WASHINGTON — The U.S. government last year announced a $10 million award, dubbed the “L Prize,” for any manufacturer that could create a “green” but affordable light bulb.

Energy Secretary Steven Chu said the prize would spur industry to offer the costly bulbs, known as LEDs, at prices “affordable for American families.” There was also a “Buy America” component. Portions of the bulb would have to be made in the United States.

Now the winning bulb is on the market.

The price is $50.

Retailers said the bulb, made by Philips, is likely to be too pricey to have broad appeal. Similar LED bulbs are less than half the cost.

“I don’t want to say it’s exorbitant, but if a customer is only looking at the price, they could come to that conclusion,” said Brad Paulsen, merchant for the light-bulb category at Home Depot, the largest U.S. seller of light bulbs. “This is a Cadillac product and that’s why you have a premium on it.”

How the expensive bulb won a $10 million government prize meant to foster energy-efficient affordability is one of the curiosities that arises as the country undergoes a massive, mandated turnover from traditional incandescent lamps to more energy-efficient ones.

Energy legislation signed by President George W. Bush in 2007 made it illegal to sell inefficient 100-watt incandescents this year; the sales of traditional 75-watt incandescents will be prohibited next year; 60-watt incandescents will go after that.

When replacing a bulb, consumers must now go out and buy energy-efficient incandescents, compact fluorescent bulbs, and LEDs, or light-emitting diode bulbs, in a compulsory transition that has prompted some conservatives to characterize the law as an unfair burden on consumers and an “issue of freedom,” as Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., put it.

The L Prize was meant to ease this transition by enticing manufacturers to create affordable bulbs to replace the most common type, the traditional 60-watt.

A Philips spokesperson declined to talk in detail about the bulb or its price because the product has yet to be formally launched. It is expected to hit stores within weeks and is available online. But the spokesperson said the L Prize bulb costs more because, as the contest required, it is even more energy- efficient, running on 10 watts instead of 12.5 watts. It is also brighter, renders colors better and lasts longer.

Still, the contest set price goals. According to the L Prize guidelines, manufacturers were “strongly encouraged to offer products at prices that prove cost-effective and attractive to buyers, and therefore more successful in the market.” The target retail price, including rebates from utilities, was to be $22 in the first year, $15 in the second year and $8 in the third year.

Energy Department officials defended the award, saying that they expect the cost of the L Prize bulbs to drop over time. “The L Prize competition played a critical role in driving manufacturing and engineering innovations in the U.S. lighting industry and helping to make the next generation of energy-saving LED lighting options more affordable for consumers,” said department spokeswoman Niketa Kumar.

Officials added that they are working with utilities to provide rebates for consumers. That could lower the price of the L Prize bulbs. But existing rebates, which max out around $10, are too small to take a big slice out of the $50 price tag. By comparison, the typical 60-watt bulb that it would replace, an old-fashioned energy hog, can cost as little as $1.

“Are there many consumers who will say a $50 bulb is affordable? I don’t think so,” said one retailer familiar with the new bulbs, who like others. Many retailers said they were reluctant to speak on the record for fear of endangering their relationship with Philips, a major supplier.

Two other manufacturers, General Electric and Lighting Science Group, announced last year that they were developing entrants to the competition. But before they could submit, the prize was awarded and the competition closed.

The contest also required that at least some of the manufacturing be done in the United States, where costs can be higher. The Philips bulb will be assembled in Wisconsin, and the chips will be made at a Philips plant in San Jose, Calif., the company said.

In many ways, however, the L Prize may have been 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. The new bulbs can cut energy costs by more than 75 percent.

CFLs already outsell incandescents in terms of dollars, Paulsen said. And he predicted that the percentage of LED bulbs sold would rise from 5 percent to 35 percent over the next three years. “The adoption wave has already begun,” Paulsen said.

In part, that’s because manufacturers are offering LED bulbs for far less than the L Prize bulb.

For example, at Home Depot, one can find LED bulbs to replace the 60-watt incandescent for much less than $50. Lighting Science Group, under the EcoSmart label, offers another for $23.97. It is assembled in Mexico. And another Philips LED bulb on sale costs $24.97. It was made in China.

“This is a very interesting time in light bulbs, believe it or not,” Paulsen said.

Join the Conversation

13 Comments

  1. There are greater troubling issues beyond the price. 

    The problem is that the L-Prize contest which was supposed to foster U.S. green technology competitiveness was RIGGED. 

    As a foreign based (headquartered) corporation Philips was specifically excluded from eligibility according to the law that established the L-Prize in particular public law 110-140 section 655(f)(1).  Under U.S. federal law the term “a primary place of business” used in the statute refers to the single headquarters location, which in the case of Philips is Amsterdam.  Philips, of course, would have known that they were ineligible, so they put out PR flak alleging that the bulb was the result of a global effort.  The truth is otherwise.  The bulb was developed in the Netherlands.  Dept. of Energy energy bureaucrats have been hobnobbing with Philips executives for years or DoE politicals who were looking for a photo-op apparently decided not to enforce the law.

    The L-Prize entry also failed to meet key technical requirements of the contest. The Philips entry does not meet the stated uniformity requirement of the contest.  This is admitted in a document obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, see http://TINYURL.COM/43ECMQM.  The curt justification asserted in that document based on comparing uniformity to and standard incandescent lamp is factually (quantifiably) false.

    The Philips entry also failed to produce the required amount of light.  In one test 62 out of 100 bulbs failed. (See above linked document) Whether the commercialized version will consistently produce the requirement amount of light is an open question, HOWEVER the stated procedure for the contest was that if the entry failed a test the entry would fail.  What happened is that Philips wanted to submit prematurely to claim the prize and the Department of Energy did not want to follow the rules and fail them, rather they embarked on RIGGING the contest.  They kept the failure secret and proceeded with other tests.

    The result is that a bulb developed by Dutch inventors, built with some (possibly most) of its parts made in Shenzhen China (see http://www.dailytech.com/Philips+Wins+10M+USD+Govt+LPrize+for+Worlds+Most+Efficient+Light+Bulb/article24082.htm ) has been given a great initial advantage which may allow it to dominate U.S. competitors, even though the contest is RIGGED. 
     

  2. A $50 light bulb!! “Affordable for American families”…..Really?? This as the result and example of Gov’t subsidized green energy…..Crazy…..

  3. 25 bucks for a lightbulb with worse light temperature than a CFL, that fails far sooner than advertised. When will we realize being environMENTALly friendly is too costly, too impractical, too MENTAL.

     Hopefully big government will wake up and understand We The People cannot affort what they are offering?

  4. Lets see, if I take one bulb and as I need
    to turn on a light in a room, all I need to do is
    carry a lamp around with me. These people are
    really scary. And the sheep just don’t know they
    are getting fleeced….BUT GO GREENIE!

  5. The company was awarded $10 million dollar prize for a lightbulb
     that most folks cant afford to buy??

  6. The $10 million prize money was borrowed from China and the Philips product will likely be manufactured there.  Federal government – stop doing this!

  7. Phillips awarded the “L” award? We have had LED’s on the shelf now for over 3 years, and Phillips didn’t make them!! Does the administration ever get out and visit Home Depot, Lowes?? Oh, and the LED bulbs at the Depot and Lowes are about $15! Whats next, the administration will make it illegal to import the cheaper LED’s and force us to buy the Phillips brand?

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *