The Great Light Bulb Boondoggle

[airdvr 210]

Here we go...the Climate Change Nazi's have arrived

Upset about FirstEnergy's pricey, hand-delivered light bulbs? You ain't seen nothing yet

In just a few days, people dressed in green T-shirts and green caps will begin the rather enormous task of delivering two 23-watt, warm-white, compact fluorescent light bulbs to every residence FirstEnergy serves.

They won't ask whether you want them. They'll just leave them on your doorstep, in a bag that will also contain a brochure called "More Than 100 Ways to Improve Your Electric Bill."

They won't ask for payment, though. As you might expect with an electric utility, that's already wired.

These whiz-bang new light bulbs -- which cost FirstEnergy $3.50 each, and which you could buy all by yourself at any number of stores for even less if you were still trusted to do that sort of thing -- will cost you $21.60 for the pair. You'll pay it off over the next three years, at 60 cents a month added to your electric bill.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Here we go...the Climate Change Nazi's have arrived

Upset about FirstEnergy's pricey, hand-delivered light bulbs? You ain't seen nothing yet

In just a few days, people dressed in green T-shirts and green caps will begin the rather enormous task of delivering two 23-watt, warm-white, compact fluorescent light bulbs to every residence FirstEnergy serves.

They won't ask whether you want them. They'll just leave them on your doorstep, in a bag that will also contain a brochure called "More Than 100 Ways to Improve Your Electric Bill."

They won't ask for payment, though. As you might expect with an electric utility, that's already wired.

These whiz-bang new light bulbs -- which cost FirstEnergy $3.50 each, and which you could buy all by yourself at any number of stores for even less if you were still trusted to do that sort of thing -- will cost you $21.60 for the pair. You'll pay it off over the next three years, at 60 cents a month added to your electric bill.

Utlity companies have to play the game to keep regulators (that have been infiltrated by the wackos) to keep them off their backs.

Same reason they are building wind farms. It is political not a matter of economics. Tax incentives have made them (wind farms) break even endevors at best.

As for the bulbs, these type things are usually pushed by regulators saying to you (the utility) have to spend so much time and money on energy saving programs and education. There are many twists on the theme. So, check out what is happening in your area. My bet is they are being forced in some fashion to do this. To cover some compliance shit placed on them by the utility board of your state

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,111]

Was an interesting article until the end, where he shows his stripes:

==========
Those commands -- to foist immature and inefficient generation methods on consumers and push aside less expensive, more efficient power sources, like coal -- will be enforceable only at great expense to the public.

. . .

So forget the PUCO. Call your senators and your congressional representative instead. Tell them you've had enough of command-economy enviro-thuggery. And invite them to put cap-and-trade in a place where a solar array would be both impractical and painful.
==========

Once someone resorts to overblown, meaningless rhetoric and suggestions of violence, they have conceded the argument.

[redlegphi 0]

And of course those regulations (which you haven't even shown to exist) also demand that the electric utility make a 17 dollar profit per pair of bulbs on those energy saving programs and education.

You're being shafted by your electric company, not by the climate change nazis.

[wmw999 2,587]

It's a decision by FirstEnergy. They're a business. Yes, it's because Ohio told them to reduce their customers' use of energy, but I don't think that conservationists, AWG proponents, Al Gore, or Michael Moore would think this is the best way to do it.

It's a cynical way of doing it. Look at Goldman Sachs -- they got paid when the US taxpayer didn't by AIG and now by BoA. They're looking out for themselves first. That's what businesses often do.

I'm sure FirstEnergy is also charging as much as they can get away with (whether due to regulation or the market). That's what business is all about.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[rushmc 23]

Quote

And of course those regulations (which you haven't even shown to exist) also demand that the electric utility make a 17 dollar profit per pair of bulbs on those energy saving programs and education.

You're being shafted by your electric company, not by the climate change nazis.

I dont know what state he is in so of course I dont know what they are dealing with. I will however make you a bet on the topic. Care to set the price? If I find the state out I can maybe find the UB orders that would be associated by this.

We have the same shit here. I KNOW what I am talking about. You obviously dont

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

It's a decision by FirstEnergy. They're a business. Yes, it's because Ohio told them to reduce their customers' use of energy, but I don't think that conservationists, AWG proponents, Al Gore, or Michael Moore would think this is the best way to do it.

It's a cynical way of doing it. Look at Goldman Sachs -- they got paid when the US taxpayer didn't by AIG and now by BoA. They're looking out for themselves first. That's what businesses often do.

I'm sure FirstEnergy is also charging as much as they can get away with (whether due to regulation or the market). That's what business is all about.

Wendy P.

Thanks Wendy and of course you are correct. Most of the time the rules or orders handed out are general in nature and the company has to find a way to comply in their own interpitation. In some cases they are allowed to recover some of the costs associated with them. An example here would might be the labor needed to hand deliver.
(I am not saying this is the case here)
I didnt say they were being smart about the way they comply or that they were not trying to make a point. In any event, utility companies to not engage in this kind of thing unless forced to in some fashion

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[airdvr 210]

Quote

I'm sure FirstEnergy is also charging as much as they can get away with (whether due to regulation or the market). That's what business is all about.

Not true. The Great State of Ohio passed legislation mandating a 0.3% reduction in electric usage in 2009. Where does Ohio get its energy? There are a couple of nuke plants in operation but mainly from coal.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Utlity companies have to play the game to keep regulators (that have been infiltrated by the wackos) to keep them off their backs.

Quite a few utilities, including biggies like Excelon, are scaling back their participation in the US Chamber of Commerce on account of its foot dragging over climate change. Apple has quit the USCofC altogether on account of it.

www.prweekus.com/Resignations-create-reputation-issues-for-Chamber/article/151803/

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 3,111]

>I'm sure FirstEnergy is also charging as much as they can get away
>with (whether due to regulation or the market). That's what business is all
>about.

Of course - and they thought they could use this as "cover" to make some extra money. Fortunately it didn't work out for them.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Quote

I'm sure FirstEnergy is also charging as much as they can get away with (whether due to regulation or the market). That's what business is all about.

Not true. The Great State of Ohio passed legislation mandating a 0.3% reduction in electric usage in 2009. Where does Ohio get its energy? There are a couple of nuke plants in operation but mainly from coal.

I don't think we can equate energy usage with the price charged for light bulbs.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[rushmc 23]

From the PUCO website

Quote

As a result, I have asked FirstEnergy to postpone deployment of its compact fluorescent light bulb program until the Commission can thoroughly assess the costs associated with this program. The PUCO approved the program following consensus reached during discussions among the company and other organizations including the Office of the Ohio Consumers’ Counsel and the Natural Resources Defense Council.

http://www.puco.ohio.gov/PUCO/MediaRoom/MediaRelease.cfm?id=9732

This also on the same page

Quote

we did not approve the charge that will appear on monthly bills as a result.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

>I'm sure FirstEnergy is also charging as much as they can get away
>with (whether due to regulation or the market). That's what business is all
>about.

Of course - and they thought they could use this as "cover" to make some extra money. Fortunately it didn't work out for them.

I wonder if they are simply trying to recoup the anticipated loss of profits from customers using the more efficient bulbs. (That still doesn't make it right.)

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

From the PUCO website

Quote

As a result, I have asked FirstEnergy to postpone deployment of its compact fluorescent light bulb program until the Commission can thoroughly assess the costs associated with this program. The PUCO approved the program following consensus reached during discussions among the company and other organizations including the Office of the Ohio Consumers’ Counsel and the Natural Resources Defense Council.

http://www.puco.ohio.gov/PUCO/MediaRoom/MediaRelease.cfm?id=9732

This also on the same page

Quote

we did not approve the charge that will appear on monthly bills as a result.

That's an interesting link, but it doesn't address my point.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[airdvr 210]

Quote

I don't think we can equate energy usage with the price charged for light bulbs.

The law allows the utility to recoup the cost of the bulbs, distributing them and the difference in the loss of energy usage to the company. On Monday, the company said the average residential customer would be paying $7.15 a year for three years, or $21.45, on their bills. The company said customers who replace two 100-watt incandescent bulbs with the new bulbs would save up to $60 over the life of the bulbs.


So what I get from that statement is 'we want a reduction in energy usage, but if you're a consumer you'll pay the difference regardless'

Hmmm...Cap and Trade anyone?

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[billvon 3,111]

>I wonder if they are simply trying to recoup the anticipated loss of
>profits from customers using the more efficient bulbs.

Maybe, but that's a silly way to approach it.

One of the underlying things that no one wants to talk about is that there is a surefire, 100% guaranteed way to reduce power consumption - let utilities raise prices. Basically deregulate those industries from a consumer price perspective.

What happened in California during the Enron energy manipulation game was instructive. There was a clause in the CPUC manual that said that as soon as utilities paid down certain debts to the government they could set their own rates. SDG+E did that. PG+E and SCE did not.

When the crisis hit, SDG+E started raising their prices as quickly as wholesale power prices did. Everybody screamed bloody murder. People used less power. Some stores turned off their A/C or lights. Power usage went down drastically.

PG+E and SCE could not do that, so they appealed to the state to save them. Gray Davis actually said at one point "I could solve this problem overnight by letting them raise rates." Needless to say that solution was not popular and he did not implement it.

Result - power usage went UP and blackouts ensued in those areas. Government bailouts saved the utilities, but Davis lost his job in the end.

