Feds move to tighten efficiency rules for household lamps

The Hill ^ | April 28, 2014 | Tim Devaney

[E. Pluribus Unum]

The hope is that if they make us energy efficient enough we'll all just give up and die.

[sickoflibs]

Except for the bulb what is there to make efficient?

[MrB]

Not allowing you to have lamps...

[tgusa]

What a pantload. Any Congress with a pair would simply defund DOE. But that ain’t gonna happen.

[tet68]

Why is it that whenever they talk about how WE are
saving money, WE end up paying more, for EVERYTHING?

[MrB]

Seriously... residential lighting accounts for what, 2%?, of total electricity use in the USA?

[null and void]

The Energy Department estimates the rules will save the public billions in energy bills

Yeah.

We use less energy.

Utility companies make less money.

Regulators raise the rates to make up for the loss.

Just like every other time.

[SharpRightTurn]

“The Department of Energy is looking to regulate two types of household lamps.”

The fact that a Republican president and Republican congress not only did not eliminate this department, but instead outlawed the incandescent bulb, tells you all you need to know about these “conservative” jerks.

[DoughtyOne]

With all the problems facing our nation, THIS is what they spend their time on.

It’s malfeasance in office...

Anyone signing on to this should be sent home on a one way ticket.

[DoughtyOne]

Exactly.

[cuban leaf]

I ignore them. I do not suffer fascists lightly. As long as they are an irrelevance to me, no harm, no foul.

I pray it stays that way.

[cuban leaf]

Unless you have solar. ;-)

[Buckeye McFrog]

crap....I only got a B-minus on the lamp I made in tenth grade metal shop BEFORE all of these new environmental regs came in...

[EagleUSA]

Liberals in government know nothing of unintended consequences and could not care less anyway...as history proves.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

It will costs jobs and close down businesses.

[null and void]

I have solar. They’re planning on taxing it!

[Still Thinking]

Furthermore, the rules would have significant environmental benefits. Carbon dioxide reductions from the GSFL standards would save the government between $1.3 billion and $17 billion, the agency estimates.

What??? He's claiming that if you emit a harmless gas, it costs the GOVERNMENT money?? And since when do you gauge "economic benefit" of an action by it's impact on the government anyway, rather than on the good people, you know -= the ones with jobs?

[Quality_Not_Quantity]

The Energy Department estimates the rules will save the public billions in energy bills over the next three decades and have substantial environmental benefits. But the agency also expects the rules will cost manufacturers more than $90 million, which could lead some to close up shop and cut jobs. It is weighing the costs with the benefits.

I call BS all around on this one. First, let's work out just how much an average consumer will save per year over 30 years just to pay for this wet dream. I'd do it myself, but I don't have the patience.

And the $90 million - yeah, right. Nothing the brown-shirted folk at the EPA have ever done has cost so little.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

That’s what I was implying.