EPA controls my new washer

[Shiny Side Up]

Bought a new washer today - old one is down for the count.

The guy at the appliance store told me this new model was 2013 compliant. I said great - what does that mean? He said it meets new EPA standards on how much water the washer uses to do a load of laundry and new appliances are limied to the amount of water they can allow into the tub.

Good Lord - can the government think of anything else to regulate??

[Firefight911]

That's a rhetorical question, right?

[Roadwolf]

If it wasn't rhetorical as others would suggest, there are valid reasons for this... just follow the link:

 

Linky

[David13]

Shiny

There is basically no water in Los Angeles. There is very little water in the entire state, except for certain areas.

There are now 15 or 20 aqueducts, large cement rivers that have been built to bring water to Los Angeles, from the mountains, and from the Colorado river. From 300 miles away.

There are lawsuits over water allocation from the Colorado river.

Long ago Los Angeles drained Owens Lake to the north dry.

It then became a huge dust bowl.

Long ago the Colorado river ceased to flow any water into Mexico. California, Nevada, Arizona, and Colorado take all the water out of it before it reaches the border.

California agriculture, largest ag state in the union, does not depend on rainfall. It wouldn't exist on rainfall. Irrigation provides the water for the vast majority of the ag crops.

In 1923 Hetch Hetchy, a huge glacial valley was dammed to provide water to San Francisco. Today they need more water.

It has been said that in the future wars in the western states will be fought over ... water rights.

Water, fresh, clean water is becoming an extremely scarce commodity. And it will only get worse in the future.

dc

[Bob Palin]

Hmm, I may need a new one soon, better look for a 2012 model.

[CVA-42]

Residential faucets, showerheads, and toilets have been regulated for some time. It only makes sense to regulate clothes washers. Increased water conservation is becoming more and more necessary as supplies shrink and drought areas spread. Plus, less wastewater produced means less wastewater to treat, a cost savings to the community which is returned to you every month depending upon how your municipality bills its water. Also, washers that use less water also use less energy, another cost savings to you. Take a look at EPA's Energy Star program for more info.

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

It has been said that in the future wars in the western states will be fought over ... water rights.

Water, fresh, clean water is becoming an extremely scarce commodity. And it will only get worse in the future.

dc

 

 

 

[lkraus]

As far as I know, there has not been a decrease in the amount of water available. Perhaps there are just too many people?

 

Larry

[Kitsap]

CA's raanking is due in large part to livestock production, a water intensive affair.

[RichEdwards]

In Florida, where water is VERY expensive, limiting water usage is always a good thing.

[TyTass]

Shiny

There is basically no water in Los Angeles. There is very little water in the entire state, except for certain areas.

There are now 15 or 20 aqueducts, large cement rivers that have been built to bring water to Los Angeles, from the mountains, and from the Colorado river. From 300 miles away.

There are lawsuits over water allocation from the Colorado river.

Long ago Los Angeles drained Owens Lake to the north dry.

It then became a huge dust bowl.

Long ago the Colorado river ceased to flow any water into Mexico. California, Nevada, Arizona, and Colorado take all the water out of it before it reaches the border.

California agriculture, largest ag state in the union, does not depend on rainfall. It wouldn't exist on rainfall. Irrigation provides the water for the vast majority of the ag crops.

In 1923 Hetch Hetchy, a huge glacial valley was dammed to provide water to San Francisco. Today they need more water.

It has been said that in the future wars in the western states will be fought over ... water rights.

Water, fresh, clean water is becoming an extremely scarce commodity. And it will only get worse in the future.

dc

I guess Sam Kinison was wrong when he said, "We have deserts in America, we just don't live in them a******!"

[moshe_levy]

Look for Energy Star appliances. They are not only top-rated by Consumer Reports, they waste less energy and resources, AND they cost less to run over the lifetime of the appliance. In many cases you can get a state rebate back for choosing them (they do cost more up front).

 

Instead of being offended that there are minimum standards to be met, why not be happy that the new machine will perform singnficantly better, will waste less water, and will use less electricity?

 

I'm not a fan of irrational hatred toward any entity. When someone presents you with a product with nothing but functonal benefits, why care if the standards it met are part of efficiency regs? Efficiency to regulate water, electricty, pollution, and other aspects of the PUBLIC domain?

 

In other words, 2+2 is 4, whether your best friend or your worst enemy says it. Concentrate on the "4," not on who said what.

 

-MKL

[moshe_levy]

PS - Once you delve beyond the pure ideological objection to minimal standards, as Tom Friedman reported, you will find that the country's major manufacturers THEMSELVES are front row center lobbying for higher efficiency standards. Why? Because the US and Euro manufacturers have the technology to produce machines with far higher levels of efficiency than the low-rent upstarts from China, India, and elsewhere. So, in addition to the efficiency of the machine itself, the minimal regs result in a defacto trade barrier as well. Something to think about...

 

-MKL

[upflying]

Don't forget the 1.6 gallon flush toilets that are now government mandated.

You will awaken the wrath of the potty police if you need to two flush.

 

[Shiny Side Up]

Don't forget the 1.6 gallon flush toilets that are now government mandated.

