On 8 March, The Washington Post published an article, “Government-Subsidized Green Light Bulb Carries Costly Price Tag.” Read the article here.
Although your humble editor is no fan of subsidies or the Department of Energy (DOLED), the article is not fair. The first issue is in the title itself and the word ‘subsidized’, which implies that Uncle Sam is paying a portion of each lamp built. Not true. There was a contest which Philips won, but there is no ongoing transfer of payments between the US Government and Philips for each lamp produced.
Second, the article claims that $10 rebates will make the lamp too expensive with a $50 price tag. However, in a statement released over the weekend, Philips clarified their position. Philips expects to see $30 rebates, which will put the price of the lamp below the $22 L-Prize target. Whether we like it or not, rebates have been part of our industry since the 1990’s with fluorscent electronic ballasts, which are now mainstream.
Third, the article claims that the L-prize, “… may be irrelevant. According to retailers, consumers are embracing LEDs, which were the focus of the prize, and CFLs, or compact fluorescent lights, faster than many in the industry expected.” How is this irrelevant? The L-prize had many goals, and one of which was to draw attention to LEDs. If consumers are purchasing more LED lamps than predicted, an opposite conclusion should be derived.
EdisonReport is no fan of the DOLED, but the L-Prize is something they did right. We would much rather see them set contests instead of implementing policies that attempt to pick winners and losers in our industry.