What is Digg?Sponsored by newegg
Ready. Set. Shop view!
newegg.com - Newegg.com Black Friday Sale starting 11/25 3PM PST. No Lines, No Crowds, Click and Save.
25 Comments
- iheartbakon, on 10/27/2009, -0/+18Isn't there some kind of law if you receive unsolicited goods by mail that your are not legally obligated to pay?
- shawnfromnh, on 10/27/2009, -0/+12I'd say it's time for a class action lawsuit. A utility has NO right to push this onto their customers. If they are the only energy provider for that area which is highly possible then the state needs to hold investigations and hold the boards and upper executives of these companies personally responsible and fined personally and not paid for by the company and shareholders. There are also aspects of this that sound like there might be cause for criminal charges. Either would absolutely send a message out to business on how you are allowed to treat customers and how you are NOT to even consider treating customers.
I'd bring the bulbs and whatever else personally right to the utility company and ask for the manager and have him personally take all charges off my bill with threat of lawsuit if they refused since they know they have no leg to stand on. - 029A, on 10/27/2009, -1/+11This never happened. The plan is on hold.
- nickaster, on 10/27/2009, -1/+10Decoupling (done in California) makes this kind of thing possible without sending people a crazy bill. This is doubly unfortunate as it's a rip off, but also makes people associate rip offs with green ideas. Not cool!
- binaryorganic, on 10/27/2009, -0/+8Buried as Inaccurate. You can't say in your headline that the company "sent" the bulbs, and then in the story say that it's been "postponed."
But even though this article is garbage, and even though the plan is on hold, it's crazy to realize that the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio first approved the plan and only put it on hold after complaints. And it's still supposed to go through at some point. They've just got to sort out the details.
The ugliest part of this is that First Energy says they are just recouping the revenues they're losing by implementing a plan to reduce consumers energy usage. That's how they justify the large costs. And Ohio law ALLOWS them to do this. It's actually part of the deal. - WoollyMittens, on 10/27/2009, -0/+7They've probably covered themselves in the small print of the contract.
- smokestack, on 10/27/2009, -0/+6AEP (in Ohio) sent us a huge bag of CFLs, weather stripping, outlet covers, various energy saving stuff in March.. I don't think I scrutinized the bill enough to know for sure if they were charging for it, I just assumed it was because I'd just lost a job and called them for a payment plan deal..
- zoomaKabu, on 10/27/2009, -2/+7"the state’s new energy law, which requires investor-owned electric utilities to reduce consumption by 22.2 percent by 2025."
What the hell? The "state" should also "require" that it can't rain during sporting events and that Santa Claus is real.
I'll buy my own light bulbs, thank you. Their customers need to dump those CFLs on the front steps of the power company and or the state house. It is time for people to step up refuse to be treated like children. - ru155, on 10/27/2009, -0/+4Ok, so according to the news story the program was in effect for about 3 days before all the complaint calls came in and shut the program down.
So, there are tons of problems with this. The idea of decoupling via light bulb purchases is putting the screw to the consumer: it's mandatory that you use less energy (and even if you are proactive about saving it) the utility will now charge you more for that energy to maintain profit margins. This leaves no incentive for consumers to "go green." Instead consumers are now left fearful of the ever increasing price set arbitrarily by the utility based on their internal charting of planned profits w/o energy efficient technology.
We are left with legislation that sounds like it's good "cut energy usage by 22% by 2025" but basically screws over you and me in the process because politicians make a deal to let utilities continue charging us for unused energy - or raise the rates to meet that difference! And people are convinced a cap-and-trade system won't hurt consumers? Another note is the arbitrary way in which state boards (like my home state of California) and federal policies talk about mandatory cuts to energy consumption. They don't care about the economic effects on those of us who don't make 6-figure incomes really chaps my ass. They don't care about the actual feasability of implementing such policies, rather they set arbitrary goals to make themselves look like they've saved the world. - swizzcheez, on 10/27/2009, -0/+4The moral: if you think your power (or cable, phone, etc) sent you something for free it probably isn't.
- KevinRowz, on 10/27/2009, -2/+6Nature is not the kind of green that companies care about. Businesses are there to make money, and all this environmental bull**** is the perfect next boogieman for them.