So there's a simple, guaranteed and effective way to solve this problem, and any politician that proposes it will be out on the street in days. So instead we will see less effective solutions ranging from pamphlet mailings to programs as dumb as this one.

[rushmc 23]

many times orders to do energy usage reduction programs will be tacked on to rate change requests and buried in the new tarrif. (again, I am not saying that is the case here)

One of the orders when approving the coal plant here was that 20% of the fuel to be used would be renewables. We were calculating the square miles of area required to fill that bill. REAL expensive
One reason the plant got killed

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

From the PUCO website

Quote

As a result, I have asked FirstEnergy to postpone deployment of its compact fluorescent light bulb program until the Commission can thoroughly assess the costs associated with this program. The PUCO approved the program following consensus reached during discussions among the company and other organizations including the Office of the Ohio Consumers’ Counsel and the Natural Resources Defense Council.

http://www.puco.ohio.gov/PUCO/MediaRoom/MediaRelease.cfm?id=9732

This also on the same page

Quote

we did not approve the charge that will appear on monthly bills as a result.

That's an interesting link, but it doesn't address my point.

It may
It depends you ones ablility to pull and order out of their dockets
and that is never easy

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

It may
It depends you ones ablility to pull and order out of their dockets
and that is never easy

Serious question: Is English your first language?

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[kelpdiver 2]

The CFL move reminds me of the MTBE debacle in California. I hope it doesn't play out that way.

In that recent history, refineries in CA spent billions to add MTBE as an additive to gas to reduce pollution, as mandated by EPA (use MTBE or more expensive ethanol). As soon as that is done, we start seeing MTBE leaking everywhere, and rush to spend more to undo this change, and go to ethanol instead. It would have been preferable to use nothing, and apparently was technically feasible, but newly elected Bush wants to grant nothing that California might want and denies the request.

CFLs have this impending pollution concern with the mercury and the lack of a convenient way for people to dispose of them when they die. Given their longer life, this hasn't shown up yet, but I now have 2 dead ones, and I expect the dead bulb count will grow dramatically soon.

Here's hoping LED technology continues to progress.

[DougH 270]

Quote

The CFL move reminds me of the MTBE debacle in California. I hope it doesn't play out that way.

In that recent history, refineries in CA spent billions to add MTBE as an additive to gas to reduce pollution, as mandated by EPA (use MTBE or more expensive ethanol). As soon as that is done, we start seeing MTBE leaking everywhere, and rush to spend more to undo this change, and go to ethanol instead. It would have been preferable to use nothing, and apparently was technically feasible, but newly elected Bush wants to grant nothing that California might want and denies the request.

CFLs have this impending pollution concern with the mercury and the lack of a convenient way for people to dispose of them when they die. Given their longer life, this hasn't shown up yet, but I now have 2 dead ones, and I expect the dead bulb count will grow dramatically soon.

Here's hoping LED technology continues to progress.

I think the energy savings of a CFL bulb, which reduces power consumption (which causes mecury polution depending on the way it is generated) offsets the tiny amount of mercury in the bulb.

If they are returned to the store or proper location for proper disposal... even better!

LED has come a long way but it is expensive.

I need to replace the six recessed lights in my living room. I have been giving considerable thought to new IC and air tight fixtures, and these new led bulbs. The bulbs are 80 dollars, the fixtures are 10!!! Haaa! But they should pay back in 3 years or so.

I like green and conservation because it saves me money, and the return on investment is tax free!! Yay!!!
I don't like it shoved down my through unwillingly by the government. Booooo! Just wait till you start paying for cap and trade if it ever takes root.

"The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall"
=P

[airdvr 210]

How long would it take to break even on that $540 investment?

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[DougH 270]

Quote

How long would it take to break even on that $540 investment?

I have to check my current utility rates to be sure.

I need to upgrade the fixtures to IC sealed units no matter what. Regular IC sealed fixtures run about 30 bucks a fixture so it really is only a 360 dollar investment.

I will gain a few efficiencys at once. Less power consumption. And better house insulation since I will have sealed fixtures, and I can finally put down the extra fiberglass batt in the attic. I had been putting that off before because the old fixtures don't allow for insulation contact.

"The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall"
=P

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I think the energy savings of a CFL bulb, which reduces power consumption (which causes mecury polution depending on the way it is generated) offsets the tiny amount of mercury in the bulb.

Yes, coal energy produces mercury as well. But the CFL mercury is in the house, with no effective methods for cleanup.

[lawrocket 3]

Great post on the California Deregulation and allowing utilities to raise prices. Turns out that setting price ceilings and monopolies tend to cause issues such as that.

If you'll excuse me, hack, cough, I'm off to post on how great government monopoly and price ceilings to control costs will mean better and more afforable health care for everyone. Shortage of supply of health services and rationing? It won't happen. Maybe some rolling blackouts...

My wife is hotter than your wife.