Costs Of Regulations Hits Home
Regulations, whether passed by Congress/Illinois General Assembly or instituted some anonymous bureaucrat, are supposed to be good for the public safety - so supporters of regulation say. However, the costs of regulation gets filtered down to you and me or the results of regulation can affect us in other ways.
Remember when Congress in 2007, under George W. Bush, passed a law banning incandescent light bulbs after 2014? All in the name of the environment, right? Nevermind those curly Q light bulbs are chunked full of mercury (imagine breaking one in your house or having them in our landfills) and nevermind that those curly Q light bulbs are made in China. Even before the regulation has taken affect, we are feeling the heavy hand of government.
In a Washington Post article, the newspaper interviews workers of a newly closed GE plant where they made incandescent light bulbs. 200 jobs down the toilet.
Reading the Effingham Daily News this evening (read similar article from WXEF here), I see where Illinois' new environmental regulations is going to cost the city a pretty penny as well. $2 million for upgrades - despite nothing being wrong with Effingham's drinking water. Plus, to update the chemical treatment process will cost Effingham $500,000. All of this because the IEPA said so because if we run afoul of the IEPA, Effingham will not be allowed to run any more water pipes for business development. What's wrong with the current system? Not much, but the IEPA says differently (via WXEF):
When you say I don't mind, that regulation doesn't effect me, think again - it does effect you!
Remember when Congress in 2007, under George W. Bush, passed a law banning incandescent light bulbs after 2014? All in the name of the environment, right? Nevermind those curly Q light bulbs are chunked full of mercury (imagine breaking one in your house or having them in our landfills) and nevermind that those curly Q light bulbs are made in China. Even before the regulation has taken affect, we are feeling the heavy hand of government.
In a Washington Post article, the newspaper interviews workers of a newly closed GE plant where they made incandescent light bulbs. 200 jobs down the toilet.
The resulting savings in energy and greenhouse-gas emissions are expected to be immense. But the move also had unintended consequences.Nothing like giving China more jobs - for more expensive light bulbs. The jobs lost at the now closed plant in Virginia were $30 an hour jobs. Not bad pay. Am I over exaggerating the costs of regulation? According to GE:
Rather than setting off a boom in the U.S. manufacture of replacement lights, the leading replacement lights are compact fluorescents, or CFLs, which are made almost entirely overseas, mostly in China.
Consisting of glass tubes twisted into a spiral, they require more hand labor, which is cheaper there. So though they were first developed by American engineers in the 1970s, none of the major brands make CFLs in the United States.
"Everybody's jumping on the green bandwagon," said Pat Doyle, 54, who has worked at the plant for 26 years. But "we've been sold out. First sold out by the government. Then sold out by GE. " [emphasis added]
In announcing the plant closure here, GE said in a news release that "a variety of energy regulations," including those in the United States,"will soon make the familiar lighting products produced at the Winchester Plant obsolete."But that plant is in Virginia, that regulation doesn't affect us. Yes it does. Up the road from Effingham about 30 miles is Mattoon, Illinois. Mattoon boasts a GE plant that employs 600 people; the 5th largest employer in that town - and they make incandescent light bulbs. What's going to happen to that GE plant and those workers in the next few years? On top of everything, Mattoon's GE plant has to contend with doing business in one of the most unfriendly business states - Illinois. FInally, I believe the Mattoon GE plant is also the largest non-union plant in GE's system, but don't quote me on that.
Reading the Effingham Daily News this evening (read similar article from WXEF here), I see where Illinois' new environmental regulations is going to cost the city a pretty penny as well. $2 million for upgrades - despite nothing being wrong with Effingham's drinking water. Plus, to update the chemical treatment process will cost Effingham $500,000. All of this because the IEPA said so because if we run afoul of the IEPA, Effingham will not be allowed to run any more water pipes for business development. What's wrong with the current system? Not much, but the IEPA says differently (via WXEF):
The existing clearwell barely holds treated water long enough before it's released into the distribution system to meet IEPA guidelines. The new clearwell would eliminate that problem, says City Director of Public Works Steve Miller, and would allow the existing clearwell to betaken out of service for repairs or modifications.One bad test and I imagine Effingham would be in trouble. A fine I supposed would follow as well - the real reasoning for most regulations.
The City is under IEPA's "critical review" status, but is not on"restricted status", which would mean no new water customers could be added to the system until corrections were made.
When you say I don't mind, that regulation doesn't effect me, think again - it does effect you!



Comments