Again, almost 2015. My bank tossed their old bulbs and installed LEDs because… they’re a bank, and it’s almost 2015. Obsolete lighting technology wastes energy, and thus money. LEDs make money, as banks are supposed to do- certainly any bank of mine.
A bank has a fiduciary interest, to its customers, its board, and any shareholders if public. A manager who wastes bank and customer money is supposed to get booted. Conversely, it is the responsibility of the board to boot anyone they find managing wastefully. This would include anyone using incandescents, an 1800s technology, in 2015. Incandescents not only waste money in electricity, but their short lives (months, versus decades for a good LED) consume maintenance time, and thus wages. The waste heat from an incandescent (around 97% of its energy) goes on to increase the air conditioning. An equivalent LED lamp, at one-fourth the required power or less, cuts waste heat dramatically, again saving A/C consumption, and reducing wear on the equipment. The bank’s capital equipment.
The fact that LEDs cost a few bucks more in initial purchasing is a distraction. Bank managers are perfectly capable- and again, expected- of doing Total Cost of Ownership analyses, and the higher upfront price is no excuse. Even in capital costs, the few dollars invested per lamp would rack up pennies in interest before the higher efficiencies pay off, assuming the bank bothered with this interest.
Even if legacy technologies never truly disappear, this still isn’t one such situation. The argument for retaining incandescents is that spectral rendition and color matching feels better. However, banks don’t use precision color for anything. Even if they did, halogens (which may or may not be considered incandescents) deliver even better color spectra, and higher efficiency, AND longer bulb life too.
I’d say game over, incandescents, except this is no game. This bank gets it, so the bulbs get the boot.