What does light pollution in the U.S. have to do with the COVID-19 outbreak? For one thing, LP might be reduced over time if restrictions on federally funded outdoor lighting are enacted along with a possible infrastructure bill coming next month. (thread) thehill.com/policy/transpo…
The U.S. federal government funds a huge number of construction projects each year, whether directly (think federal buildings and highways) or indirectly (think grants to states). And it puts all manner of restrictions and requirements on how that money can be spent.
Those restrictions vary from very broad ('Buy American' requirements) to very narrow (prescribing construction materials/techniques for specific applications). Inevitably, federally funded projects include outdoor lighting, but past bills have had very little to say about that.
In fact, existing U.S. federal law contains surprisingly few references to lighting. Mostly the existing laws have to do with energy efficiency requirements, or they mention 'lighting' (absent indoor/outdoor context) as an infrastructure element that is to be present.
Given that other aspects of past infrastructure legislation involve prescriptions about what is and isn't permitted in terms of projects that may receive federal funds, it's no stretch to imagine a future bill in which basic light pollution reduction strategies can be required.
In 2018 the WH proposed an infrastructure bill with a combination of $200B in federal funding and $1.5T from the private sector. Democrats opposed the proposal because of its emphasis on state/local government and private funding. thehill.com/policy/transpo…
In the recent FY21 WH budget proposal there was a new, $1 trillion infrastructure plan based entirely on federal, rather than private, funding. But the entire FY21 budget was DOA before even getting a hearing, so it went nowhere. enr.com/articles/48663…
Infrastructure is back on the table for Congress, potentially as part of a 4th coronavirus relief bill to be taken up after Easter. Both sides of the aisle are looking at the stimulative effect a big infrastructure push can have on the U.S. economy.
It's possible that Congress may consider something exceeding the ~$800B American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, enacted in the wake of the downtown of the Great Recession. Of that, ~$100B was directed to infrastructure. This time it could be an order of magnitude more.
But there's a cautionary tale in the history of the ARAA: it in part funded promotion of energy efficient lighting through @ENERGY (energy.gov/eere/ssl/solid…). The funding arrived shortly after the first outdoor white LED lighting products hit the market in the late 2000s.
For some time, money was available to help U.S. communities swap out their older, energy-inefficient street lighting systems for new solid-state products. That got us the 1st generation of LED street lighting systems: blue-rich, glarey light that saved money but people disliked.
The rush to adopt new technology before it was fully understood, combined w/ municipalities in desperate need during a deep economic recession, left us with sub-optimal public lighting systems that may be in use for another 10 years. Can new legislation bring a different outcome?
2020 also sees the expiration of the last major highway funding bill, the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act of 2015 (P.L. 114-94; fhwa.dot.gov/fastact/). Here, too, is another opportunity to influence decisions about federally funded outdoor lighting.
So what could all this look like for light pollution? It could be as simple as requiring that all federally funded outdoor lighting installations adhere to basic principles like warranting, full shielding, low color temperature, and adaptive control use. Adds no cost to jobs.
Congress might also consider proactively retiring the remainder of earlier lighting stock, both gas-discharge lamps and 1st gen. LED, to better future-proof lighting systems. And it should fund more research that helps better optimize lighting systems, further reducing costs.
The point is: putting light pollution reduction elements into federal infrastructure spending serves multiple public interests, including lowering costs, improving visibility on the nation's highways, and cultivating a robust American lighting manufacturing industry. Win-win-win.
A blog post for @IDADarkSky with more in-depth analysis is coming once we have a little more information about what both Dems and the GOP have in mind for infrastructure in the next few weeks. #WatchThisSpace (/end)
@threadreaderapp unroll
