Bush DOE gets beotch slapped for air conditioner rules

[BaliBabyDoc]

Yahoo

The department had replaced the regulation with a more modest one that would require a 20 percent increase, arguing that to go further would make air conditioning units too expensive and even prevent poor people from buying air conditioners.

Maybe it's just coincidence but it seems Bushies are fiercely opposed to any initiative that reduces energy consumption.

Air conditioners account for two-thirds of electricity use during peak summer demand periods. Improved efficiency in these units is viewed as key to reducing electricity demand and easing the strain on the nation's power grids during peak periods.

I bet the energy companies would just love more efficient A/C.

The more stringent standard will save 14,500 megawatts during peak summer demand periods, enough to replace 50 power plants, said Andrew DeLaski, executive director of the Appliance Standards Awareness Project, a group advocating energy efficiency improvements.

 

[glenn1]

The article speaks conspicuously of the energy savings but doesn't mention how much cost it will add on average to AC units, not even a single time. I know it's hard to give the Bush administration the benefit of the doubt on an energy/environmental issue, but aren't you the least bit curious?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Yahoo

The department had replaced the regulation with a more modest one that would require a 20 percent increase, arguing that to go further would make air conditioning units too expensive and even prevent poor people from buying air conditioners.

Maybe it's just coincidence but it seems Bushies are fiercely opposed to any initiative that reduces energy consumption.

Air conditioners account for two-thirds of electricity use during peak summer demand periods. Improved efficiency in these units is viewed as key to reducing electricity demand and easing the strain on the nation's power grids during peak periods.

I bet the energy companies would just love more efficient A/C.

The more stringent standard will save 14,500 megawatts during peak summer demand periods, enough to replace 50 power plants, said Andrew DeLaski, executive director of the Appliance Standards Awareness Project, a group advocating energy efficiency improvements.

Probably because the energy equation is not that simple. A 13 seer unit costs about 50% more than a 10 seer unit. For someone with an older unit, the added expense may not make alot of sense. An upgrade from a seer 6 to a seer 10 is still substantial energy savings.
Also the higher seer units take up more space, so modifications may needed to make them fit(adding to cost of getting a new unit installed)


Seer 13 seems like a reasonable mandate for new construction. It seems most builders are adopting 12 and higher seer rating. The consumer is demanding more effecient units.

 

[etech]

Bali

"Maybe it's just coincidence but it seems Bushies are fiercely opposed to any initiative that reduces energy consumption."

article
"The department had replaced the regulation with a more modest one that would require a 20 percent increase, arguing that to go further would make air conditioning units too expensive and even prevent poor people from buying air conditioners. "

Does anyone else notice the glaring mistake in Bali's statement?

 

[Miramonti]

Originally posted by: etech
Bali

"Maybe it's just coincidence but it seems Bushies are fiercely opposed to any initiative that reduces energy consumption."

article
"The department had replaced the regulation with a more modest one that would require a 20 percent increase, arguing that to go further would make air conditioning units too expensive and even prevent poor people from buying air conditioners. "

Does anyone else notice the glaring mistake in Bali's statement?

Don't kid yourself, it would be a hallucination to conclude they are firmly embracing a reduction by 20%, other than the fact that they know they couldn't get away with reducing the 30% mandate all the way down to zero. Bali's statement summarizes the reality of it all.

 

[DealMonkey]

arguing that to go further would make air conditioning units too expensive and even prevent poor people from buying air conditioners

The administration cares about poor people?

 

[Chris A]

Energy efficient windows can save about %14 in utility bills. Too bad it takes about 15 years to recover the cost...

If any one was even slightly concerned about the environment they would have read the report a few years ago that stated the savings to the US with a few incentives in place for older homes to increase the amount of insulation in their homes...

These are cheap to implement and add great saving all around.. 80% of older homes are under insulated. Sadly this issue will not further some guys agenda so it will never get talked about.

 

[Jhhnn]

Yeh, well, etech, poor people don't buy air conditioners, particularly not central air, they feel lucky to have a fan...

The price difference between seer12 and seer13 units is apparently quite small-

http://www.eesi.org/publications/Fact%20Sheets/acfactsheet.htm

Increased efficiency is one way to restrain demand for electricity. Or we can upgrade the grid, increase production through greater fuel consumption...

The seer13 standard doesn't exactly push the technology envelope, either- such units have been available for many years, at a slight premium- the linked source estimates payback at 3.5 years, and the life expectancy of such at 18 years- overall, a good buy for consumers, particularly in a new home where the cost is included in the mortgage...

The Bush Admin is extraordinarily sensitive to industry "concerns", particularly those whose success is defined in a "growth" model-