![\"user-pic\"](\"/css/images/default.gif\")
One with Pizza the Hutt?
If they didn't want to pay five times the price of the light bulbs they shouldn't have bought a house that is tied into the grid.
@YokoOhNo: I make my own CFLs, power delivery method for energy I won't use due to the CFLs, and electric companies at home?
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-356584-100x100.png\")
I live in Ohio and first energy is my electric company. All of my light bulbs are compact fluorescent ones. So I'm basically SOL right?
@pb5000: Yeah... I am afraid we are. Never mind the fact that I have compact bulbs in every socket. Never mind the fact that I still have a few in a box that sitting in my closet.
And there is nothing we can do.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-318831-100x100.png\")
@Madaline_7: I use LED bulbs myself. MUCH less fragile than compact fluorescents, and about as much more efficient than CFLs as CFLs are over standard incandescent light bulbs. I'd be plenty pissed off if the electric company delivered bulbs that aren't as efficient as mine, with no ability to opt out of the bulbs or charge.
I do wonder though. If you pay your electric bill with a credit card, could you refuse the delivery, and chargeback the bulb fee?
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-16526-100x100.png\")
@Madaline_7: Take them to small claims court and sue them for triple damages. As long as you could show that you already have converted, and they are trying to price gouge you on a product you never ordered, you should win. Get all your neighbors in on it too, they can't fight every small claims court case, at least not the first ones. IF everyone sues, you can stick it to them.
@RPHP: for the same reason they can charge so much for the bulbs and for the fact that they want to charge for electricity you \"would have used\".
Maybe not triple, but it can't be legal to charge for services not rendered, knowing that they were not and having no intention to render them and \"selling\" the person the item that keeps them from needing the services to be rendered.
Rendered, just wanted to type it again.
@The Porkchop Express: That is a nice explanation but the basis for triple damages does not seem to be there.
You can get an injunction against them charging you the money or you can wait until they collect and show that you do not owe the money. Unless there is a law there is no way you are going to get anything more even if that is what your personally feel one is entitled to.
@RPHP: Oh I know it isn't the basis, but what is the basis for what they're doing? Fine charge for the chinese bulbs, but you know they're paying a lot less than what they're charging since they're buying so many.
Also, charging for services that you aren't providing? come on, basis be damned. They need to be sued, punished, or something to keep all the electric companies in the world from doing this crap. Three years of paying what you would have been paying? can't be legal.
and one more thing...rendered. ok that's it.
@The Porkchop Express: The issue is if you are suing someone a judge has to agree with you. What they are doing may be plain wrong but they did not ask for permission.
The best thing may be to get an injunction or get an injunction on behalf of a class.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-483565-100x100.png\")
@RPHP: And in fact they're going to--they've called a halt prior to investigation in the program and issued a statement that says they didn't approve the charge to customers: [www.puco.ohio.gov]
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-54890-100x100.png\")
@Madaline_7: Wonder if one could refuse shipment of the bulbs. Then get written proof from whatever delivery service they use, and when they try to bill you tell them to stick it.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-943594-100x100.png\")
@Coyote: When they delivered them in California, it was a guy from the Co. going door to door with bags of bulbs. No service.
Are they even warrantied like Home Depots bulbs are? I've received over a dozen bulbs from them shipped to me for free because they have burned out over the past 5-6 years. And to answer a question, I have an old house that had a three bulb socket set up in the kitchen, and when you screwed three CFL bulbs in it, one would go bad after a week. If you went with two, you were fine. Something about all three being in the same socket made them blow like crazy. It took 6 bulbs to figure out what the problem was, and switch over to one huge fixture. The others were just from being used a lot.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-237394-100x100.png\")
@GitEmSteveDave_IsWaving: I just started doing that now. I noticed that the Home Depot bulbs now only give you a gift card to Home Depot if you bought from there, but a replacement bulb otherwise. I bought in 4-packs, does this mean I will get 1/4 of a 4-pack in a gift card? That kind of sucks and makes me want to ask for 4.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-70730-100x100.png\")
this is coming from the same area that is infamous for raising our water rates because, over the last 2 decades, water usage was lower than expected.
you know, because people were conserving and what not.
let alone we have a bajillion gallon bathtub in our front yard.
Lawsuitilarity begins in 5, 4, 3...
you know...come to think of it...i'd hate to be a postal carrier. can you imagine having to carry 100+ boxes of these bulbs? what happens if it breaks? aren't CFLs more dangerous than traditional bulbs when broken?
No, they're not dangerous at all and you don't need special disposal for them.
The mercury inside the bulb is not the same kind of mercury you find in thermometers and in devices that require special handling... it's a quantity so small you probably eat the equivalent in about 20 cans of tuna fish.
If one breaks, you're just supposed to open the windows for 20 minutes to an hour so that any vapor of mercury gets aired out and then get a good mop and clean the glass and stuff off the floor, then throw it in the garbage.
A good quality bulb is about 3$ here.. Sure there are 0.80$ bulbs but it's not worth it, they don't last as long as the more expensive ones.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-196563-100x100.png\")
@toddkravos: It is pretty much the same protocol to clean up a broken CFL as it is a thermometer, IIRC. Now, I could see a problem if you broke a bunch of boxes of CFLs, but I'm going to be optimistic and assume that the company is sending them appropriately packaged.
If nothing else, if the package rattles, you know to seal it up and dispose of it appropriately.
@Pink Puppet: I wonder how many people are aware of that. I used to catch my roommates putting CFLs in the trash all the time. (It's an extra no-no here because we incinerate our trash.)
@NatalieErin: Unless you're a commercial enterprise or your state has a law against disposal in the garbage, it's actually acceptable to put them in the trash, though they're supposed to be sealed in a plastic bag. (Incineration is another matter, of course, and recycling would be better.) And according to the EPA, a single CFL has 1/100th the mercury of a thermometer. Here's the EPA info: [www.epa.gov]
@NatalieErin: Not enough people. :/ While I believe the consumer should be responsible for educating themselves, that sort of idealism goes by the wayside in practice. For all the push for these products, I've not seen an effort to really bring home the point with the public in an engaging manner.
It isn't as if the necessity of proper mercury disposal is common knowledge, particularly in the case of younger people.
@Pink Puppet: That special disposal requirement is one of the reasons I decided to avoid CFLs in the first place.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-158650-100x100.png\")
@toddkravos: CFLs are dangerous when they break. My brother was a victim of an explosion of a regular florescent bulb and that resulted in a lot of blood, a trip to the ER, and about four inches of stitches. Aside from the explosion part, they also have mercury inside.
@toddkravos: I agree. Also the shipping on hazardous materials in large numbers might have a major surcharge tacked on. This is costing them more in the end from their belief that they are going to be in compliance with the law.
They are simply going to be in more hot water than before their little adventure.
Luckily I don't have deal with this, then again, I refuse to use them, I'll stick with the much safer incandescent bulbs.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-78160-100x100.png\")
@gjones77:
Not putting you down but...
CFL's are a superior technology to incandescent bulbs. (Son of a Master Electrician here). The do use less electricity. They burn cooler (Incandescents use an ungodly amount of their wattage as wasted heat). They last longer in most applications. (Particularly helpful if a bulb is hard to access) and they have reached the mass market tipping point that makes their price competitive with most incandescents.They are available in candelabra base (thats the teeny tiny base that screws in a lot of lamps and chandeliers).The first generation of CFL's were hardly worth the trouble. They put out little light and cost the earth. Not a good deal at all. I'm glad that they have improved.
Now. The light they give off is kinda cold and sterile. Okay ,I'll grant you that. They're a hassle to legally dispose of. But the advantages far outweigh the disadvantages.
@Snarkysnake: You legally dispose of them in the trash in 40 states, providing you're a private residence and not a business.
@Snarkysnake: I'll agree with you that from most efficiency standpoints, a CFL beats a regular incandescent bulb (well, unless you're replacing the bulb in an Easy-Bake Oven).
But the same argument that favors CFLs over incandescent, also favors LED bulbs over CFLs. LED bulbs are sturdier than CFLs too, which saves you a lot of trouble if you drop one.
@Snarkysnake: Can you put them in a light on a dimmer?
No.
I don't think their value out weights their costs at all, yes they use less electricity, yes their costs have come down, but they're also more dangerous if one happens to break.
I'll stick with my incandescent lights.
@gjones77:
Yes, you can put them on a dimmer, but you'll have to buy special ones for that.
Also yes, they are more dangerous than incandescents, but no worse than any the full length fluorescent bulbs that are everywhere.
They save you lots of money in the long run and the light is perfectly fine if you get the warm white ones.
@gjones77:
There is a new advanced design (by GE ,I think) that does dim. Costs more,but it does dim.
Not to be *ahem * snarky*, but if I was correctly informed ,the worlds major incandescent manufaturers have announced the end of their production for these bulbs by , like 2014 or so. I believe that the only bulbs that will be allowed to be sold will have to meet a certain energy usage standard that was written so that only CFL's could currently meet it. Do some more checking , but I believe that the incandescent's days are numbered.
@psm321: Have you tried the \"warm\" CFL bulbs? They are, IMO, virtually indistiguishable from an incandescent.
@NatalieErin: I'm really fond of some \"daylight\" CFL bulbs that I purchased. They're cooler than normal, but they give off a very nice clean light. Sometimes I'm walking back to my room at night and the light pouring out looks like daylight at 12:00 AM.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1340486-100x100.png\")
@Dafrety: Unless you're in the Arctic in the summertime, where are you going to get daylight at 12:00 AM.
/snarkkkkkkkk
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-658088-100x100.png\")
Wal-Mart gave these bulbs away earlier this year.
This is the company that caused the 2003 East-Midwest Blackout, and also let corrosion create holes in the containment vessels of two of its nuclear reactors. No level of incompetence from them would surprise me now.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-887707-100x100.png\")
What if I already have only CF bulbs in use? They want to not just charge me for something I have no need for, but OVER charging me by 5 times at that?
Every customer of FirstEnergy needs to call their phone line and tie up their CSR people with \"I already use only CF bulbs and I get them cheaper than what you are charging me, so you need to immediately credit me for the difference between your overpriced bulbs and the ones I buy at the warehouse store\".
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1237948-100x100.png\")
I'd be pitching a hissy and returning to sender.
Even though I had my worst retail shopping experience ever (underline and bold ever) at a Home Depot, you can still buy multi-packs of these bulbs on sale where they end up costing $1.00 per unit. I still have 3 or 4 of these packs in the basement to replace the \"old\" incandescent bulbs as they burn out.
I would be filing a complaint with the PUC of Ohio so fast that FirstEnergy's collective head would spin...
which would be an interesting video, seeing where FirstEnergy's head seems to be...
@MountainCop: Quick, install a few wind turbines nearby. The resulting draft could solve the region's energy production problems for the next decade...
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-53212-100x100.png\")
Wait... WHAT?
I have less of a problem with the forced purchase of the bulb, than I do with the charging for \"the delivery of the power consumers would have used if they didn't have them\".
I smell a lawsuit.
I mean, what if the homeowner never even uses their power for lighting? (Say they only use it for heating & cooking.)
HOW the F can the electric company justify deciding HOW their customers will consume the product/service they are paying for!?
I say customers should immediately remove ALL light bulbs from their house and disable any/all light sockets. That way WHEN they take the company to court, they can claim that by using the distributed bulbs, they actually use MORE electricity than they would had they not used them. So shouldn't be charged the 'use fee'.
@2 replies by: Yeah, and if you burn down your house, you won't have to pay for heat! If you feed your car into a compactor, you'll save a bundle on gas. And if you freeze to death walking to work, you'll save a fortune on food bills...
Yeah, right.
\"and the delivery of the power consumers would have used if they didn't have them.\"
Haha, I just can't stop laughing at that line.
I'd try to organize some massive bulb smashing protest.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-38607-100x100.png\")
@Covertghost: I think this is the way the utility says we can't increase costs to cover overhead without going through a complex regulatory process, so we'll make up a charge to offset the revenue loss.
If this were my state, I'd ask my state rep to look look into this. Sure it's only $14 over three years, but this is circumventing regulatory process. Allow it once and the precidence will bite you over and over.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-34884-100x100.png\")
I think people are missing the point on \"The power they would have used.\"
The idea is, that the power company gives you more efficient light bulbs that you otherwise wouldn't have bought. They pay for them by charging you the amount you would have spent on electricity if they hadn't given you the bulbs. In theory, it is cost-neutral for the customer, and less power is used.
In reality, it is a bunch of crap, since the cost of the bulbs are well under what the customer is being charged.
@Gannoc: It's crap because they are saying how much electricity you WOULD have used, but without individual in-person assessment of each consumer's consumption the electric company has no way of knowing HOW it's customers are consuming the power they provide.
So their solution for law the company is being made to follow (in order to reduce consumer's consumption by 20%) will not work. Consumers do not ALL use their power in all the same way.
Take this scenario for example.
A customer doesn't use ANY lights at all. In fact he/she doesn't even have a house but just uses the power to run a water-pump for a well located on an empty lot.
In that case, the electric company will still send the bulb, say that by using the bulb they are saving you money over not using it, then charge you for what they say the difference in consumption between the bulb they sent you and a regular incandescent bulb (that you aren't even using).
@2 replies by: or they could be blind and in no need of lights in the house. what then? and no, I'm not kidding.
@Gannoc: I think the criticism comes from the fact that there are people who already use all energy efficient bulbs. They'll be paying for energy they weren't going to be using anyways. Not cost neutral.
Also, they will have to make a lot of assumptions - such as how much power the bulb that is being replaced would have used during that time. They could assume that the bulb would be on 24/7/365 and charge them based on that. The decision on the usage hours may be completely arbitrary. Also not cost neutral.
@Gannoc: Yes, but then what about the people that have already bought compact flourescent bulbs and had them for years already?
They can't really go assuming everyone needs them when people already have them.
@Gannoc: If they charge me the same as if I were using incandescent bulbs, but I already have CFLs then it's not really cost neutral is it? It sounds to me like a rate increase.
It shouldn't matter what device is plugged into their grid - If I'm willing to pay the $0.09/KwH then so be it. If they charge a consumer AS IF they were using incandescents in place of CFLs then the rate just effectivly went up.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-222420-100x100.png\")
@jcazz: $0.09/ KW? What planet do you live on? My rate is over $0.21/KW. Oh sure, the energy is a mere 0.09/kw, but then you have all those pesky fees to deliver it to your home. Total is over $0.21/KW. Try looking at your bill again.
This story points up the importance of paying attention when Public Service Commission (or in some states-Public Utility Commission) jobs are up for election/re election. This little slice of hell is just the beginning of the costs that utilities will try to pass off to customers as Hope And Change tries to save the earth by having us all freeze in the dark. Its not at all atypical for PSC members to vote on rate and fee increases for companies that have provided more than 95% of the money that they will spend to get elected /re-elected. These companies OWN their regulators. So don't be surprised when those regulators stick up for their owners.
That said , I hope that the same sticky fingered employees that handled the Los Angeles Light & Power bulb giveaway are in charge of this one. Case lots of the LA L& P bulbs turned up at my local flea market this summer and I replaced two houses worth of bulbs for a dollar apiece. They are great bulbs,made with cost-is-no-object care because ,well , the ratepayers are paying for them.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-373342-100x100.png\")
@Snarkysnake: I wouldn't have been quite so harsh, but I agree in principle. The problem with most of the proposals in legislation like Cap n' trade is that they force the utilities to pass the cost onto consumers. Hey, at least FirstEnergy is giving their customers something in exchange for the rate hike. They could have simply hiked prices and said \"F#$k you very much\".
Doesn't a public utility have to get permission from the regulatory commission to raise tariffs? I can't imagine a PUC giving permission to charge for electricity a customer \"would have used if they didn't have them [CFLs]\".
A few hundred angry calls to the PUC might change this.
The customers should smash the CF bulbs at the utility headquarters. They'd have to pay big to clean up the mess, with CF's containing mercury and all. I suspect that after a haz-mat bills, they'd quickly rethink their forcing the CFs on their customers.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-177822-100x100.png\")
I have like 3 CFLs in the house, basically in each fixture that can handle a CFL bulb. The rest of the house (even lamps and bathrooms) are on dimmers.
I would just tell the power company that I have the need for only one bulb and they can shove the rest of them.
Or I would just put dimmers in my closets and tell them I don't have any compatible fixtures and therefore need zero.
Businesses have a duty to make more and more money each year, even when actually producing less or delivering less service.
When things like \"the law\" or \"morality\" get in the way, they just pretend that either does not exist.
If they really care about lowering power usage - how about having customers send in UPC codes from energy efficient bulbs that customer could buy, and giving those customer a credit? Or,let's force our crappy light bulbs on them, then charge them 3x the retail, and then charge for the power that they would have used even though we are now selling that same power to someone else.
Seems clear which they will pick.
Even Better: from the source article \"FirstEnergy bought Chinese-made bulbs from three distributors\"
Damn. I am starting to stockpile incandescents this weekend. Big Brother and the Ugly Lightbulb Company are taking over the world. (Want to save on fuel/energy use re: lightbulbs? TURN 'EM OFF unless you are sitting right there where it's needed.) Git your government/utility paws off my living room ambiance.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-19238-100x100.png\")
I'm not sure if anybody has mentioned this already, but this isn't the first company to send customers unsolicited light bulbs, and then try to charge a fee.
An old trick: get government to screw it denizens. I say, class action lawsuit time. Hang on to your wallets folks. It's going to get worse!
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1296152-100x100.png\")
I just saw this memo on PUCO's site:
COLUMBUS, OHIO (Oct. 7, 2009) - Public Utilities Commission of Ohio Chairman Alan R. Schriber issued the following statement regarding FirstEnergy's compact fluorescent light bulb program.
\"The PUCO has received a large volume of calls and emails in response to the compact fluorescent light bulb program approved last month for FirstEnergy. Today, I received a letter from Gov. Strickland asking that the PUCO postpone the program until such time as we can address several questions raised by the governor, members of the Ohio General Assembly and FirstEnergy customers related to program details and costs.
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.
Although the PUCO allowed FirstEnergy to implement its program, we did not approve the charge that will appear on monthly bills as a result. Reports in the media place the cost to customers at sixty cents per month for three years, which equates to $21.60 over the life of the program. The PUCO has not approved these additional dollars nor have we received a request by the company to do so.
The PUCO will gather additional information regarding the program and its related costs. Until the PUCO has specific details regarding the program costs, FirstEnergy should not deploy its compact fluorescent light bulb program.\"
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-488475-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-24204-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-681073-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-545239-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1189516-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-917643-100x100.png\")
Isn't there a law about items delivered, but not ordered, being considered a gift? How can this be legal?
@tripnman: YOu have a contract/agreement with your electric company.
@tripnman: Very true. However there are companies whose business model pretends that law doesn't exist. One of them being a company that sends little tokens to old people and then sends a bill charging $100 for it. I guess enough old people are gullible for it, but my grandma isn't and she gets a little token she just throws in the trash. So far she hasn't been sent to collections, but I bet even the collection agencies have rules against that.
@tripnman: I think that only applies to stuff you get in the mail. However I don't know how can charge someone for something they \"would have used\".