can be provided will 

protect efficiency-conscious utilities from being undercut by less 

efficiency-conscious utilities.
233

  Without an efficiency requirement, non-

conscious utilities could provide a greater number of cheaper 

incandescent bulbs and poach customers who prove more sensitive to 

bulb prices than bulb lifetime electricity costs
234

 from efficiency-

 

charges and differentials based on factors not directly related to the provision of utility services, 

including for energy conservation). 

226. Abrams, 67 N.Y.2d at 212; see also Dara Gardens Mgmt. Corp, 468 N.Y.S.2d 199 (N.Y. 

App. Div. 1983). 

227. Rate Design for Electric Corporations, 26 Pub. Util. Rep. (PUR) 280, 286 n.11 (1978). 

228. There is some support that such a ratemaking would be approved by the New York State 

courts.  See, e.g., Multiple Intervenors, 569 N.Y.S.2d at 524 (upholding NYPSC’s “choice of rate-

making incentives for effective [demand side management] conservation programs” as “clearly 

bear[ing] a reasonable relationship to the purpose of the enabling legislation”); see also Comer, 

supra note 19, at 36 (discussing by way of example Kansas City Power & Light’s recovery “on 

current basis, costs related to approved [energy efficiency] programs, including internal labor costs” 

and costs to educate consumers, and for energy audits and rebates). 

229. N.Y. PUB. SERV. LAW § 66(3) (McKinney 2011). 

230. See, e.g., Multiple Intervenors, 569 N.Y.S.2d at 524.   

231. See infra Part III.A. 

232. See supra notes 37–42, 47–52 and accompanying text. 

233. See supra note 174 and accompanying text. 

234. See supra notes 126–130 and accompanying text. 



 

2013] Shedding Light 363 

 

conscious utilities.
235

  The NYPSC bulb efficiency standards would thus 

protect efforts of efficiency-conscious utilities and foster their 

independent efforts, again promoting increased investment in programs 

for low-income households. 

Finally, the NYPSC may: 

 

fix and alter the format and informational requirements of bills utilized 
by . . . electric corporations . . . in levying charges for service, to assure 
simplicity and clarity . . . [and] ensure periodic explanation of applicable 
rates and rate schedules for the purpose of assisting customers in making 
the most efficient use of energy.

236
 

 

This is called the billing requirements authority.  Under this provision, 

the NYPSC can mandate in the short term that households receive 

individual and itemized bills, and, in the long term, that utilities supply 

consumers with real-time information regarding their electricity use and 

its varying price.  These steps would give households an opportunity to 

recognize personal savings and, in the aggregate, deliver reliability and 

cost benefits to the system as a whole.
237

  Detailed information is 

particularly useful to low-income households because of their limited 

budgets.
238

 

The NYPSC can look to these three efficiency statutory provisions as 

legal bases for adopting a strong efficient lighting stance and 

promulgating rules to enforce efficient lighting adoption programming 

or, if a total policy change is too dramatic, may use these provisions to 

justify the NYPSC approving efficiency programs on a case-by-case 

basis.  Even incremental adoption of efficient lighting programs may 

compel further independent action.
239

  Given that most states have 

similarly broad PUC organic statutes, PUCs nationwide can, by broadly 

interpreting their respective statutory authorities and duties, require 

efficient lighting programs.
240

 
 

235. This is similar to competition concerns in the lighting manufacturing industry with regards 

to repealing bulb efficiency standards of EISA 2007.  See supra notes 164–169 and accompanying 

text. 

236. N.Y. PUB. SERV. LAW § 66(12-a) (McKinney 2011). 

237. See supra notes 37–42, 47–52 and accompanying text. 

238. See supra note 72. 

239. See infra note 257 and accompanying text. 

240. A coherent policy across states should be encouraged.  As “[p]ublic utilities increasingly 

operate in more than one state . . . it creates the potential for inconsistent rate treatment for the public 

utility that operates in both.”  Hertzler & Koeller, supra note 22, at 925 (discussing renewable 

energy, but equally applicable to efficient lighting programs).  This makes it more difficult for 

utilities to recover higher costs related to energy efficient electricity programs.  Id. 



