Wouldn't it be more efficient to ignore Cambridge?  Remind the Globe $70 million could buy a lot of rolling papers

Of course they have to tout the program as one that will save money, otherwise people wouldn't buy into it. They never tell you that it is just a shell game with the money you would have spent on regular energy usage going to just another tax or fee. So there's no net gain.

Another money quote is:

"If the same electricity savings could be achieved statewide in the next
five years, it would eliminate the need for two new major power plants."

So they won't build new power plants. And if the savings are NOT achieved statewide, then what? By not building the power plants, Massachusetts will be in worse shape, and they will be calling for more extreme measures...(maybe they'll advocate turning off the electricty for so many hours a day like they did in Europe during WW II) They could tout that as saving money too!

If the price of fuel oil hasn't caused people to insulate their homes, I doubt a few dollars from a fund will do much. These are the same people that believe driving up the cost of gasoline will stop people from driving their cars.

The future, in lighting, doesn't appear to be the Compact Fluorescent but in LED lights.  I was amazed at how bright some of these lights are becoming and the advances made.  They truly do use less electricity and have a much smaller impact on the environment.  There's a reason people are pushing CFL's and it's not the energy savings, in  my opinion.

As far as air conditioners go, I haven't lived in New England for many years but, when I did, air conditioned homes were the exception, rather than the rule.  Many homes today are being built with central air conditioning, but the units being put in are energy efficient. 

Talk about much ado about nothing!

Never argue with an idiot.  They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

I think 12v (esp. solar) + LEDs will be the lighting of the future, especially if control freak politicians stay out of the picture. Chances are, the manufacturing costs of a few dozen LEDs are dwarfed by the costs of developing & making a bulb which requires molten glass to perform that kind of spiral-trick. I further suspect that someone who paid those development costs understands this obvious fact & therefore greatly fears new competiton like LEDs. I suspect the "solution" was to covertly buy a few politicians/environutcases and introduce control freakery into the process so that their uncompetitive product can still "compete." Do I have any proof of all this? No. It's the news media's job to "follow the money" on this stuff, not mine, and the news media don't do that job too-well. It's my job to be suspicious, and then (when the facts -- too late for taxpayers -- once-again prove that I'm right) to say, "I told you so!" thereby causing control-freak fans and other NB-idiots to fume & flame pointlessly.
JMR

Isn't it also the case that LEDs last a really long time?  Do they ever burn out? 

My OKI color "laser" printer at home is actually an LED printer.  No laser at all, just a series of LEDs, fwiw.

I have thrown all my light bulbs away. I now sit and curse the darkness because I forgot to buy batteries and candles. I stumbled into the fireplace and left carbon footprints all over the house. I have done enough. Tomorrow - it's Home Depot and buying some bulbs.

the Dems in NC are debating outlawing traditional light bulbs and mandating these curly bulbs by law. These idiots are debatng about creating a black market for Light Bulbs of all things.