For many individuals, freedom of choice equates to freedom to be irresponsible. It is still currently the law in most places that people can use incandescents - and other irresponsible products and technologies. As such, these people still have the legal right, the 'freedom', to be irresponsible. However, society is constantly regulating and banning products and technologies that may or may not be used, how, where, when, why, etc.

People need to get it in their heads that environmentally damaging and wasteful products and tech.s are going to be increasingly banned, regulated, taxed, or otherwise circumscribed. The sooner people get used to it, the better for all of us.

My parents live in western Maryland, and are really pissed about the fraud. There was no information that these "gifts" of CFLs would be paid for out of your utility bill. And the 96 cents will be assessed every month making them $6 CFLs.

My parents already switched most lights to CFLs, and have replacements on hand. They don't need $6 CFLs that they don't want when they can go to Walmart and buy them for less.

I hope this will not give power conservation a bad name...it sounds like a profit move to me...some other kind of green.

=== author's comment ===
Viewed from a conspiratorial mindset, it is possible to see this as an advocacy tactic - whether consciously done or not I have no idea - that makes the green movement look bad and creates public blow back on purpose. After all, widespread use of CFL's will reduce electricity consumption, hence profits.

From a customer service view, though, it just looks like a poorly thought out process.

Which is the right view we'll probably never know.

I wonder how many people tossed them out in "protest" too? I've known many belligerent types that were so anti-environmental that they would purposely waste just to upset anyone they knew to be environmentally inclined.

Maybe someone will point that out to that utility since that would be a form of involuntary mercury pollution. As well as a general waste of resources for all concerned.

i doubt it's really that these people don't want the cfl bulbs - most, including me, would happily pay an additional .96 to get a one, it's a cost savings to me. but, i think they are upset at being forced to pay a charge for something they weren't given a choice for. there are much subtler ways to et people to switch.
the electric company could operate like a crack dealer - give them their first bulb free, and show on their bills the saving associated with using it. then charge the .96 for additional bulbs. lol

in PA we have a program that the electric co sends you 2 CFL bulbs if you log on to their website and fill out an electric usage form/website to guage your usage. Free bulbs are cool, and you can see for yourself how you save. I think the MD electric co would have made money back if they gave out the bulbs free to start.

I know using more CFLs is a good thing, but forcing people to buy them is WRONG.

If we sacrifice some ethics and principles to defend or promote other ethics and principles, we are undermining ourselves.

This same idea is being used in the war right now. We're systematically sacrificing our principles in an effort to defend them. If we do that, what are we fighting for?

This strategy shouldn't be employed ever, for anything.

Did anyone think of the impact of extra CFLs for those who have already made the switch or the possibility that some skeptical consumer will simply throw them away? (remember the first time you turned a CFL on and it buzzed and then the light appeared different?) In Montgomery County, MD, PEPCO is charging a similar fee to every consumer to cover the costs of offering subsidized CFLs through local Home Depot stores - so you pay and get nothing in return!

If you think that policy is controversial:

Pepco, which serves Montgomery County, Maryland is charging their customers in order to offer a discount on CFLs at certain stores. I'm guessing they don't partner with any small local stores.

I have to agree with brownjeans and liz. There's not a single incadescent in my home, in fact i use T5 fluorescent tubes which are FAR more efficient that CFLs.

But if my electric compay sent me something i didn't ask for and then proceeded to bill me for it, i'd refuse to pay too.

Yes, this is definitely a case where no matter how environmentally friends the theoretical outcome would be of increasing CFL use, the company really needs to make this a voluntary process (not to mention that they're charging over-the-top prices for these bulbs to consumers).

If CFLs are going to be regulated and forced down peoples' throats (not the rightway IMO because we should be regulating efficiency, not specific technologies), it is not the place of the business itself to do the forcing.

This whole CFL schtick is a blip anyway, and their popularity will be short lived. LED tech is more efficient per lumen, less heat, no heavy metals or toxics, more flexibility and longevity, and ease of recycling. These guys just wanted to appear forward-thinking and they ran into some blowback they might have seen coming.
Utilities in general are just treading water sweating their position in the market; what they'd rather not see is a serious discussion about distributed generation. This seems the most practical and cost effective way of covering gaps in the grid capacity, because it can be scaled, derived & applied locally or regionally based on need. In some places photo- or thermovoltaic, others water and tides, still others wind. Local resource for local use.
A slight tangent off topic, but there you are.

Just a thought: wouldn't that violate postal regulations? You can't change for something sent unsolicited.