 

364 COLUMBIA JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAW [Vol. 38:2 

 

At present, the NYPSC channels “all low-income program funding for 

residential customers with income at or below 60 percent of the state 

median household income . . . through the New York State Energy 

Research and Development Authority’s (“NYSERDA”) existing 

EmPower NY program.”
241

  If a resident qualifies for EmPower NY,
242

 

NYSERDA schedules a participating accredited contractor to determine 

if the home would “benefit from improved insulation, reduced drafts, and 

upgrades to lighting and appliances” at no cost to the resident.
243

  The 

program also includes “[o]n-site energy education [to] offer[] customers 

additional strategies for managing their energy costs.”
244

  Without 

discrediting the importance of EmPower NY, an opt-in program is 

insufficient to reach the majority of low-income households and more 

systemic changes are required.
245

 

III.  ADAPTING EFFICIENT LIGHTING ADOPTION PROGRAMS TO ADDRESS 

SPECIFIC NEEDS OF LOW-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS 

Although statutes can be read expansively, the NYPSC can only 

exercise the powers granted to it by the New York Legislature.  

Generally, the NYPSC does not have authority to enforce consumer 

practices, but may indirectly influence consumer decisions by regulating 

public utilities.
246

  This Part highlights three categories of programming 

that are relatively easy to administer, effective in altering consumer 

lighting practices, and interfere only minimally with day-to-day living of 

consumers
247

: free or subsidized bulbs, free audits, and consumer 

education.
248

  This Note promotes these individual approaches as a 

 

241. NY PSC Ups Funding for Low-Income Energy Efficiency, LIHEAPCLEARINGHOUSE, 

http://www.liheap.ncat.org/news/jan10/nypsc.htm (last updated Feb. 26, 2013). 

242. EMPower Eligibility Guidelines, NYSERDA, http://www.nyserda.ny.gov/Residential/Progr 

ams/Low-Income-Assistance/EmPower-for-Residents/Eligibility-Guidelines.aspx (last updated Dec. 

13, 2012). 

243. EmPower Overview, NYSERDA, http://www.nyserda.ny.gov/Residential/Programs/Low-

Income-Assistance/EmPower-Overview.aspx (last updated Mar. 14, 2013). 

244. EmPower for Residents, NYSERDA, http://www.nyserda.ny.gov/Residential/Programs/Lo 

w-Income-Assistance/EmPower-for-Residents.aspx (last updated Dec. 5, 2012). 

245. See, e.g., Babcock, supra note 9, at 946 (explaining that structural changes need to be made 

eliminate the negative features of CFLs, which make acquisition and disposal easier, “before the 

motivational tools identified in the three initiatives can have any effect on consumers.”). 

246. See supra notes 207–210 and accompanying text.  Direct regulation of consumers may also 

be politically contentious.  See, e.g., supra note 167 and accompanying text. 

247. See supra notes 6–10 and accompanying text. 

248. These programs are considered because they exist, see supra note 188–188 and 

accompanying text, and also because they are relatively low cost and have relatively high feasibility, 

see, e.g., Wilson, supra note 8, at 10,887 tbl.1. 



 

2013] Shedding Light 365 

 

package because “[s]ingle policy tools have been notably ineffective in 

reducing household energy consumption.”
249

  In addition to overcoming 

behavioral barriers,
250

 these approaches lower costs.
251

  Finally, they are 

self-sustainable: together, these approaches change consumer behavior, 

so participation in the market is not contingent on the provision of 

additional incentives.
252

  These approaches specifically accommodate for 

barriers to adoption generally faced by low-income households including 

less total income, less awareness of incentive programs, and higher 

probability of being a renter.
253

  These approaches not only provide the 

public with system-wide benefits, but also enable households to 

personally benefit from efficient lighting. 

