Vitaliy wrote:
> Bob Blick wrote:
>>> I am guessing ( I may not be correct ) , that CFLs are
>>> subsidized by the government.   Is this true in California
>>> and New Zealand.  When people quote a price , I would
>>> like to know what the actual cost to purchase would be
>>> without the subsidy.  Somebody is paying that subsidy and
>>> it may be moi !
>> [...]It
>> is not a government subsidy, it is a PG&E instant rebate.
> 
> It definitely *is* a form of government subsidy. Pacific Gas and Electric is 
> a government regulated monopoly: the government must approve any rate 
> increases, and the government forces PG&E to offer "rebates" to customers. I 
> don't see it being substantially different from a direct tax.

You can choose to think of it however you wish. It makes economic sense
for me to use CFLs, and people who don't buy electricity aren't paying
what you call a "tax". I don't watch ESPN, but if I buy cable TV I am
subsidizing it to the tune of $4 per month. Would that be an ESPN "tax",
organized crime, or just "good business"?

Needless to say, people in Colorado (or Arizona) are not subsidizing my
low-cost bulbs, which was the original question.

And I choose to live in California. It costs more $, but it's worth it.
I like saving electricity, and if the Public Utilities Commission (or
whoever) thinks it's a good idea to provide incentives, that seems like
a step in the right direction. There are a lot of houses here with solar
panels because of incentives. It helps further the technology and each
house is like a small pilot program finding out what works and what
doesn't when the cost/benefit ratio is different. They could do a lot worse.

> TANSTAAFL

There are if you provide them. I was with lots of people on Christmas
day giving meals to the hungry.

-Bob
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist