Isn't there a law about items delivered, but not ordered, being considered a gift? How can this be legal?

One with Pizza the Hutt?

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?

@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".

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.

@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.

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.

@tripnman: YOu have a contract/agreement with your electric company.

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?

Luckily I don't have deal with this, then again, I refuse to use them, I'll stick with the much safer incandescent bulbs.

@GitEmSteveDave_IsWaving: Yep,,it's called a pre-existing condition which of course the electric company probably made changes to the contract without your authorisation or any advance notice.

@GitEmSteveDave_IsWaving: To deliver electricity, not to provide lightbulbs.

@YardanCabaret:

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.

Wal-Mart gave these bulbs away earlier this year.

@brettt: What's funny about this is that the company in Maryland actually charged less than First Energy.

@brettt:

How is it redundant? Two different sites.

@B: I'm guessing there's wording about how you can and can't use/abuse their service.

@gjones77: Not to mention, brighter...

@dragonfire81: Yes, it's very "Minority Report" of them. FirstEnergy has pre-cogs in a tank in the back room that know in advance that you were going to use that energy and an old school bulb, so they've preemptively billed you for them. How nice.

@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.

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.

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".

I'd be pitching a hissy and returning to sender.

@Jfielder23: And often longer-lasting, in my experience.

@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.

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...

@gjones77: Any risk from CFL bulbs is way overblown.

@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.

@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.

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'.

@brettt: That story is almost two years old, and is about a different state and a different company. Good job.

@LeChiffre: So did Home depot.

@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.

"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.

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.

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.

@harvey_birdman:

blown

lol

/sticking with my 50/100/150 bulbs

@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.

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.

@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.

@gjones77: And with light that doesn't hurt your eyes

@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.

@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.

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.

@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.

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.