A.  Free and Subsidized Bulbs 

The first step towards widespread adoption of efficient lighting is 

creating consumer interest in efficient lighting alternatives.
254

  This may 

be particularly important for low-income households that may be 

relatively more driven by present purchase price than considerations of 

long-term benefits.
255

  EmPower NY currently provides homeowners and 

renters with free lighting upgrades, if they apply and qualify for the 

benefit.
256

  Free merchandise demonstrates the benefits of efficient bulbs 

to consumers and induces a preference for efficient bulbs that may alter 

their future consumption patterns.
257

  Even if the NYPSC does not want 

 

249. Forsyth, supra note 9, at 11,038 (quoting Thomas Dietz et al., Household Actions Can 

Provide a Behavioral Wedge to Rapidly Reduce US Carbon Emissions, 106 PROC. NAT’L ACAD. 

SCI. 18,452, 18,453 (2009)) (“[I]nterventions that combine appeals, information, financial 

incentives, informal social influences, and efforts to reduce the transaction costs of taking the desired 

actions have demonstrated synergistic effects beyond the additive effects of single policy tools.”). 

250. See supra Part I.B. 

251. See id. 

252. See supra notes 6–10 and accompanying text. 

253. See supra notes 70–72. 

254. Martinot & Borg, supra note 37, at 1072 (“[I]n immature markets, such as in many non-

OECD countries, properly designed subsidy programs can be an important and cost-effective tool for 

moving markets in the right direction, and in helping markets mature to the point where subsidies 

become less important.”). 

255. See supra note 72. 

256. EmPower Overview, N.Y. STATE ENERGY RESEARCH & DEV. AUTH.,  http://www.nyserda. 

ny.gov/BusinessAreas/Energy-Efficiency-and-Renewable-Programs/Residential/Programs/Low-Inco 

me-Assistance/EmPower-Overview.aspx (last updated May 3, 2013). 

257. See, e.g., Jeremy Levin, Demand-Side Management:  Mitigate, Don’t Eliminate, PUB. UTIL. 

FORT., Oct. 1, 1995, at 37, 39 (“For instance, participants in a [demand-side management] program 

to install energy-saving compact fluorescent light bulbs may be so satisfied with the product that 

they install additional bulbs at their own expense.  Such indirect benefits are not quantified in 

standard cost/benefit analyses, but can be significant.”); Martinot & Borg, supra note 37, at 1077 



 

366 COLUMBIA JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAW [Vol. 38:2 

 

to provide free bulbs directly,
258

 it could supplement EmPower’s 

program by encouraging utilities to provide subsidized bulbs.  Initial 

subsidies may even render future subsidies and free bulbs unnecessary.
259

  

Rebate programs in the United States “have proven effective at 

promoting basic lighting improvements with rebates from 20% to 50% of 

the product price.”
260

 

These successes notwithstanding, rebate programs give rise to 

potential inconveniences to both consumers and utilities.
261

  To address 

this issue, some utilities have provided reimbursements for more efficient 

light bulbs at the wholesale level instead of offering rebates directly to 

customers.
262

  Such programs save the customer the inconvenience of 

applying for the rebate and save utilities administrative costs because 

they no longer shoulder the burden of processing individual rebates.
263

  

Furthermore, upstream rebates lead to larger savings for consumers, 

reducing the price differential between incandescent bulbs and energy 

efficient lighting, as well as helping to convince previously reluctant 

consumers to purchase CFLs.
264

 

The NYPSC can encourage utilities to discount bulbs by using its 

ratemaking authority to permit utilities to recoup some of the necessary 

expenditures.
265

  In order to ensure that the bulbs provided meet 

acceptable efficiency standards, NYPSC can either exercise its 

ratemaking discretion and provide rate recovery only where the program 

provides efficient bulbs,
266

 or use its lighting supply authority to require 

that any bulbs it provides meet a specified efficiency standard.
267

  

Permitting utilities to recover investments in consumers’ efficient 

lighting uses will encourage utilities to provide subsidized bulbs and 

allow consumers to take advantage of such programs for both individual 

and system-wide benefits. 

 

(“[R]ecent research on the European domestic lighting sector . . . indicates that households that have 

been persuaded to buy one CFL tend to buy additional ones if they are easily available on the 

market.”).   

258. For example, NYPSC may find it more efficient to leave free bulb efforts to NYSERDA.  

See NY PSC Ups Funding for Low-Income Energy Efficiency, supra note 241. 

259. See supra note 254. 

260. Id. at 1075. 

261. Miller, supra note 67, at 59. 

262. Id. 

263. Id. 

264. Id. 

265. See supra notes 224–228 and accompanying text. 

266. Id. 

267. See supra notes 229–230 and accompanying text.   



 

2013] Shedding Light 367 

 

As a whole, providing free and subsidized light bulbs is an important 

element of a systemic overhaul of the electricity delivery structure.  

However, given the average consumer’s tendency to improperly estimate 

current costs and future savings,
268

 the benefits of providing free 

products and services may be limited to the short term—once the 

incentive disappears, the purchasing habits will revert.
269

  Low-income 

households are particularly likely to revert because of their tighter budget 

constraints.
270

  To maintain momentum, the NYPSC should supplement a 

subsidized bulb program with free audits, which help inform consumers 

about their potential savings,
271

 and educational programs, which help 

consumers understand the benefits of efficient lighting.
272

  Together, 

such programming can create sustainable change in the use of efficient 

bulbs by low-income households. 

B.  Free Audits 

A lack of information regarding energy consumption and efficient 

appliances is a serious impediment to sustained residential adoption of 

efficient lighting.
273

  Low-income households are at a particular 

disadvantage because they are generally less aware of existing programs 

and may thus be less likely to seek out and independently discover 

opportunities for long-term savings.
274

  One method of increasing 

awareness of both consumption and appliances is to provide home audits, 

which can tailor motives of adoption to suit the individual and 

personalize economic results.
275

  Presently, “the vast majority of homes 

in North America have not undergone an audit of any type,” which 

means that these homeowners may not recognize the extent of their 

potentially sizable energy savings.
276

  Furthermore, current audit 

programs
277

 are burdensome and expensive to consumers,
278

 time-

 

268. See supra notes 126–130 and accompanying text. 

269. See supra note 134. 

270. See supra note 72. 

271. See infra note 275 and accompanying text. 

272. See infra notes 295–296 and accompanying text. 

273. See supra notes 126–143 and accompanying text. 

274. See supra note 73. 

275. Patrick Leslie et al., The Application of Smartphone Technology to Economic and 

Environmental Analysis of Building Energy Conservation Strategies, 31 INT’L J. SUSTAINABLE 

ENERGY 295, 308 (2012).  

276. Id. at 296. 

277. Id. (“Current home energy audits consist of trained professionals travelling to individual 

residences to obtain an estimate of the current site conditions and energy use in order to suggest 

where building owners are able to reduce their energy consumption.”).  



 

368 COLUMBIA JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAW [Vol. 38:2 

 

consuming to execute,
279

 and only deliver information to consumers at 

the end of each visit.
280

  To reduce costs
281

 and encourage user 

engagement,
282

 the NYPSC should foster dissemination and promotion of 

information by making it available online or even by creating 

smartphone-accessible audit systems
283

 for individual use. 

Online and smartphone lighting retrofit programs are already available.  

For example, ENERGY STAR provides a free interactive webpage that 

instructs consumers on the types of lighting products that would work 

best in different locations in their home.
284

  ENERGY STAR also 

provides a printable checklist
285

 and a calculator to estimate savings.
286

  

Similarly, smartphone technology may provide personal, mobile, and 

convenient “on-site energy audits by the average consumer.”
287

  Such 

devices “can record existing conditions, use directed questions to guide 

more detailed evaluation of energy use, give instant feedback, and even 

provide an estimate of projected energy savings for a specific upgrade, or 

aggregate of individual upgrades, in real time as the audit is 

 

278. See, e.g., Forsyth, supra note 9, at 11,033 (“[O]btaining such information and the requisite 

professional help to make [comparisons of life-cycle cost of alternative energy options] is 

burdensome and expensive.” (citing Eric Hirst et al., Improving Energy Efficiency:  The 

Effectiveness of Government Action, 10 ENERGY POL’Y 131, 134 (1982)); id. at 11,039 & n.102 (“As 

one recipient of energy-efficiency information noted: ‘I’ve had some information passed on to 

me . . . but I just can’t use it.  I don’t have the time.  If I had somebody else to actually do it, yes, I’d 

have no problem.’” (quoting Steve Sorrell, Barrier Busting:  Overcoming Barriers to Energy 

Efficiency, in THE ECONOMICS OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY 287, 295 (Edward Elgar ed., 2004))); id. 

(“[The fact] that company energy managers find it hard to find time for energy efficiency suggests 

homeowners may find it even harder.”). 

279. Leslie et al., supra note 275, at 305 (noting that it would take the six auditors currently 

employed fifty-five years to complete energy audits for all 157,000 dwellings in the region); id. at 

307 (suggesting that an approach using smart phones allows homeowners to simultaneously perform 

this task, overcoming the lack of qualified personnel). 

280. Id. at 301 (criticizing traditional energy audits for providing only a snap-shot of energy use). 

281. Consumers will save on the expense of paying for a professional and receive new 

information on an ongoing basis.  Id. (“Internet connectivity allows the potential smartphone energy 

audit application to be updated and added onto through its life.”).  

282. Id. (“[A] smartphone audit will be able to run periodic simulations that account for 

changing conditions and alert the user when specific conditions are met . . . . This has the potential to 

keep users actively involved and constantly engaged with the energy efficiency of their homes.”). 

283. See id. at 302 (discussing an example of a smartphone application for lighting retrofits). 

284. ENERGY STAR @ HOME, ENERGYSTAR, http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?fuseacti 

on=popuptool.atHome (last visited May 31, 2013) (click on room images to learn about household 

energy saving tips). 

285. Bulb Purchasing Guide, ENERGYSTAR, http://www.energystar.gov/ia/products/fap/purch 

asing_checklist_revised.pdf?365a-9220 (last visited May 31, 2013). 

286. Savings, ENERGYSTAR, http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=cfls.pr_cfls_savings 

(last visited May 31, 2013). 

287. Leslie et al., supra note 275, at 296. 



 

2013] Shedding Light 369 

 

performed.”
288

  Online and mobile audit options also give consumers the 

convenience of auditing on their own time instead of during business 

hours, which may be very important to low-income households, which 

may have less flexibility with respect to normal business hours.
289

 

NYPSC should use its ratemaking authority to permit utilities to 

recoup costs of adopting and developing such self-help audit programs 

for individual use.
290

  Once available, the NYPSC should use its billing 

requirements authority to require utilities to include information 

regarding these opportunities on household bills.
291

 

C.  Information Programs 

One of the greatest challenges to making households more energy 

efficient is sustaining the adoption and use of efficiency measures.
292

  

Because low-income households are generally less educated, there is an 

increased likelihood that they were not exposed to the benefits and 

availability of efficient lighting alternatives during their schooling years 

and need another source for such information.
293

  The NYPSC can 

bolster subsidized product and service programs by encouraging utilities 

to provide consumers with information on products through reliable 

labeling and more detailed metering.  Although financing and 

promotional programs are important to raise consumer awareness and 

initiate adoption of new technology, low-income households are more 

likely to revert once subsidies are removed because of their sensitivity to 

initial purchase price.
294

  Educating consumers can bridge this gap: for 

example, surveys comparing Northern and Southern European countries’ 

efficient lighting adoption rates demonstrate that “greater awareness of 

environmental issues and . . . public measures . . . to promote diffusion of 

the CFL”
295

 perpetuated CFL sales four to five times higher in locations 

with greater awareness.
296

 

 

288. Id. 

289. See supra note 72. 

290. See supra notes 224–235 and accompanying text. 

291. See supra notes 236–237 and accompanying text. 

292. See supra note 132 and accompanying text; see, e.g., Forsyth, supra note 9, at 11,035 

(stating that consumers will not adopt significant energy improvements with only information and 

financing). 

293. See supra note 73. 

294. See supra notes 132–135, 259 and accompanying text. 

295. Menanteau & Lefebvre, supra note 2, at 386. 

296. Id.; see also Andrew McLain et al., Renewable Energy and Demand-Side Management 

Committee, 30 ENERGY L.J. 273, 305–06 (2009) (describing New Jersey’s program, which is 



 

370 COLUMBIA JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAW [Vol. 38:2 

 

Although a lot of information is publicly available,
297

 effective 

delivery to consumers, particularly low-income households, is lacking.
298

  

One recent study indicated that “less than a third . . . of the lighting 

retailers planned to educate customers about the new requirements using 

marketing materials, such as in-store displays, brochures, and flyers.”
299

  

The NYPSC can support information delivery programs by encouraging 

utilities to circulate general information about energy efficiency 

programs by using its ratemaking authority
300

 and can promulgate new 

rules under its billing requirements authority
301

 that provide consumers 

with more information on the fluctuating costs of electricity and their 

personal use rates.  In order to accommodate for different education 

levels,
302

 the NYPSC may even require, under its billing requirements 

authority, a change in the format of billing information.
303

  Providing 

low-income households with knowledge about efficient lighting may 

change their decision-making processes from being focused on initial 

purchase price to include long-term benefits, and help them to overcome 

psychological barriers to more energy-efficient behavior with minimal 

per capita investment.
304

 

1.  Educating Consumers About Lighting Labels 

The NYPSC should contribute to the usefulness of the mandatory 

federal “Lighting Facts” labeling program
305

 by promoting efforts to 

assist low-income households in understanding the labels’ components.  

A recent survey by the NYSERDA indicates that many New York State 

consumers “are not well prepared to put the information on the Lighting 

 

expected to “achieve energy savings of $5.8 million each year and reduce carbon dioxide emissions 

by more than 330 million pounds over the life of the CFLs.”). 

297. See, e.g., Frequently Asked Questions:  Lighting Choices to Save You Money, supra note 

88; ENERGY STAR, http://www.energystar.gov/ (last visited May 31, 2013). 

298. See supra notes 105, 109–117, 126–131, 144–147 and accompanying text. 

299. Dimetrosky & Parkinson, supra note 181, at 2-153. 

300. See supra notes 224–235 and accompanying text. 

301. See supra notes 236–237 and accompanying text. 

302. See supra note 73 and accompanying text. 

303. See id.  Another example is the Green Light New York, which “will demonstrate lighting 

solutions with a mock up space, exhibits, a day lighting lab, and interactive examples of best 

practices and solutions” and “provide a venue for lectures, demonstrations, and classes in energy 

efficiency” in order to accelerate the adoption of national and state efficiency policies.  N.Y.C., 

PLANYC 109 (2011) available at http://nytelecom.vo.llnwd.net/o15/agencies/planyc2030/pdf/plany 

c_2011_planyc_full_report.pdf. 