You will awaken the wrath of the potty police if you need to two flush.

 

 

I was wondering how folks in Kalifornia go potty with such a water shortage... You can still build an outhouse where I live at, so that may become an EPA mandate in the future for the Western States.

 

moshe_levy

Not offended - just surprised...

Take it easy...

I don't mind being conservative with natural resources - I think that's a smart and worthwhile thing to do. I just don't enjoy being told I have to comply with something from an agency that is accountable to no one...

 

Oh well... it is what it is...

[MT Wallet]

Don't forget the 1.6 gallon flush toilets that are now government mandated.

You will awaken the wrath of the potty police if you need to two flush.

 

 

I was wondering how folks in Kalifornia go potty with such a water shortage... You can still build an outhouse where I live at, so that may be an EPA mandate in the future.

 

I don't mind being conservative with natural resources - I think that's a smart and worthwhile thing to do. I just don't like being told I have to comply with something from an agency that is regulated by no one... Oh well... it is what it is...

 

Same problem I've got with it. I conserve for a variety of reasons including being cheap but when "Big Brother" gets involved I rebel. I'll flush twice just for spite

[moshe_levy]

The question is whether some people have the wherewithall to do the right thing whether or not it's regulated. I get the feeling you can present some people with an appliance that wastes less water, uses more electricity, does a lousier job at cleaning, is larger, noiser, and less reliable - but is preferrable because it doesn't have an EPA sticker on it.

 

How, pray tell, would consumers be able to compare energy usage, water usage, efficiency, et. al. without some central standardized rating agency to do it? Are we supposed to guess? Are we supposed to blindly trust manufacturer's numbers (which, sadly, Energy Star is famously guilty of?)? How is it supposed to work? Is it supposed to be totally voluntary, where your neighbor is allowed to use steam engine technology that wastes resources and swills energy, just to avoid regulation? Are you then responsible for the externalities (costs borne by the public) even though you've been using efficient goods? Just think a little further than "The EPA is involved, so it MUST be bad." Tell us, if you can, how it works in this utopia where there is no minimal standard for responsible environmental behavior.

 

-MKL

[Shiny Side Up]

 

How, pray tell, would consumers be able to compare energy usage, water usage, efficiency, et. al. without some central standardized rating agency to do it? Are we supposed to guess? Are we supposed to blindly trust manufacturer's numbers (which, sadly, Energy Star is famously guilty of?)? How is it supposed to work? Is it supposed to be totally voluntary, where your neighbor is allowed to use steam engine technology that wastes resources and swills energy, just to avoid regulation? Are you then responsible for the externalities (costs borne by the public) even though you've been using efficient goods? Just think a little further than "The EPA is involved, so it MUST be bad." Tell us, if you can, how it works in this utopia where there is no minimal standard for responsible environmental behavior.

 

-MKL

 

 

If there's a savings to be had, the free market will capitalize on it and the product will sell itself. Your neighbor with the steam engine will be paying twice as much for the same energy. His wife won't like that because it cuts into her shopping $$ and he will be forced to comply.

 

I get very suspicious when the government gets involved in anything. If you're suggesting we "blindly" trust the government numbers over someone else, be my guest. Their track record for doing what's right is not what I'd call above question.

 

 

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

Don't forget the 1.6 gallon flush toilets that are now government mandated.

You will awaken the wrath of the potty police if you need to two flush.

 

There were some poorly designed ones a while back, but there are excellent models out there now with a very reliable flush process. The best of them offer dual-flush technology: if you hold the lever down you get the full 1.6 gallons for flushing solid waste, but if you press-and-release the lever, it uses about half of that, which is enough for dealing with liquid waste. My sister's house has them, and they work very well.

 

That's a pretty impressive gain: 0.8-1.6 gallons per flush, instead of the old-school 3.5 gallons. And it's not like it involves expensive electronics or pumps, it's just an improved design that makes better use of the water so it doesn't need as much. If you hit the bathroom ten times a day, that's potentially 30 gallons of water saved per day, 900 gallons per month. Double that if you're married. Triple or quadruple that if you've got kids. That's significant.

 

I don't know whether it's worth replacing the fully functional old toilets in your house, but if your kid blows one of them up with an M-80 (someone posted about this a few years back ), then a late-model low-flow toilet can only do good things for your water bill.

[moshe_levy]

If there's a savings to be had, the free market will capitalize on it and the product will sell itself.

 

So goes the theory, but that's only part of the theory, and if you don't mention the other half the whole thing's in the toilet. This theory DOES NOT factor externalities in. Nor does it take the environment or management of natural resources into account. It only makes pricing in terms of actual product in and of itself efficient, and it is purely the consumer's choice as to how much (if any) emphasis is placed on reducing externalities.

 

So in plain English, you can buy a $150 dishwasher that is inefficient because you don't want to wait for payoff, and you don't care about water and electric usage. So can everybody else. All of a sudden the public grid is strained and the water supply is lost. Because the free market doesn't care about water and electric usage - just the price of the dishwasher. You only start to care about those public domains when:

 

1) It's too late, and prices of energy or limited resources start to rise

2) Minimum standards are established to conserve those resources, which by definition drive up the price of goods which can comply.

 

Them's the laws of economics. So, I far prefer #2 to #1. I also do not trust government numbers, or manufacturer's numbers for that matter. I do trust Consumer Reports, which has taken Energy Star to task for merely passing on 90% of manufacturer's numbers without testing. When CR tested, they found many "overestimates" of efficiency on the part of manufacturers.

 

For the record, over the past few years, I've cut my energy costs by more than half by replacing old appliances as they die with new, efficient ones. They are functionally superior, they are more reliable, and they are more efficient. The latter requires a central rating system so as to be able to compare apples with apples. Period.

 

-MKL

[Shiny Side Up]

If there's a savings to be had, the free market will capitalize on it and the product will sell itself.

 

So goes the theory, but that's only part of the theory, and if you don't mention the other half the whole thing's in the toilet. This theory DOES NOT factor externalities in. Nor does it take the environment or management of natural resources into account. It only makes pricing in terms of actual product in and of itself efficient, and it is purely the consumer's choice as to how much (if any) emphasis is placed on reducing externalities.

 

So in plain English, you can buy a $150 dishwasher that is inefficient because you don't want to wait for payoff, and you don't care about water and electric usage. So can everybody else. All of a sudden the public grid is strained and the water supply is lost. Because the free market doesn't care about water and electric usage - just the price of the dishwasher. You only start to care about those public domains when:

 

1) It's too late, and prices of energy or limited resources start to rise

2) Minimum standards are established to conserve those resources, which by definition drive up the price of goods which can comply.

 

Them's the laws of economics. So, I far prefer #2 to #1. I also do not trust government numbers, or manufacturer's numbers for that matter. I do trust Consumer Reports, which has taken Energy Star to task for merely passing on 90% of manufacturer's numbers without testing. When CR tested, they found many "overestimates" of efficiency on the part of manufacturers.

 

For the record, over the past few years, I've cut my energy costs by more than half by replacing old appliances as they die with new, efficient ones. They are functionally superior, they are more reliable, and they are more efficient. The latter requires a central rating system so as to be able to compare apples with apples. Period.

 

-MKL

 

Holy crap - I didn't know my 8 year old washer was about to cause a major environmental catastrophe... it's a darn good thing the appliance store is going to haul it off - fix it - and sell it to some used appliance store so it ends up back out in "the system".

 

The original post was concerning the EPA regulations. There's no telling how much the prices of all energy and manufacturing has increased because of their regulatory policies... but - Ok, I'll shut up - You win...

 

 

[moshe_levy]

>>>>Holy crap - I didn't know my 8 year old washer was about to cause a major environmental catastrophe...<<<<<

 

It won't, of course. But that's the entire point of externalities - costs borne by the public. It's not YOUR dishwasher. It's the effect on resources of all of them, collectively.

 

>>>>The original post was concerning the EPA regulations. There's no telling how much the prices of all energy and manufacturing has increased because of their regulatory policies<<<<<

 

That's one side of the coin, yes. The other is, there's no telling how much external costs in the form of energy, environmental damage, and resource conservation their regulatory policies have SAVED.

 

As I said, irrational hatred of any entity is usually foolhardy. If you cannot find one good thing to say, you're not looking. If you cannot find one bad thing to say, the same is true.

 

And, again, there's much more to this than energy and costs. There is trade (or barriers to) that our own US industry lobbies hard for - for a reason, not for the fun of it.

 

Enjoy your new cleaner, more efficiently washed dishes!

 

-MKL

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

It won't, of course. But that's the entire point of externalities - costs borne by the public. It's not YOUR dishwasher. It's the effect on resources of all of them, collectively.

 

For more info on this concept, read about the tragedy of the commons. This situation can arise any time there is an issue with regard to consumption/despoiling of resources: pollution of the environment, water use, even spending in collective (e.g. municipal, state, and federal) budgets.

 

When a TotC situation arises, the free market doesn't produce an optimal solution. Each consumer tries to optimize his own individual situation, with the result that everyone loses in the long run: Los Angeles becomes an unlivable smog-hole, the Ogallala aquifer recedes until wells become uneconomical and farms/cities go bankrupt trying to obtain water, and the federal budget becomes an endless list of entitlements. Regulation by an external authority becomes necessary to prevent these sorts of things from happening.

 

Reasonable folks will disagree as to how much regulation is appropriate, but I'm with MKL: a reflexive opposition to government intervention is short-sighted.

[Shiny Side Up]

>>>>Holy crap - I didn't know my 8 year old washer was about to cause a major environmental catastrophe...<<<<<

 

It won't, of course. But that's the entire point of externalities - costs borne by the public. It's not YOUR dishwasher. It's the effect on resources of all of them, collectively.

 

>>>>The original post was concerning the EPA regulations. There's no telling how much the prices of all energy and manufacturing has increased because of their regulatory policies<<<<<

 

That's one side of the coin, yes. The other is, there's no telling how much external costs in the form of energy, environmental damage, and resource conservation their regulatory policies have SAVED.

