BULB BUBBLE SET TO BURST POCKETBOOKS

CALL IT GREENING RUN AMOK. Or, more forgivingly let's call it poor planning combined with petty penny pinching by a large greedy corporation with another bright idea that feels more like a swindle to consumers.

FirstEnergy, an Ohio utility, sent two $3.50 energy-saving compact florescent light-bulbs (CFLs) to customers, and then charged them $21 for the bulbs—whether they wanted them or not. According to news reports, the remaining $14 was to pay the utility back for the electricity customers would not be using because they had the new bulbs. But if customers don’t use the bulbs, or if they already have their own, they still have to pay the fee.

The scam program, which was set to begin October 12 but has been “postponed,” was FirstEnergy’s response to the state’s new energy law, which requires investor-owned electric utilities to reduce consumption by 22.2 percent by 2025. The bulb distribution was supposed to help FirstEnergy’s customers meet the new requirements.

FirstEnergy, which was a little startled by the outcry, pointed out that customers would save $60 over the life of the bulb. It was unclear if this figure was before or after the $21 fee. This isn’t the first such maneuver by a utility: about two years ago, Allegheny Power sent energy-efficient bulbs to its 220,000 Maryland customers without letting them know they would be footing the bill.

Bulb brohahas may become more frequent, as states require utilities to reduce consumption and/or use more renewable energy sources, which are typically more expensive. Critics have argued that such sweeping initiatives will raise costs and/or lower profits for utilities, who will then turn to their customers to make up the difference—some more gracefully than others. But if demand is reduced, should utilities really be repaid for the lost profits? Or should reduced consumption be seen as merely the cost of doing business in a more energy-conscious country? The issue is akin to Saudi Arabia’s demand that it be repaid for lost revenues, should oil consumption drop. In this country it’s called decoupling, and it’s a hotly debated topic. We at the TFQ call it madness, pure and simple.

FirstEnergy, headquartered in Akron, OH, is the nation’s fifth largest investor-owned electric system with 4.5 million customers in Ohio, Pennsylvania and New Jersey. If the company sounds familiar, it might be because FirstEnergy was fingered in a massive East coast blackout in 2003. Failure by the company to adequately maintain transmission lines led to a cascade of outages that left millions without power for days.

These hidden fees are taxes by theft, and amount to grand larcency, and should be stopped! This is not capitalism, OR American pride, This is madness, greed gone pathological, pure and simple.

NOTIONS OF TRANQUILITY

Terror-Free Oil Initiative is dedicated to encouraging Americans to buy fuel that originated from countries that do not export or finance terrorism. By promoting those companies that acquire their fuel supply from nations outside the Middle East and expose those companies that do not, they help educate the American public about the oil-terrorism connection and press those in power to take the necessary steps to replace fossil fuels with renewable energy.

REVISITING AMERICAN ENERGY NEEDS

The Energy Challenge is an encouraging article written by Alan W. Dowd, unless of course you are in the Al Gore back to nature camp, where nearly all technological energy is beyond dirty, dangerous, and resolutely awful for us and the planet to boot. What am I in a position to authoritatively know about these matters? Both sides have their charts, and numbers, and talking tadpoles. But if you believe Dowd, there may be a glimmer of hope for us contemporaries yet.