304. See supra Part I.B. 

305. See supra note 112. 



 

2013] Shedding Light 371 

 

Facts label to full use in choosing bulbs.”
306

  For example, 43% of 

consumers surveyed were aware of lumens and 35% “demonstrated a 

correct understanding of the concept,” but only 3 to 5% correctly 

answered “within 200 lumens of the correct value of 800 lumens in a 60-

watt incandescent bulb.”
307

  Since there is “no scale associated with the 

lumens information on the label,” it is unclear “whether consumers will 

know how to interpret the lumens data when they see it.”
308

  Consumers 

demonstrated similarly limited understandings of light appearance and 

relative efficiencies of different types of bulbs.
309

  That the consumer 

population in general has difficulty understanding lighting labeling 

suggests that low-income households, who are generally less educated, 

may have especial difficulty.
310

 

The NYPSC can encourage utilities to include key Lighting Facts 

information by providing utilities recovery under the NYPSC’s 

ratemaking authority
311

 for such disclosures and by using its billing 

requirement authority to require inclusion of such basic information in 

households’ utility bills.
312

  The NYPSC’s promotion of the Lighting 

Facts label will help spread a consistent message of high quality efficient 

lighting information, which will help consumers understand their 

electricity use decisions and may beneficially shape their preferences.
313

  

Such information will particularly benefit low-income households who, 

being on average less educated,
314

 may face heightened challenges in 

understanding the complex scientific labels, on top of the greater need 

for careful budgeting.
315

 

2.  More Detailed Metering and Billing Practices 

In addition to promoting the spread of general information about the 

benefits and product design of efficient lighting, the NYPSC can also 

create more efficiency-conscious consumers by mandating that utilities 

deliver individualized and itemized billing statements.  Pricing 

information contemporaneous with use will enable low-income 

 

306. NEVIUS ET AL., supra note 109, at 6-241. 

307. Id. 

308. Id. 

309. Id. at 6-241 to -42. 

310. See supra note 73. 

311. See supra notes 224–228 and accompanying text. 

312. See supra notes 236–237 and accompanying text. 

313. See supra note 117. 

314. See supra note 73. 

315. See supra note 72. 



 

372 COLUMBIA JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAW [Vol. 38:2 

 

households to more effectively allocate and control their already limited 

budgets.
316

  At present, little or no real-time information is provided,
317

 

and the majority of renters receive a proportion of the total housing unit’s 

bill without seeing their own use.
318

  Although it may be that this 

information alone is not sufficient to transform energy use in a 

household,
319

 it will at least make households aware of electricity pricing 

schemes and the potential for savings, and give households the 

opportunity to take action.
320

  In the short term, the NYPSC can require 

that all households have individual metering, and, in the long term, the 

NYPSC can implement a billing system that provides real-time feedback 

reflecting fluctuating electricity prices.
321

 

In fact, the NYPSC has previously expressed support of this view.  

The NYPSC adopted Administrative Law Judge William H. Arkin’s 

finding that “conversion from master metering to individual metering 

would reduce electric consumption more than 50% by drawing 

consumers’ attention to their usage patterns.”
322

  Despite additional costs 

of new metering equipment and activities, “conversion also would tend 

to eliminate the costs imposed on all tenants by wasteful consumption in 

master metered buildings.”
323

  The NYPSC found more precise metering 

to be an overall cost-effective endeavor.
324

 

 

316. See supra note 72. 

317. Bladh & Krantz, supra note 109, at 3522 (“[I]ndividual items are not price-marked; the 

consumer receives an aggregated monthly bill, does not know which appliances contributed, whether 

consumption is high or low, or if it has increased or decreased.”); Sachs, supra note 23, at 309. 

318. See supra notes 114–115 and accompanying text. 

319. See Babcock, supra note 9, at 960–62.  But see Vandenbergh & Rossi, supra note 21, at 

1541 (“[J]ust providing real-time information in homes about costs and impacts associated with 

electric power usage, without introducing price variations, can reduce electricity use by roughly 5 to 

15%.”). 

320. See supra note 117. 

321. See Comer, supra note 19, at 35 (“The goal is to use two-way communication to link the 

consumer and the utility in real time.  When combined with time-based electricity rates, customers 

will have the option to change their consumption in response to price signals that vary by the hour (a 

process known as demand-response).”); see also Babcock, supra note 9, at 957 (discussing the future 

of “smart meters,” which process real-time information about household electricity use, tell 

consumers when electricity is the cheapest, and may be able to automatically turn off appliances 

during peak demand). 