- edmcguirk, on 10/27/2009, -0/+2Not really:
http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/cfl.asp
Not really more toxic than a dozen other things you don't know you are exposed to all the time. But once lawyers get involved... - ru155, on 10/27/2009, -0/+2Dude, not true. Don't pigeon hole yourself into how they want you to think about energy. Energy usage isn't the problem - it's how that energy production is had (i.e. CO2 via coal or gasoline).
Energy efficiency isn't a problem for consumers to adapt to. If you make more efficient lighting (although i really don't like the mercury factor in breakable bulbs) or washer/dryer, hybrid vehicles, etc there is a real economic incentive for folks to buy those products as they can see in decreased energy bills. You don't see many Hummers around, do you?
Jack it up for more plants? How about if we cut off Sierra Club and it's like from tying up the construction of nuclear plants in the courts? That sounds like a more reasonable solution than setting energy reductions w/o consumer protections or technology that is ready today. Too often boards assume technology advancements are on a straight upward trend, but this is naive. Take the hand blowdryer, the thing was totally energy inefficient (but better than papertowels - or so Sierra says), but you had to do it 2-3 times to actually get your hands dry. 40 years later Dyson actually builds a machine that works & uses 83% less energy than the standard dryer AND it actually works (see my hands). That's technology innovation at it's best. Find inefficency and give the people a better product to replace it with.
The point is, advancing technologies are allowing us to go smaller and more efficently. Mandating decrease in energy consumption only threatens energy producers that want to keep their profits high and they will do whatever they can to prevent or adapt to that (i.e. rate increases). Screw those people that want to maintain the status quo of the Vested Interests. - michaelamyers, on 10/28/2009, -0/+1also known as a "forced savings"
they're forced to pay for something they didn't want in order to save a few cents per month on electricity. - Ajajadude, on 10/27/2009, -0/+1Since when did a contract protect anyone from any sort of legal or civil action?
- bogdon6, on 10/27/2009, -0/+1Decoupling is the same rip-off as this plan, but you don't even get the light bulb. You still pay the higher rates for electricity you don't use.
- hereticoftruth, on 10/27/2009, -0/+1A__holes! Return them back to the electric companies and tell them to put it where the Sun doesn't shine! I think I'll go back to full spectrum incandescent bulbs. They are cheaper and put out a better light. Plus they are jacking up the prices on those fluorescent bulbs so much I don't think we will see an economic return on our investments any more. Plus incandescent bulbs are much more environmentally safer than fluorescent bulbs. Screw bait and switch environmentalism!
- ru155, on 10/27/2009, -0/+1agreement on the lawyers. I read that snopes post, and my coworkers event was about early 2008 (she lives in either VA or MD - works in DC). With lawyers you have endagerment to unwitting children (say a 2 year old) that if broken, could be in the area w/o the flight-fight mechanism to leave the spot. etc. etc. lawsuit, class action, etc.
- regeya, on 10/27/2009, -0/+1Six of one, half a dozen of another. It's either cut usage or jack the rates through the ceiling to pay for more plants.
Which bad thing do you want? There are no other options, short of everyone investing in off-grid systems or becoming Amish. - wolfmann, on 10/27/2009, -0/+0what contract? I've never signed any contract for a regular utility (gas (except my propane, but that's because I didn't want to buy a tank right away), electric, water, or sewer...)
The only contracts I've seen are for cable/satellite/phone/internet - wolfmann, on 10/27/2009, -1/+1Santa Claus is real -- it's right here:
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=santa+claus+indiana& ... - PeachesTheCow, on 10/27/2009, -1/+1That's utterly not true - decoupling does raise rates, but your lower consumption offsets it. Also, with decoupling you are under no obligation to pay anything more unless you use it.
- MatthewDuke, on 10/27/2009, -2/+1The state demanded that they provide the bulbs!
- ru155, on 10/27/2009, -3/+2One more thing, those oh-so-energy-efficient light bulbs that the president was touting.... yeah, never break it or hope you never have an accident with it because they contain mercury. Yes, a toxic gas is realeased.
Short story:
a co-worker's kid was playing in the house and knocked over a lamp and broke the bulb. She had to call the local Haz-Mat team to clean it up. The city then sent her the bill for the clean up: around $4,000. So much for being the good citizen and embrassing the energy efficient technology, which the president said will save us all a lot of money. - tugger, on 10/27/2009, -5/+2wow, $3.50 for two bulbs?
I just bought 10 for $1.50.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is