Avoid surprises is chief lesson from ...

Avoid surprises is chief lesson from Ohio light-bulb fight | Th...

There are 32 comments on the Columbus Dispatch story from Dec 1, 2009, titled Avoid surprises is chief lesson from Ohio light-bulb fight | Th.... In it, Columbus Dispatch reports that:

A little argument over light bulbs that broke out in Ohio provides some early lessons in meeting the tough, new energy efficiency requirements that are sweeping the nation.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Columbus Dispatch.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Chillicothe, OH

#23 Dec 1, 2009
I don't understand why First Energy invokes the ire of customers by having them pay for "FREE" bulbs at 3 times the real price. Heck, in Pickaway County, South Central Power gives us a two pack of CFL bulbs free evertime we pay a bill AT NO ADDITIONAL COST!

Chillicothe, OH

#24 Dec 1, 2009
P.S. I suppose in 25 years we will have a 50 Billion Dollar bill to clean up the Mercury contamination from all those wonderful CFLs.
mercury poison

Columbus, OH

#25 Dec 1, 2009
and when all those mercury filled bulbs hit the land fill and then the water supply what will we be charged to clean that up and pay the increase health care costs?

Lima, OH

#26 Dec 1, 2009
common sense wrote:
<quoted text>hate to throw water on your parade, but the regulations requiring the phasing out of traditional light bulbs came under the Bush administration. But then I wouldn't expect you to be aware of that. In your conservative, feeble mind all problems started in January. Guess what? No one political party created the mess were in and no one political party is going to get us out, whether it's Iraq, Afghanistan or energy consumption.
I'm sure it was just an off-the-cuff remark. Both ends of the political spectrum do this since when it's a Republican who is elected, plenty of "feeble" minded liberals blame everything on the Republican.

Columbus, OH

#27 Dec 1, 2009
Oooooh, your'e ecomomy's all flat 'an junk. Did I do thayat?

Paying power companies for power they don't have to produce sounds like paying farmers for not growing crops....oh yeah... they already do that. Its called farm price supports, another wonderful socialist program designed to benefit the few and hurt the many through higher prices. What a wonderful idea. Now...how can I get them to pay me for not working, hmmm?
Ned Ford

Dayton, OH

#28 Dec 1, 2009
Great article - Dispatch. Most of the commenters could re-read it a few times. The guy who bought the CFL's from Walmart for $1.85 probably got AEP's discounted price - this is how First Energy should have done it, and the point of the article. Mercury in CFL's is real, but it is less than the mercury in the coal not burned because the CFL's are so much more efficient. In AEP's service area CFL's save about $35 worth of electricity. In FE's service area, it's more like $45.
I date my CFL's with a marker when I put them in. The ones which burn out are disappointing, but most of them pay their purchase price, and I have a couple which are still operating after fifteen or twenty years.
These efficiency programs are, as Chairman Schriber said, cheaper than the alternative. The rules require that they are, and there are verification requirements which ensure that they perform as promised. If you are smart enough to buy all your own bulbs you are also smart enough to understand that your rates go up when your neighbor's waste requires the utility to buy a more expensive power plant.
A new coal plant today is so expensive it will cause the utility to lose sales. Efficiency technology is widely available, but most people don't buy as much as makes sense. Good utility efficiency programs have been running in other states for decades and some of those states save billions of dollars every year as a result of long-term steady improvements in their energy infrastructure. Ohio needs this to remain competitive.
First Energy's initial program proposal was ill-advised. Dayton Power and Light has already distributed about a million bulbs this year, and AEP and Duke are similarly running programs that allow people to decide what they want, but pay an incentive, usually in the form of a reduced sale price. These programs are important because they work, and we need what they offer. But getting it right is part of the bargain.
Archie Bunker on steroids

Springfield, OH

#29 Dec 2, 2009
I didn't see this mentioned, but maybe I missed it; The users are penalized for using less electricity down the road by paying MORE for what they do use!
I other words, since the electric company was going to lose the sales of the projected enery savings, they just charged more for what was being used, to offset the difference.
This was legislated into it - the power company could screw the consumer for using less power!
In addition to paying more for using less, the consumer is legislated into paying about $25 for a bulb they can buy themselves for under $7.(Whether he uses it, throws it out, or leaves it on a shelf!)
Won't it be great when we let these same government bureaucrats dictate how our health care works?
Rick Rowlands

Cleveland, OH

#30 Dec 2, 2009
Do those same Home Depots have CFLs in their lighting displays? How many hundreds of bulbs burn for no other reason than to sell light fixtures?

Also, does anyone see the underlying problem here? The government is trying to run against the LAWS of supply and demand, thinking that they can force the PRODUCER of a good to control the DEMAND for that good, through means other than price.

How are we as a state to balance this stupid mandate to reduce electricity usage by 22%(who came up with that number?) with the need to bring in jobs and business to the state? The state should do its part by discontinuing all economic development programs and then actively try to drive business and residents out of the state. Thats the only way that it will achieve the reductions they want. We as a state will be poorer because of it though.
Rick Rowlands

Cleveland, OH

#31 Dec 2, 2009
Another thought. Will our electric bills increase by 22% in 2025 to cover the lost revenue to the power companies through this lame brain reduction in usage?

Columbus, OH

#32 Dec 2, 2009
No, our rates go up 45% in 3 years
John Blutarsky

Columbus, OH

#33 Dec 2, 2009
RED BARON wrote:
No, our rates go up 45% in 3 years
And they are going to go up even more once D'Obama gets his cap and trade plan in action. Or do they expect us to believe those billions of dollars cap and trade is supposed to produce will just magically appear similar to how his health care plan will be funded?
Honest John

Columbus, OH

#34 Dec 2, 2009
What would happen, when those bulb's lifetime pass, if we all put them in boxes, saved 'em up, and then mailed 'em to those legislators who enacted the laws mandating their use? Would we thenbe prosecuted for sending hazardous materials to a public official?
Hmmmm....I dunno.
Is this what I served for?
Semper Fi.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

FirstEnergy Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News FirstEnergy raising $500 million with new stock... (Aug '16) Aug '16 lilbitmighty 1
double bill (Jan '14) Jan '14 H Sig 1
News FirstEnergy hydroelectric statio... (Nov '13) Nov '13 ndact 1
News Lawsuit against FirstEnergy claims wrongful ter... (May '08) Aug '13 pam 3
News Closing of Western Pennsylvania power plants le... (Jul '13) Aug '13 Joe 2
News Pipeline To Be Built Within Mile Of Nuclear Plant (Nov '12) Nov '12 Greg 1
News Nuclear Cracks Tied to Lack of Coating (Mar '12) Mar '12 Dan 1
More from around the web