322. Rent Inclusion and Submetering, No. 79-24, 1979 WL 391577 (N.Y. Pub. Serv. Comm’n 

1979), clarified on denial of reconsideration Rent Inclusion and Submetering, No. 80-20, 1980 WL 

566075 (1980); see also Hofmeister, supra note 25, at 16 (“[C]urrent utility and billing 

procedures . . . lump all energy consumed into a monthly total with no reference to its source,” 

making it “nearly impossible to accurately monitor the energy costs of any particular measure.”). 

323. Id. 

324. Id. 



 

2013] Shedding Light 373 

 

Some jurisdictions have begun to deploy smart meters, but even the 

majority of those jurisdictions do not yet provide households with 

information on their personal use.
325

  One interesting exception is 

Oklahoma Gas & Electric (“OG&E”), “which not only provides this 

information directly to its customers, but also includes information on 

how the customers’ neighbors are doing.”
326

  Under this program, 

OG&E’s household consumers receive: 

 

monthly bills that compare their level of energy consumption against one 
hundred of their neighbors who live in comparable size homes and who use 
the same heating fuel.  The monthly statement also contains information 
that separately compares the household’s level of energy consumption with 
twenty neighbors who have been singled out because of their efficiency in 
conserving energy.

327
 

 

A recent report indicated that “customers who received these 

personalized reports in their bills reduced their energy use by two percent 

compared to those who were sent standard statements.”
328

  There is also a 

proposal by Google to promote a “smart meter that will display 

information online ‘almost in real time’ for its customers.”
329

  Less costly 

suggestions include using “smiley faces on utility bills to reflect the 

success, or lack of success, of each individual household’s efforts to 

conserve energy,”
330

 or “bill stuffers [to] tell stories about what [others] 

are doing to reduce their electricity consumption.”
331

 

The NYPSC should utilize its billing requirements authority to support 

the provision of individualized information because such information 

will enhance households’ understanding of their electricity usage and the 

relative benefits of efficient lighting alternatives.  Detailed information 

will provide low-income households with an opportunity to better control 

and budget their limited finances,
332

 while simultaneously benefiting the 

electricity system as a whole. 

 

325. Babcock, supra note 9, at 957–58. 

326. Id. at 958. 

327. Id. at 963 (footnotes omitted). 

328. Id. at 964; see also id. at 964–67 (discussing the psychology behind such behavioral 

changes). 

329. Id. at 958; see also Google PowerMeter:  A Google.org Project, GOOGLE, http://www.goog 

le.com/powermeter/about/ (last visited May 31, 2013). 

330. Babcock, supra note 9, at 970 (explaining how the smiley faces function as a reward). 

331. Id. at 962 (noting that such information also prevents participants from feeling duped by 

changing electricity-use behavior). 

332. See supra note 72. 



 

374 COLUMBIA JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAW [Vol. 38:2 

 

IV.  CONCLUSION 

Although many improvements to energy efficiency lighting technology 

and adoption have been made in the past decade, continued focus on the 

issue is important to maintain momentum.  With federal stagnation, state 

authorities will be required to sustain the momentum of consumer 

demand that is necessary to make investment in lighting technologies 

permanent.  PUCs should embrace their unique authority to oversee state 

electricity delivery and programs, and actively engage with provisions 

contained in their organic statutes to promote already existent programs.  

In particular, PUCs should encourage utilities to focus these programs on 

low-income households that are uniquely unable or unlikely to adopt 

effective efficient lighting practices on their own.  By combining free or 

subsidized products and services for low-income residents, and 

comprehensive information delivery focused on providing individualized 

billing details, state PUCs can create an immediate, low-cost, and self-

sustaining program for widespread residential adoption of efficient 

lighting that will benefit individuals and the state alike.