3 ms·
The government accepts public comment for regulation changes, as they should since the public is a stakeholder. But there's no standing to argue against the co
by marmetio 4y ago
The government accepts public comment for regulation changes, as they should since the public is a stakeholder.
But there's no standing to argue against the concept of a mandate in general. The government regulates public utilities, and they can make rules about the products companies sell that interface with the utility. They're not telling you personally to unplug your incandescent bulbs.
(USA-specific)
- giantg2 4y agoIt's not about being against mandates in general. It's about being against mandates that ignore alternatives, or simply don't work in certain scenarios.
- marmetio 4y agoAh, I see. I think the rules just say what the minimum efficiency should be. It's up to industry to develop alternatives and invent solutions for the new edge cases, which doesn't always happen quickly.
- giantg2 4y agoSure, but if you intentionally set that so that specific categories of products can't meet it, then it's a defacto ban. It's a pretty common practice with government - if they don't have the power to outright ban something, they add restrictions or roundabout bans until nobody wants to deal with the headache. I'll probably buy spare halogens for my basement before the ban takes effect. Dimmable PAR style LED are expensive and can interfere with my HAM radio reception without a lot of trial and error on brand.
- marmetio 4y agoThat's true about the de facto ban. I just meant that sometimes there needs to be regulatory pressure. The pressure isn't painless. Either stock up or find a new lamp that has a small business exemption or some other circumvention of the rules.