 

As I said, irrational hatred of any entity is usually foolhardy. If you cannot find one good thing to say, you're not looking. If you cannot find one bad thing to say, the same is true.

 

And, again, there's much more to this than energy and costs. There is trade (or barriers to) that our own US industry lobbies hard for - for a reason, not for the fun of it.

 

Enjoy your new cleaner, more efficiently washed dishes!

 

-MKL

 

I get what your saying - and admittedly I'm having some fun with you... BTW - it's a washing machine - we still do our dishes by hand 'cause it's more environmentally sound and we reduce our carbon footprint...

 

 

Joe - you're free to "be with" whomever you choose - That said, I still want the the government out of my house.

 

[Agent_Orange]

"That said, I'd still like to keep the government out of my house."

 

Best of luck. Let us know how it goes.

[Firefight911]

What I want to know is when they are going to actually make a dishWASHER. With most you still have to "wash" the dishes before putting them in the washer. Now there's efficiency and conservation of resources.

 

 

 

[Shiny Side Up]

"That said, I'd still like to keep the government out of my house."

 

Best of luck. Let us know how it goes.

 

Now that's funny...

[Albert]

What I want to know is when they are going to actually make a dishWASHER. With most you still have to "wash" the dishes before putting them in the washer. Now there's efficiency and conservation of resources.

 

Ain't that the truth. We live in a neighborhood that collects recyclables so we store them for the 2 week interim. My wife thoroughly rinses the cans and bottles so as not to promote the yukky stuff. I've often wondered if it doesn't turn out to be a net loss given the energy/water we're using to recycle.

[moshe_levy]

What I want to know is when they are going to actually make a dishWASHER. With most you still have to "wash" the dishes before putting them in the washer. Now there's efficiency and conservation of resources.

 

 

 

I apologize re washing machine vs. dishwasher. I have both Energy Star models. Re dishwasher I have yet to prerinse my dishes on my Bosch 500-Series model and they come out beautifully each and every time. #1 rated in Consumer Reports. Costs half what my old GE cost to run, and is dead silent while on. What's not to love?

 

-MKL

[moshe_levy]

Reasonable folks will disagree as to how much regulation is appropriate, but I'm with MKL: a reflexive opposition to government intervention is short-sighted.

 

Of course it is short-sighted. Actually if you read about it, Energy Star started because PEOPLE demanded it. They were shopping for whatever appliance, and had no way to compare brand A to brand B in terms of efficiency or energy usage. They had nothing to go on but manufacturer data, and even then different standards were used. It was impossible to compare anything in an objective way. When you shop today you will see a yellow ticket indicating a range of energy usage per year, and where that particular appliance falls. It's not perfect by any means, but it allows for apples to apples, just like you can compare similar types of cars in terms of MPG. It IS very useful.

 

There IS no free market solution to such a need, because there is no profit to make from establishing a central and standardized means of comparison shopping between various brands. Free market in terms of standardized testing itself (i.e., Underwriter's Labs, on all consumer goods) but for reporting it? Where's the profit? I'm all for free market solutions WHERE POSSIBLE, but a reflexive response of "free market" where obviously none exists doesn't help anything, and in fact actually hinders us in several ways.

 

-MKL

[Shiny Side Up]

What I want to know is when they are going to actually make a dishWASHER. With most you still have to "wash" the dishes before putting them in the washer. Now there's efficiency and conservation of resources.

 

 

 

I apologize re washing machine vs. dishwasher.

 

-MKL

 

Quit it!!! - I love people who stand by conviction... preference is wishy washy.

You are are a man of conviction and I respect that more that you could ever know!

[4wheeldog]

I live in New Messico, where water is very precious.

 

I built my house about 6.5 years ago. My 1.6 gallon toilets work just fine, thank you very much (And I have been know to "Present a challenge" to them, if you know what I mean) and work with a single flush everytime.

My Swedish washer uses very little water, and gets clothes really clean, with very little detergent, as well.

 

Our water is pumped from an aquifer about 30 miles away. The valley where the well is located has several hundred irrigated circles for hay production. Our water company pumps the equivalent of less than half an irrigated circle, to supply over 5000 residences with water. The issue is wasteful water use for crops, not toilets and washing machines. I am happy to do my part but the scale of the users define the issue.

[Bill_Walker]

I know you were talking about water, but...

 

Thanks mostly to government standards, total energy use in California has stayed essentially flat in recent decades despite significant population growth. That's not per capita use, that's total statewide use. And even though our energy prices are high, the average monthly bill in California is less than in many other states (Arkansas was the comparison point in the article I recently read). I'm sure that latter point gets some help from milder weather in California, but much of our recent growth has been in inland areas with hot climates.

[moshe_levy]

Essentially I believe this comes down to an ideologically motivated irrationality.

 

A rational person does not care one whit about where a right answer comes from - because a right answer is objectively right, regardless of its source. 2+2=4. If I say it, if you say it, if Mother Theresa says it, or if the ghost of Hitler says it. Doesn't matter at all. It's still 4!

 

An irrational person hears EPA or this group or that group, and immediately assumes that jack-booted thugs are knocking on his door to take away his personal freedom. Free market arguments are raised without considering what those limitations are. (This happens alot - go back and read the Hybrid Hatred thread for plenty of proof).

 

And even in light of overwhelming functional benefits (forget the environment - the damn thing washes clothes or dishes or whatever a helluva lot better than your old wasteful machine) they still are suspicious. Look at the title of this thread - the EPA is "controlling the new washer."

 

How? By having some minimal standard on water usage which is FAR from stringent judging by other first-world country standards? (Which keeps out the Chinese, by the way, and lets our manufacturers leverage superior technology). How? By reporting to you how much water and electricity it uses vs. other brands on an objective, standardized scale? Is this so awful?

 

What exactly is the problem again?

 

-MKL

[TyTass]

Essentially I believe this comes down to an ideologically motivated irrationality.

 

A rational person does not care one whit about where a right answer comes from - because a right answer is objectively right, regardless of its source. 2+2=4. If I say it, if you say it, if Mother Theresa says it, or if the ghost of Hitler says it. Doesn't matter at all. It's still 4!

 

An irrational person hears EPA or this group or that group, and immediately assumes that jack-booted thugs are knocking on his door to take away his personal freedom. Free market arguments are raised without considering what those limitations are. (This happens alot - go back and read the Hybrid Hatred thread for plenty of proof).

 

And even in light of overwhelming functional benefits (forget the environment - the damn thing washes clothes or dishes or whatever a helluva lot better than your old wasteful machine) they still are suspicious. Look at the title of this thread - the EPA is "controlling the new washer."

 

How? By having some minimal standard on water usage which is FAR from stringent judging by other first-world country standards? (Which keeps out the Chinese, by the way, and lets our manufacturers leverage superior technology). How? By reporting to you how much water and electricity it uses vs. other brands on an objective, standardized scale? Is this so awful?

 

What exactly is the problem again?

 

-MKL

 

Moshe. I may be slow, but I'm just not getting this standard thing you keep talking about. Why don't you explain it to everyone just one more time. I hear that the third time's the charm.

[Bob Palin]

I do have to buy a new washer. I'm not opposed to saving water and electricity, I just fail to believe that the new economic ones will work as well. That was certainly true of dishwashers when the first 'green' ones came out, they didn't do much of anything.

[moshe_levy]

Essentially I believe this comes down to an ideologically motivated irrationality.

 

A rational person does not care one whit about where a right answer comes from - because a right answer is objectively right, regardless of its source. 2+2=4. If I say it, if you say it, if Mother Theresa says it, or if the ghost of Hitler says it. Doesn't matter at all. It's still 4!

 

An irrational person hears EPA or this group or that group, and immediately assumes that jack-booted thugs are knocking on his door to take away his personal freedom. Free market arguments are raised without considering what those limitations are. (This happens alot - go back and read the Hybrid Hatred thread for plenty of proof).

 

And even in light of overwhelming functional benefits (forget the environment - the damn thing washes clothes or dishes or whatever a helluva lot better than your old wasteful machine) they still are suspicious. Look at the title of this thread - the EPA is "controlling the new washer."

 

How? By having some minimal standard on water usage which is FAR from stringent judging by other first-world country standards? (Which keeps out the Chinese, by the way, and lets our manufacturers leverage superior technology). How? By reporting to you how much water and electricity it uses vs. other brands on an objective, standardized scale? Is this so awful?

 

What exactly is the problem again?

 

-MKL

 

Moshe. I may be slow, but I'm just not getting this standard thing you keep talking about. Why don't you explain it to everyone just one more time. I hear that the third time's the charm.

 

Hello Craig-

 

Above I mentioned standards twice, and I wasn't sure which time you were referring to, so I will try my best to address both.

 

First, I said "By having some minimal standard on water usage..." meaning, well, exactly what I said. According to the EPA's Energy Star program, "A full-sized ENERGY STAR qualified clothes washers uses 14 gallons of water per load, compared to the 27 gallons used by a standard machine. That's 50 percent less water, per load. Over the machine's lifetime, that's a savings of 43,000 gallons of water." So the minimal standard to achieve Energy Star status is 14 gallons. I believe 27 is the floor for non-Energy Star rated. (When they were new, front loaders used to market the machine as being surrounded by 20 gallons of small water bottles, to illustrate water saved per load - studied those old Maytag ads in school!)

 

Second, I said "By reporting to you how much water and electricity it uses vs. other brands on an objective, standardized scale..." Again, pretty much what it sounds like. We've all seen these:

 

 

There's your standardized, objective scale in KWh/year (electric use). According to the site, "on average, a new ENERGY STAR qualified clothes washer uses 270 kWh of electricity and costs $60 to run, each year." There's your standardized floor for efficiency on your standardized, objective scale as shown above. The site goes on to say: "It's estimated that there are 84 million top-loading washers with agitators, 24 million of which are at least 10 years old, still in use across the country. Washers manufactured before 1998 are significantly less efficient than newer models. Together, these inefficient washers cost consumers $2.6 billion each year in energy and water. If every clothes washer purchased in the U.S. this year earned the ENERGY STAR, we would save 790 million kWh of electricity, 32 billion gallons of water, and 2 trillion BTUs of natural gas every year, resulting in energy bill savings of about $350 million, every year."

 

There is ALOT of information, right here http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=find_a_product.showProductGroup&pgw_code=CW including a full list of all qualified models. There is also a fully detailed explanation as to what the other standards are for ALL appliances. I know it says "EPA" on it which makes it all sorts of evil, but the standards were actually developed in cooperation between manufacturers (remember those trade barriers!) and consumer groups such as Consumers Union who were fighting for those standard, objective data to be published, to allow for better buying decisions by consumers. Apples to apples always helps when comparing. Consumer Union, however, says too much of the data is "manufacturer reported" and thus suspect (they HAVE found serious overestimations when actually tested). Second the standards are TOO LOW, they argue, since something like 30-40% of models are now Energy Star. Energy Star should be tougher to get, they say, so that it's top 10-20%, with even tighter standards.

 

All clear?

 

-MKL

 

PS - Killer, surely you trust some testing facilities like Consumer Reports? Research the product before you buy. There are plenty of excellent units functionally, which are still quite efficient. That's a matter of fact, not opinion.

[Shiny Side Up]

 

What exactly is the problem again?

 

-MKL

 

The "original problem" for me is this - I don't want Michael Bloomberg, or anyone else for that matter (i.e. EPA), in government trying to regulate, authorized and approve my every move; whether it's how big my soda cup is, how I raise my kids or if I want to get fat or not.

 

Conserving energy is fine and I have no problems with better and more efficient. Beating my clothes clean on a rock in the nearby creek is much more environmentally friendly than using a machine that consumes water, electricity, discharges waste water with detergent - my point.

However, in the "modern world" people are not going to use the creek if it can be avoided.

 

I just feel government keeps overstepping their bounds and people just accept it as "needed". Some is, but most isn't.

 

That said - It's our fault!!

 

Simply because when something out of the norm occurs, the immediate response from people is "the government needs to do something about that", and the government is happy to take that challenge on.

[moshe_levy]

I just feel government keeps overstepping their bounds and people just accept it as "needed". Some is, but most isn't. That said - It's our fault!! Simply because when something out of the norm occurs, the immediate response from people is "the government needs to do something about that", and the government is happy to take that challenge on.

 

Shiny, this is an argument that will rage until the end of time. There is no right answer here. Like Mitch said I prefer limited government too WHERE APPLICABLE.

 

In THIS specific case, in order to establish minimum baseline standards that tie into energy regulations, there IS no profit motive. There is NO motive whatsoever for a private entity to get involved. So the government - at the behest of its citizens and constituents, no less - does it.

 

What is the problem in THIS specific case?

 

And my point, if you cannot name one, is that knee-jerk hating the government is just as unproductive as knee-jerk turning to the government for every little thing. They are just two extremes on the same scale.

 

-MKL

[Bud]

Don't forget the 1.6 gallon flush toilets that are now government mandated.

You will awaken the wrath of the potty police if you need to two flush.

 

 

I was wondering how folks in Kalifornia go potty with such a water shortage... You can still build an outhouse where I live at, so that may become an EPA mandate in the future for the Western States.

 

moshe_levy

Not offended - just surprised...

Take it easy...

I don't mind being conservative with natural resources - I think that's a smart and worthwhile thing to do. I just don't enjoy being told I have to comply with something from an agency that is accountable to no one...

 

Oh well... it is what it is...

 

The CA motto: Yellow is mellow, brown is down.

[pbharvey]

What exactly is the problem again?

 

-MKL

 

Well in my little world of HVAC, the new DOE and EPA efficiency standards and refrigerant requirements have made the cost of central air conditioners increase by over 100% in many instances. In the old days if your A/C died you could install a new A/C and be done for under $2000. Now you need to replace the indoor coil as well. If you have a heat pump system that means changing out the entire air handler. Now you're looking at a $5000 job. I'm not against energy efficiency by any means but it does impact the poor the most. The DOE will be changing to regional energy standards shortly so a guy in Maine will have to purchase a higher efficiency furnace than a guy in Alabama. While that seems reasonable on the face of it how about the guy in Maine whose furnace is vented into a brick chimney in the middle of his house and let's say he has a finished basement. The new high efficiency furnaces are vented with PVC pipe which means the installer now has a find a path for the flue to the outside. There are restrictions on the piping as far as pitch and where it can terminate the house (not near windows, etc.). So now your 90 year old grandfather on a fixed income will need to spend more on a furnace than he'll ever save back on energy usage AND have to do some remodeling in his basement and now a what would have been a $2500 furnace may cost him $5000 all in the name of saving energy.

[Bud]

Shiny

There is basically no water in Los Angeles. There is very little water in the entire state, except for certain areas.

There are now 15 or 20 aqueducts, large cement rivers that have been built to bring water to Los Angeles, from the mountains, and from the Colorado river. From 300 miles away.

There are lawsuits over water allocation from the Colorado river.

Long ago Los Angeles drained Owens Lake to the north dry.

It then became a huge dust bowl.

Long ago the Colorado river ceased to flow any water into Mexico. California, Nevada, Arizona, and Colorado take all the water out of it before it reaches the border.

California agriculture, largest ag state in the union, does not depend on rainfall. It wouldn't exist on rainfall. Irrigation provides the water for the vast majority of the ag crops.

In 1923 Hetch Hetchy, a huge glacial valley was dammed to provide water to San Francisco. Today they need more water.

It has been said that in the future wars in the western states will be fought over ... water rights.

Water, fresh, clean water is becoming an extremely scarce commodity. And it will only get worse in the future.

dc

 

CA takes more than any other state. One can argue that if folks like me in Illinois want to continue to eat produce grown in CA that is how it should be done.

 

If the current dry conditions signal the beginning of a long term dry cycle for the US, water will be the biggest issue the country will have to face and it won't be pretty.

 

Currently Mexico is "saving" their water in Lake Mead.

 

US - Mexico water agreement

[moshe_levy]

What exactly is the problem again?

 

-MKL

 

Well in my little world of HVAC, the new DOE and EPA efficiency standards and refrigerant requirements have made the cost of central air conditioners increase by over 100% in many instances. In the old days if your A/C died you could install a new A/C and be done for under $2000. Now you need to replace the indoor coil as well. If you have a heat pump system that means changing out the entire air handler. Now you're looking at a $5000 job. I'm not against energy efficiency by any means but it does impact the poor the most. The DOE will be changing to regional energy standards shortly so a guy in Maine will have to purchase a higher efficiency furnace than a guy in Alabama. While that seems reasonable on the face of it how about the guy in Maine whose furnace is vented into a brick chimney in the middle of his house and let's say he has a finished basement. The new high efficiency furnaces are vented with PVC pipe which means the installer now has a find a path for the flue to the outside. There are restrictions on the piping as far as pitch and where it can terminate the house (not near windows, etc.). So now your 90 year old grandfather on a fixed income will need to spend more on a furnace than he'll ever save back on energy usage AND have to do some remodeling in his basement and now a what would have been a $2500 furnace may cost him $5000 all in the name of saving energy.

 

Brian-

 

All noted. I can agree with most of what you say, having just gone through the experience of upgrading my entire HVAC system to super high efficiency last year. (I went with Carrier). I agree, the GROSS cost went up (and the efficiency of my system MORE than doubled, by the way, from the builder-grade 10-SEER Goodman garbage that was here before to the new Carrier Infinity models).

 

Where you're off in your estimates is in the NET cost to the consumer. Sure, the sticker price is $5k. But what did he REALLY pay, NET, out of pocket? To whit, there are LOADS of incentives to buy high end high efficiency stuff, from the federal level, to the state level, to the manufacturer's rebates. By the time I was done negotiating the deal, I was within $1k of buying Carrier's low end 13-SEER ACs, and I wound up with 18-SEER top of the line high efficiency models. The feds kicked in some (see link above for applicable rebates on any appliance from Energy Star), the state kicked in some (check your state program if applicable) and Carrier kicked in a nice amount as well. That $1,000.00 differential will EASILY be made up this summer alone (with the way my wife has the damn things working overtime), and after that, it's all gravy.

 

So yes, GROSS cost is higher. Net, however, is a different story. Is this regressive financially? Yes, it is. I agree with you on that point, and that was an excellent point to make.

 

-MKL

[Shiny Side Up]

 

Shiny, this is an argument that will rage until the end of time. There is no right answer here. Like Mitch said I prefer limited government too WHERE APPLICABLE.

-MKL

 

First of all - I'm not "arguing" with you - this is an expression of a difference of opinion.

You say you believe in limited government WHERE APPLICABLE - Maybe you don't see the continuing intrusion on the personal lives of the citizenry - I do.

 

I don't recall citizens requesting any of the above - it was put into place formulated from policies never voted on by representative government - i.e. "we the people".

I have a problem with that. Again - not necessarily the policies, but the way they are implemented. Law is to be made by Congress - not a created government agency.

 

I guess the point we disagree on is not "where applicable", but "how implemented".

[pbharvey]

 

So yes, GROSS cost is higher. Net, however, is a different story. Is this regressive financially? Yes, it is. I agree with you on that point, and that was an excellent point to make.

 

-MKL

 

Thanks Moshe. The problem with the incentives is they are variable and will go away. The federal tax credit is already gone. Some state credits are gone, some are here for a few more years and some have increased. Manufacturer's rebates are seasonal and variable. You're spot on about net costs though - in some instances when the federal tax credit was in effect people were literally saving 50% on the installed cost. Of course the problem is that the tax payers are paying the other 50%.

 

Carrier just came out with a WiFi enabled Infinity thermostat by the way.

[Husker Red]

I'm all for reducing water and electricity usage - as long as it works. We bought a Energy star washer two years ago that has been a complete disappointment in terms of actually getting clothes clean. I always use consumer reports for their recommendations, but this one was a dud.

 

The hospital where I work replaced all the urinals with the water free kind. They don't flush. Ever. I imagine it's saving millions of gallons of water but the restrooms all smell like the monkey cage at the zoo now. I'm not sure this is progress.

 

And finally, some tangent humor to this topic: I read some graffiti on the bathroom stall here the other day that said, "Flush twice, it's a long way to the cafeteria from here." That might be an old joke, but it was new to me and I'm still giggling at the juvenile humor.

[moshe_levy]

 

Shiny, this is an argument that will rage until the end of time. There is no right answer here. Like Mitch said I prefer limited government too WHERE APPLICABLE.

-MKL

 

First of all - I'm not "arguing" with you - this is an expression of a difference of opinion.

You say you believe in limited government WHERE APPLICABLE - Maybe you don't see the continuing intrusion on the personal lives of the citizenry - I do.

 

I realize we're not arguing per se - I meant it in the sense of the scope of government "argument."

 

Now what I was trying to highlight to you directly is just how far ideology can trump facts on the ground. So that's why I'm focused here on THIS particular issue.

 

The EPA, like all industrialized countries on earth, has mandated a minimum standard for washing machines in terms of water used, and energy efficiency. They then have a second tier called "Energy Star" which is of a higher standard in both water and energy. Consumers now see both on a standardized scale. Energy Star is NOT mandatory for manufacturers to meet, nor for consumers to buy.

 

Yet your title is "controlled by the EPA." Is it so much to ask - not in an abstract philosophical sense, where we will go on forever - but in THIS SPECIFIC case - what the "intrusion" into your life is? THAT is what I want to know.

 

In other words, can you admit one instance where in fact the EPA is involved, but in fact it's no intrusion into your life at all? I can admit maybe 10,000 cases off the top of my head where there is needless intrusion. Can you admit one where perhaps what you characterize as intrusion is really nothing more than a voluntary centralized and objective standard setting where no private entity had reason to step up and do the job?

 

-MKL

 

[moshe_levy]

 

So yes, GROSS cost is higher. Net, however, is a different story. Is this regressive financially? Yes, it is. I agree with you on that point, and that was an excellent point to make.

 

-MKL

 

Thanks Moshe. The problem with the incentives is they are variable and will go away. The federal tax credit is already gone. Some state credits are gone, some are here for a few more years and some have increased. Manufacturer's rebates are seasonal and variable. You're spot on about net costs though - in some instances when the federal tax credit was in effect people were literally saving 50% on the installed cost. Of course the problem is that the tax payers are paying the other 50%.

 

Carrier just came out with a WiFi enabled Infinity thermostat by the way.

 

All true, Brian. I know a guy who makes a 4-5 figure income on his solar system that the state and feds basically paid for, many years ago when incentives were astronomical. There's alot of timing involved, but the educated consumer can easily find ways to get top of the line equipment for the same or not much more than mediocre equipment.

 

To the point that the appliances don't work, I haven't had that experience at all. My dishwasher, fridge, washer / dryer, and HVAC are all Energy Star, top rated in Consumer Reports and I couldn't be happier with them. ALL of them vastly outperform what they replaced.

 

Actually re appliances I've found the trick is to buy stuff sold in Europe. The reason is, the European standards are MUCH higher than ours. So my reasoning is, if they can comply over there and perform to industry norms, surely they can comply with our lower standards here and still do a good job keeping dishes / clothes clean.

 

-MKL

[Bob Palin]

Fiddling with the amount of water used by washing machines is utterly pointless as long as so many millions of households spray their grass every night with hundreds of gallons of water. There is no shortage of water almost anywhere, just a ridiculous abuse of the resource. (And I'm guilty as charged, though I have cut my lawn area in half)

[Shiny Side Up]

 

Shiny, this is an argument that will rage until the end of time. There is no right answer here. Like Mitch said I prefer limited government too WHERE APPLICABLE.

-MKL

 

First of all - I'm not "arguing" with you - this is an expression of a difference of opinion.

You say you believe in limited government WHERE APPLICABLE - Maybe you don't see the continuing intrusion on the personal lives of the citizenry - I do.

 

I realize we're not arguing per se - I meant it in the sense of the scope of government "argument."

 

Now what I was trying to highlight to you directly is just how far ideology can trump facts on the ground. So that's why I'm focused here on THIS particular issue.

 

1 - The EPA, like all industrialized countries on earth, has mandated a minimum standard for washing machines in terms of water used, and energy efficiency.

 

2- what the "intrusion" into your life is? THAT is what I want to know.

 

3 - Yet your title is "controlled by the EPA."

 

4- In other words, can you admit one instance where in fact the EPA is involved, but in fact it's no intrusion into your life at all?

 

-MKL

 

#1 - That's part of it - IMO the EPA acts as though they are a separate country - a law unto themselves.

 

2 - Already stated - stay out of my house - regulating anything and everything, in the broad sense of "regulation". They regulate my toilet, my clothes washer, my light bulbs - next is my thermostat.

 

3 - My title is not "controlled by the EPA" but rather "EPA controls my new washer" - and thereby, their mandates follow my new washer into my house.

 

4 - I can - a toxic waste spill from a train derailment - but I'm comfortable the railroad would have cleaned up the mess anyway - even if not mandated by the EPA.

 

 

Again - not the policy, per se, but the way the policy is implemented.

I'm at a loss as to how I can be more clear.