Dim Bulbs to Take Over

Timothy Birdnow

This from the Federalist Patriot:

"You have only about six more months to stock up on 100-watt light bulbs before the government ban goes into effect on Jan. 1. These bulbs, which have been perfectly suitable for close to a century, have been banned in favor of compact fluorescent lights (CFL) that provide less-pleasing light and are poisonous when broken, but supposedly can save the average home $50 a year in electricity costs. The Department of Energy made the Orwellian assertion that by outlawing the 100-watt bulb, they're actually providing consumers with lighting choices. Two questions remain regarding this nanny state action. First, if the CFL is so great, then why does the government have to force people to use them? Second, where are the Republicans in Congress who can put a stop to this ridiculous law?"

End excerpt.

So the end is nigh for good lighting.

This excerpt points out that the DOE(pes) claim this will save the average consumer fifty bucks a year. But does it? First, does this assertion take into account the extra cost involved? Likely, but what it assumes is that the bulbs last five years are more, while most field studies show they only last about a year. But there's something nobody is considering; this is static scoring, like the CBO did with Obamacare. It assumes that this will have no effect on the price of electricity. This is wrong.

Ordinarily, the price of something will drop when demand drops. But the electric company is not a market-driven business. It is a regulated monopoly, granted by the government. The electric company is given a specific market, and it buys power from other companies outside of it's region to meet peak demand, while selling power on the market during off periods. It does not compete, except to get peak time.

According to the Electric Power Supply Association:

http://www.epsa.org/industry/primer/?fa=prices

"ISO/RTOs use a uniform (or single) clearing price auction in which electricity generators place bids with an independent market administrator for a particular time period. The independent administrator then dispatches the generators from lowest to highest bids until all power demand is met. Each generator that is dispatched is then paid the same price as what was paid to the last unit of electricity needed to meet total demand.

Uniform price auctions are used for the "spot" (or real-time) markets of all federally approved and independently run regional electricity markets. In practice, the spot market is used to serve only a portion of demand. Like a mutual fund, retail electricity suppliers serve their customers through a diverse portfolio of long-, medium- and short-term contracts, as well as the spot market.

The uniform clearing price auction drives generators to reduce their operating costs so that their bids can be lower and, hence, will be accepted - the generators that set the clearing price, and therefore meet the last increment of demand, earn little or no contribution to their fixed costs. The lower cost generators in turn are able to recover some of their long-term debt and other expenses under this auction design.

Because the last increment of demand set the clearing price, an explicit price signal to conserve electricity is established. For certain customers who can reduce their demand, a price incentive can be transparently seen."

End excerpt.

Soooo,

The bottom line is the bottom line; profits can only increase if costs are controlled. NOT consumer costs, mind you, but generating expenses. What happens if the retail end loses fifty dollars per consumer?

They will ask for a rate hike.

That happened here in Missouri; Ameren UE had asked for a rate hike several years ago, and were denied because of a public uproar. (We had had several power outages that lasted from days to weeks, and yet they wanted more money.) They said they couldn't increase generating capacity, so started a campaign to encourage conservation. THEN they asked for a rate increase since they were selling less electricity! Got it, too, although not as much as they were asking.
http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/stories/2009/01/26/daily21.html

So those curlicue nightmares will likely lead to an increase in electric prices, leaving us in as bad - or worse - condition as before. The consumer is going to be the loser any way you look at it; we'll be paying over five bucks for bulbs that put out inadequate light and require a Hazmat team to contain your living space should they break.

This is a stealth operation; they are making pie-in-the-sky promises to us to get us to accept another environmentalist idea. It's a pig wearing lipstick. It's a lie. It's part of an overall program to move America to a low-energy, non-affluent lifestyle, to create "parity" with the poorer peoples of the world. It's to get us used to the idea that government can force us to use products and services that they designate, to get us to accept that we must decline in our lifestyles, in our habits, in our way of life. They've done that with the low-flow toilets, with CAFE standards imposing higher fuel efficiency standards on cars, with building codes requiring more insulation. The government is looking to force federal inspections of homes to bring them into efficiency compliance and retrofitting at the homeowner's expense.

This is a part of the whole; it's about fundamentally restructuring our civilization, not about the public welfare.

The colonials rebelled when England required they place a tax stamp on documents and whatnot; we are having these abominations shoved down our throats and remain docile. Where is the GOP? They control the House of Representatives. Isn't it time for these guys to do that which they were elected to do?

But people still think America is a free country. Not anymore.