California lighting task force recommends manufacturer/utility funded collection program for fluorescent lights

Although energy efficiency drives consumers toward use of fluorescent lights, there is one significant problem, mercury [see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluorescent_lights].  Last year Governor Schwarzenegger signed AB 1109 [http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_1101-1150/ab_1109_bill_20071012_chaptered.html]; one of requirements of the legislation was that DTSC convene a task force to make recommendations about recycling fluorescent lights and educating the public about recycling the lights.  This requirement was driven in part by the fact that upon the expiration of the exemption from the Universal Waste Rule of household generated fluorescent lights in February 2006, there was no infrastructure for the collection of household generated fluroescent lights; in contrast there was deemed to be sufficient collection and recycling infrastructure for commercially-generated lights.

The Task Force has now issued its report.  The report notes that fluorescent lights have no value at the end of their useful life, that because of their efficiency it is desirable to encourage their use and to avoid raising their price to consumers, and unfortunately there is no substitute for the use of mercury in the product.  As such, the recommendation was that light manufacturers and utilities jointly fund a third-party administered light collection program for consumer-generated fluorescent lights.  The cost of the program would be shared among manufacturers, public utilities, and investor-owned utilities; the Task Force also recommended that only those manufacturers who participate in the program would be allowed to sell fluorescent lights in California.  The idea that somehow this cost would not be passed along, directly or indirectly, to consumers seems more than a little naive; obviously the elasticity of demand will influence whether these costs are passed on or absorbed.  There may also be Commerce Clause issues related to excluding manufacturers because they are not part of a fund whose income could be derived in another manner. 

The Task Force agreed it was desirable to have some sort of measurement of success for the program to help ascertain its effectiveness, but the members could not agree on what that metric should be.  The cost of the program was estimated to be in the $8-12 million per year range.

A copy of the Task Force report can be found at http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/HazardousWaste/UniversalWaste/upload/ab1109_final.pdf.

Over the longterm, it would seem to be desirable to increase research funding for light-emitting diodes, which hold the promise of even greater efficiency and lower levels of toxic materials [see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_emitting_diode].