Arnold Schwarzenegger Lays Down the Law
Submitted by advisor on Fri, 10/30/2009 - 12:23am.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, head quartered in the heartland of America, San Francisco, has given California the right to regulate washer efficiency above and beyond DOE requirements. Press release below.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
NEWS RELEASE from the CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION
California Washing Machine Efficiency Standards Get
Go-Ahead from Appeals Court
Standards Will Save Water, Reduce Greenhouse Gases, Protect Consumer Benefits
SACRAMENTO -- Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger lauded the California Energy Commission for its successful challenge to the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) denial of California's washing machine efficiency standards. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco yesterday (October 28, 2009) overturned DOE's 2006 denial of an Energy Commission waiver request that would have required more efficient washing machines statewide. The Court ordered DOE to reconsider its action.
"This is a victory for all Californians. Water is a major and perpetual issue for California - every drop counts," said Karen Douglas, California Energy Commission Chairman. "Clothes washers that use less according to these standards will eventually save enough to supply a city the size of San Diego every year," she commented.
Filed in the court in April 2007, the Energy Commission's suit looked to overturn the DOE action, arguing that the state's washing machine standards would save substantial amounts of electricity, natural gas and water. The standards will also enhance efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions. The Energy Commission's petition to DOE, and its lawsuit, were supported by California's local water and energy utilities.
Under state legislation passed in 2002, the Energy Commission established standards to ensure washing machines sold in California after 2007 use no more than 8.5 gallons of water per cubic foot of washing machine capacity, later decreased to six gallons by 2010.
Water efficient washing machines will use, on average, only 21.1 gallons per wash, or 8,271 gallons a year - compared to typical models that used an average of 39.2 gallons per wash or 15,366 gallons a year for a normal household three years ago.
While the consumer on average may pay $130 more for a washing machine, savings during the life of the machine will average $242 in lower energy costs and water bills.
In its testimony, the Energy Commission noted that in addition to consumers, the standards will also benefit local governments as decreased water and electrical use reduces the need for additional generation of power.
A copy of the court's opinion is available at: www.energy.ca.gov/appliances/clotheswashers/
Appliances ?
The Old Iron Man Left this site 4 months ago because it had very little to do with appliances...dropped back in to see if it was back on subject...guess not. See you in 6 months.
Appliances
Please discuss appliances....................we are happy to discuss appliances.
Sub Zero
Sub Zero in Phoenix has called back all of their employees. Good deal.They must be doing something right.
"Spinoff"
Advisor ... I check this site on a fairly regular basis, hoping for news and comments about the appliance industry (manufacturers, distributors & dealers). Admittedly, I have sometimes replied to whacky comments about socialism, marxism, treason and the "one true God" but I have tried to restrain myself and leave those discussions to the dogmatic few, who seem to have much to say. Could I suggest a "spinoff?" Save this site for the purpose that was oringinally intended, and start a new site (or at least a new tab) for those folks who feel the need to express their thoughts on the origin of the universe, the Muslim threat, and the evil truth about Catholicism. Just a thought.
Cohiba
Just what I was about to suggest when you beat me to the punch. I am the furthest thing from dogmatic but you speak as a democrat now who likes diversity in everything except thought. How interesting.
One last reply
One last non-appliance reply.... Actually, I'm a "mugwomp" (mug's on one side of the fence and my womp is on the other). I like it that way because I like diverse thought. I just prefer to keep some things in their place and would rather not log on to an appliance site to read about the atrocities commited by the Catholic Church in 1347.
Correction Cohiba
I pretty much know what I say. Maybe something your not used to. I never mentioned Catholics in 1347 . There are enough problems with their behavior recently. Or are you trying to justify what they did ? Diversity ? Only by your definition. As always justified by the thought or behavior of a liberal who is liberal in his thought only.
Spinoff II
Cohiba, let's give a shot. Great idea.
We have created a forum page: Everything NOT Appliances......and Loving It: Page ONE, to discuss anything anyone wants to discuss not related to appliances.
Now If.........
Now if we could get those that are so smart to not try to save a two inch long smelt , Central California can get the water needed to raise the crops we all need to survive. Get used to $5.00/$10.00 per pound prices unless that happens. Many acres of crop growers have left them dry ...a dust bowl. Look that one up Advisor.I guess the smelt can now raise a family in peace.
Right on !!!
We, as a society need to pick and choose wisely as to what other forms of life need to be maintained and which need to be memoralized in the Smithsonian ... The bleeding heart liberals, tree huggers, et al, all have a valid place until their agenda over-rides the needs of the overwhelming majority ... then we need to keep in mind the Biblical reference that all other forms of life are here to serve man ... simple - end of discussion !!! We need to preserve our ecology so WE can breathe, we need to conserve our natural resources so WE can survive ... not the other way around !!!
By the way, this is way off
By the way, this is way off of appliances. This has moved from moves of efficiency and conservation by California to, deregulating the various wild life protection acts because you feel these acts create an artificial shortage of water.
Wow Bermuda! I really did not have you pegged as an anti-environmentalist.
1) Should nature lose protection when people choose to live where there is no water? If we were to allow the water flow you discuss, and the fish disappear won't we back here in the future when water usage rises? Why put the pain off until then.
2) As capitalists, won't the rising price of water and water derived products allow you to shift demand to substitutes that use less water? Maybe cranberries or rice aren't the best choice for a farmer in the desert? Maybe a green lawn isn't the best choice for home in the desert.
3) "All forms of life are here to serve man": This is a bizarre for me to hear. Does that mean that people who do not live by the bible should be forced to live under policy derived from the bible? So Jews, or Muslims, or Buddhists, or Atheists would have to live without some animal because 25 million people moved to where there is no water? There are many religions that believe that the Earth, the plants, the animals, and the people are all part of one single living organism. What of them?
4) Should we be deriving public policy, such as planned extinction, from the bible or any part of any religion which is not part of common sense morality?
5) Wouldn't it make more sense to have fewer people? Fewer people in places that can't support so many, and generally just fewer people? Perhaps 4 billion instead of 6.5 billion? Seems to me that your anger at this fish, tree, or liberal tree hugger is misplaced and would be better targeted at people with 3 or more children, or drive hummers, or live in 5000 ft2 homes, with 44,000 ft2 of irrigated lawns where once there were trees.
Ya got me ...
I'm confused as to how you could glean so much from what I thought was a very simple concept ... but I'll gladly address your concerns seriatim but please know that I am certainly NOT anti-environmentalist !!!
1. I simply believe that logic needs to be the norm when making decisions about which and what species need to be preserved to the exclusion of the vast majority of society ... remember the Rocky Mountain Spotted Owl ??? That one act sent the price of lumber thru the roof and caused an inflation in the cost of construction ... it also caused the use of inferior species and alternative products which have not stood the test of time !!!
Simply put, we protect & "study" way too many species to the negation of mankind ... and as I said, that's what the Smithsonian is for !!!
2. Why would cranberries or rice NOT be the first and foremost use of that property ... and while we're speaking of property, what about the wisdom of western states who actually grant tax abatements for replacing grass with surfaces which do not require watering ??? I'm all for conservation ... that's why I don't have a lawn, don't wash my car except @ a car wash which uses recycled water, and believe that bottled water is the most egregious exhibition of knee jerk stupidity promulgated on today's society in the name of "healthy living" !!!
3. I have alway believed that since we were conceived and instituted as a Judeo-Christian society, or @ least based on those principles, we ought to be able to quote the Bible ... that is NOT to the exclusion of other beliefs (not religions, sects, or fringe groups !!!) For someone to deny this indicates to me that they most likely do not have a correct understanding of the Constitutional guarantee about religion, nor the concept of the Separation of Church & State ... my contention violates neither !!!
4. Your rhetorical (I hope) query about population control is certainly a charged one, however, I do believe that those who purposely are outside the norm have no right to cause the vast majority to conform to, or because of, them !!! Outrageously obese people do not have the right to "overflow" into the next seat ... a family so large that they need a bus should realize that they are out of the norm ...
... and while it's certainly nice to show off, a couple hardly needs to live in 5000 square feet, but then who am I to decide one's "needs" as long as they can pay for it and not be a draw on the rest of us !!!
I agree on the unnecessary water use for the lawn, however, because that DOES impact everyone !!!
It boils down to the good of the many versus the good of the few ... sometimes that's not PC, nor even comfortable, but isn't that was the establishment of an organized society is all about ??? I don't get to have my way if it hurts just about everyone else !!!
Hi Bermuda,I have no
Hi Bermuda,
I have no official definition of anti-environmentalism, but the working definition is one making decisions related to the environment strictly for the sake of man. Not really malicious decisions to destroy the environment for fun, but simply never making a decision to save the environment strictly for the environments sake when man has another use for it. Anti-environmental sounds pretty "loaded", but I don't have any other word at hand.
2) When water is a limiting resource, its cost will rise. If rice and cranberries can bear the cost of water, fine, but you would think farming not requiring immersion would be more competitive in desert growing.
3) Perhaps I mis-understood your comment. Feel free to quote the bible. That's a freedom of speech issue. What I believed you were saying was that public policy should be based upon biblical teachings, I don't think they should be. Though I'm going to hate myself for this........though the people who started the country may have been Judeo-Christians, why do you say that the constitution is based on Judeo-Christian principals?
4a) Population Control: Oh no......there are way WAY WAY too many people in the world. I'm not for killing them off. They should die peacefully in old age....just with fewer kids. I'm for incentives, education for woman, and birth control, birth control, birth control out the wazoo. A family with 8 kids is a much bigger draw on society than the guy watering his lawn.
4b) I cannot tell you how much I hate when obese people flow into my seat space, and sweat onto my arm.
5) These huge homes, and Hummers......and big families (if you will), are all built infrastructure based on times of ample resources, but which are unsustainable during times of drought etc. There is no built in buffer, no flexibility in the system, they can't be re-purposed, they can't turn on a dime.
You live in California! Who knew?
way way way too many??
Advisor, I am interested in the "way way way too many people" theory. What exactly is this based upon? I would think that with your support of so many government social programs you would be in favor of MORE children, not less. For any ponzi scheme to work you need more at the base of the pyramid than at the top, no? Without more children, who funds? These Over Population theories have been around almost since population itself. I agree that at some point there is an ultimate limit to the earth's capacity to sustain human life, but I don't know that were there yet.
Very Cynical
Very cynical! Without doing any research into what I've written, I should have suggested many more revenue positive programs. Soak the rich, reduce spending on nutty military programs (F22 for example), raise import duties, and don't forget raise the retirement age.
There hasn't been a balanced budget since Clinton. We have some big bills to pay....so we better have at it before everyone dies of old age....in my evil plan.
Limits of carrying capacity: It's probably better not to find out. Why would we want to find out? The US Census projects US population as 420 - 439 million people by 2050, more than double the population of 1970, and how many of them did I really like? Twice as many obese people with their sweaty arms overflowing into my seat? Twice as many people ahead of me in the line getting my driver's license renewed. Twice as many people on my favorite beach on St. John, and eating my favorite chicken at Joe's.
People are fine and I like many of them, but enough to have twice as many of them? Not so much.
Hopeless
You sound as though you are a manic depressive. It is a shame that you are so negative on life. You should concentrate on what you have responsibility for and not to change how others live. It must be painful to walk around with all that negativity. Too many people , too fat to satisfy your comfort. Maybe you should win the lottery and become what you despise.
BB Don't Play His Silly Game
No need to stoop to his level. That is his game. Put good people and good comments that are pro business on the defensive. I am hopeful that this is someone on his staff and not him though. Probably a geek who hides behind mommy's skirt. Come out and play!!!!
Shove it.
Now take your site and shove it.Don't preach to me about the nothing you know. You and JA would make good partners.I guess anyone who has common sense or disagrees with you is a consuming magnate that does not fit your Marxist theories and attitude.
What
Ok for everyone but me to move off appliances ? I am stating a fact about idiotic people who have no common sense. Now if you want to bring that back to appliances we probably have these same kind of people running some of the companies who are being managed into the ground.There is plenty of water in California my friend. You spout the same crap about blah...blah ...blah. You don't know shit from shinola about how to run anything. Another community organizer who can't manage his way to the toilet so craps in the comment section here.I am done with this horsecrap.
You are angry for reasons I
You are angry for reasons I do not see or understand......which is fine if it get's your heart rate up to improve your stamina, but really doesn't seem connected to anything I wrote. At the very least, I was responding to Bermuda not to you directly as should have been evident by the comment placement.
No there was no problem to move off appliances, but the direction was God again, and I so wished to avoid it.
Now that you bring it up, let's hear all about your expertise in water management, or extinction, or about company (s) that were run straight into the ground.
You are a Confused Soul
The inference was there. There was no mention of God by me.My stamina is fine. As for expertise in water management,or anything else what is yours ? Let me throw it back in your court Sir Know it all about conservation and displacement of capitalist ideas. I was highly involved in the success of two very good organizations and I have the scars and experience to prove it. I look into your heart and see rage because of your weakness in being successful at something tangible.Like J A'ski who took credit and did nothing I see the similarities. See why my German friend feels the way he does about you.Bad companies ? DCS after Brockway took it over and many with greed and no plans and no managing for the future. I have several friends on Boards who have discussed with me many failures with some of these characteristics that go beyond a bad economy.What real experience do you have beyond just being a pain in someone's ass who wants to see a good future for all Americans ?