By Jennifer Kho and Adena DeMonte

If California Assemblyman Lloyd Levine has his way, incandescent bulbs—the most common light bulbs in the world—could be outlawed in the state.

He has proposed a ban on the sale of conventional light bulbs, called the How Many Legislators Does it Take to Change a Light Bulb Act, by 2012.

If the act is approved, it could electrify the lighting industry, driving new technology and challenging large light-bulb manufacturers like General Electric, Osram Sylvania, and Philips. Along with Wal-Mart’s push to sell 100 million compact fluorescent bulbs by 2008, the proposal could signify the start of a huge trend that could change light as we know it.

“California leads the nation; it’s a thought leader,” said John Davenport, CEO of Fiberstars, a company that sells fiber-optic LED (light-emitting diode) lighting (see Navy Could Sink Light Bulbs).

He pointed to the state’s Title 24, which already bans incandescent sockets in new-home construction.

When asked whether he thinks the California ban will pass, he laughed. “I never bet on California,” he said. “I would not have guessed that Title 24 would have been written the way it has. If it was Pennsylvania or Iowa, I’d say the chances would be pretty low, but in California, it could happen.”

If it does happen, the ban certainly would have an impact on energy use.

According to a back-of-the-envelope calculation by Mr. Davenport, the measure could cut one-ninth of California’s energy consumption. That equates to about 26,523 gigawatt hours, using 2003 numbers from the California Energy Commission, or as much energy as 3.9 million Californians would use in a year.

But a number of companies say the industry isn’t ready.

“Compact and other fluorescent lighting products are ideal for many applications; however, incandescent light bulbs will continue to be more suitable for many applications,” said Kim Freeman, a lighting spokesperson for General Electric. “GE will continue to offer our customers alternative solutions that best meet their specific needs, many of which are currently not available in fluorescent products.”

Aside from developing fluorescents, the company is also researching ways to make incandescent lighting more energy-efficient through its Ecomagination program, she said. Those efforts would seemingly be wasted on California if the state passes a blanket ban on all incandescent bulbs.

Duncan Earl, chief technology officer at Sunlight Direct, a company that captures natural light and pipes it into buildings using fiber optics, said he also doesn’t support the ban.

“You’ve got to always have an option for people, if you’re forcing them into energy-efficient technology,” he said. “The ban is probably premature at this point because the quality of fluorescent lighting’s not there yet, but the intent of the legislation to reduce energy consumption associated with artificial lighting is critical. There’s probably just a better way to be doing it.”

Charging New Technologies

If the ban does pass, it is likely to spark innovation and bring new lighting technologies into the residential market.

Most of the focus in the California and Wal-Mart initiatives has been on compact fluorescent lights (CFLs), which are spiral-shaped bulbs that are already available and can fit in incandescent light sockets. But light-emitting diode (LED), silicon-based lighting, and metal halide technologies still in development could also grow a market.

That’s because CFLs don’t deliver the same type of lighting as fluorescent bulbs, these companies say. “CFLs really destroy the mood in a space,” Mr. Davenport said. Some also are more efficient than CFLs.

Take LEDs, which can be color-controlled and are already used in stores to show off products like clothing, purses, and plates to best effect. They are still expensive compared to incandescents and even fluorescents, and products configured for the residential market aren’t ready yet.

Companies like Fiberstars are working on it. Fiberstars’ Efficient Fiber Optics (EFO) technology uses up to 80 percent less energy than incandescent bulbs and lasts 15 times as long, and also uses up to 33 percent less energy and lasts three times longer than CFLs, the company says.

The EFO line is already used in retail and commercial markets. Now, the company has begun testing the technology in a Californian home, Mr. Davenport said.

Getting a residential product to market is such a priority that he talks to the R&D team working on it every day, he said.

“We’re exploring this because we see the residential market as a market that really is ultimately going to have to change its lighting,” he said. “It’s an enormous opportunity, and I think the opportunity is now, to begin moving in there.”

New Market for Silicon?

One startup, Group IV Semiconductor, also hopes to displace incandescent lights with its silicon-based technology.

“We’ll be involved in the next wave after compact fluorescent,” said Howard Tweddle, director of business development.

The company has raised $9 million in funding—from cleantech-funding foundation Sustainable Development Technology Canada, and natural-gas producer Encana, among others—and an undisclosed amount from venture capitalists.

The advantage is that silicon-based lighting could eventually be much cheaper than other energy-efficient options, but the technology has a ways to go before it can reach that potentially low cost, Mr. Tweddle said.

As solar companies and chip manufacturers are currently competing for supply in a worldwide shortage of silicon, silicon-based lighting might have to wait a few years for silicon prices to come down.

Aside from Fiberstars and Group IV, plenty of other companies are working on the problem. Philips’ Lumileds Lighting is the world’s largest LED manufacturer, and companies such as Cree, Applied Nanoworks, and Carmanah (see Solar LED Specialist Switches Gears) are also working on LEDs, among others. Companies such as GE, Osram Sylvania, and Philips are among those working on metal halides, as well as on compact fluorescent bulbs.

Law Would Create Losers

Despite the potential to charge up new technologies, make no mistake: if the ban passes, there will be losers.

Light bulbs will cost buyers a lot more, for one thing—although people would make up the cost by buying fewer and paying less for electricity, said Mr. Davenport, also the former general manager of research and development for GE Lighting.

Major light bulb companies like GE, Osram Sylvania, and Philips could also suffer from lower sales because people would buy fewer bulbs.

If the California and Wal-Mart initiatives snowballed and the world switched off of incandescent bulbs, the effect would be enormous, as a third of the world’s energy is used for lighting, and half of the lights are incandescent, he said.

Because CFLs last five times as long as incandescents, companies like GE would only make a fifth of the bulbs they’re making now, making light bulbs much more expensive, he said.

“Four-fifths of the capacity would be idle,” he said. “If that equipment is not running, it—and the factories it’s sitting in—costs you, and that means the bulbs they are manufacturing would cost a lot more. It not only reduces the margin for the new product, but it erodes the margin for the old product, too.”