DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum FirstEnergy Light Bulb Debacle Wont Go Away

I think there was a post on this back in October. At that time FirstEnergy was starting a program to force CFL light bulbs onto its customers by sending each customer 2 bulbs (retail value $6) and billing the customer OVER $21 for the bulbs. The reason? To recoup money from our lower energy use!!!

The public revolted, the Governor told FirstEnergy to get lost and it looked to be over. Now that the dust has settled and FirstEnergy is staring at nearly $800,000 in costs for their idiocy. So how do you think they are trying to go about covering that $800k????

http://www.ohio.com/business/84742127.html

Agency says FirstEnergy not entitled to recoup losses from light-bulb program

By Betty Lin-Fisher
Beacon Journal business writer

POSTED: 06:54 p.m. EST, Feb 18, 2010

FirstEnergy Corp. should not be allowed to recoup money it spent last year on marketing, storage and general management costs for its postponed light-bulb program, the state's residential utility advocate asserts.

FirstEnergy's program to distribute compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs) door to door was halted last fall after a public outcry from customers and legislators calling for a moratorium. The criticism stemmed from the company's plan to recoup the costs and resulting loss of energy use with bills at a cost of about 60 cents a month for three years, or $21.45.

The company eventually consulted with what was called a collaborative group representing customers to come up with a revised program. It received permission from regulators to package a new CFL voluntary distribution program with a three-year energy efficiency plan showing how it would meet state-mandated benchmarks.

Some parties, such as the Ohio Consumers' Counsel, objected to combining the light-bulb program with the benchmarks, saying it would delay the program.

In objections to the three-year plan Wednesday, the OCC said the Akron-based electric company should not be allowed to collect about $772,000 from consumers — $427,000 to market the program, $120,000 in storage fees and $225,000 in administrative costs.

''Collecting costs for a failed program that provides no tangible benefits for residential consumers cannot be allowed,'' said Ohio Consumers' Counsel Janine Migden-Ostrander in a news release. ''The costs from the original CFL program, which will not be used in the revised proposal, are the sole responsibility of FirstEnergy, not its customers.''

The agency also wants the PUCO to review FirstEnergy's request to collect distribution revenue it loses when customers save money from using CFL bulbs.

FirstEnergy spokeswoman Ellen Raines said the costs requested were ''to implement a program that was approved by the [Public Utilities Commission of Ohio] and not opposed by the Consumers' Counsel, so we had an obligation once we had an approved energy-efficiency program to begin implementing the program.

''We believe the costs are fair, accurate and were appropriately incurred until the program was suspended. The law allows the company to request recovery for those costs, which we have,'' Raines said.

OCC spokesman Anthony Rodriguez said the law provides for recovery of certain costs, if consumers will benefit from it. The agency believes that is not the case.

The revised CFL program will offer bulbs to FirstEnergy customers in a variety of ways, including discounts at retail stores.

FirstEnergy's plan is still under review by the commission. The earliest the bulbs could be distributed, if the plan is approved, would be late March or April.

CFLs use up to 75 percent less electricity than traditional bulbs and can last up to 10 times longer.
------------

This is why people become cynical. We save money and energy to help OURSELVES and the energy company wants to charge us more for it. We can't win. Reminds me of lost tax revenue from people quitting smoking, driving less or drinking less. These companies and the government are like heroine addicts when it comes to our wallets.

That's why I think all public utilities should be public. Local co-ops owned by the users of the utility. Not a private corp in it for profit.

Agreed. A corporation in the absence of viable competition is nothing but trouble waiting to happen.

Hopefully, the State will slap the crap outta FirstEnergy over this.

Quote:

---

That's why I think all public utilities should be public. Local co-ops owned by the users of the utility. Not a private corp in it for profit.

---

I don't have a problem with that sentiment, but when you make them "PUBLIC" utilities and thier profit margins erode, you loose innovation and investment in new technology and processes.

As for why they lost 800K, that was idiotic thinking. conserve energy, but for the energy you use, we're gonna charge you more.. gimme a break.. The folks at First Energy were really dumb about this entire thing..

Oh, and to top it off, they didn't even go to a US Maker of these bulbs.. they went overseas to buy them cheaper.. Double whammy...

I think we have a manufacturer of these bulbs right here in Aurora, Ohio.. and they fools go out of the country to save a buck to increase thier profit margins even further...

Unconscienable. Sometimes you do things because they're the right thing, not so you can squeeze out more money without having to do the same work.

Lost revenue... they're providing less freakin' electricity!

Not necessarily. We have a co-op for our water, and they continually expand and upgrade the systems. They don't do the innovation research themselves, someone else does, and THAT company profits from our co-op buying their innovations to upgrade the systems.

That's pretty cool,,

At my house we can't even use normal compact fluorescents because with our automated lighting, every switch in the house is a dimmer switch. So then we'd have to get dimmer-safe bulbs which are more expensive and defeats the purpose of saving money by using compact fluorescents.