It looks like this guy, obama, is a dictator, not a president.
What does he know about lighting standards?
Is anyone else fed up with the government trying to take care of us and protect us by not letting us make any of our own decisions?
Bob-tx

White House announces new lighting standards

By LIZ SIDOTI
The Associated Press
Monday, June 29, 2009 4:46 PM



WASHINGTON -- Aiming to keep the focus on climate change legislation, President Barack Obama put a plug in for administration efforts to make lamps and lighting equipment use less energy.

"I know light bulbs may not seem sexy, but this simple action holds enormous promise because 7 percent of all the energy consumed in America is used to light our homes and businesses," the president said, standing alongside Energy Secretary Steven Chu at the White House.

Obama said the new efficiency standards he was announcing for lamps would result in substantial savings between 2012 and 2042, saving consumers up to $4 billion annually, conserving enough energy to power every U.S. home for 10 months, reducing emissions equal to the amount produced by 166 million cars a year, and eliminating the need for as many as 14 coal-fired power plants.

The president also said he was speeding the delivery of $346 million in economic stimulus money to help improve energy efficiency in new and existing commercial buildings.

Republicans took issue with Obama's pitch.

"Conservation is only half the equation. Even as we use less energy, we need to produce more of our own," said Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. "We have to admit there's a gap between the clean, renewable fuel we want and the reliable energy we need."

The White House added the event to the president's schedule at the last minute, just three days after the House narrowly approved the first energy legislation designed to curb global warming following furious lobbying by White House advisers and personal pressure by the president himself.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Monday that in phone calls to reluctant Democrats in endangered districts, Obama "affirmed his commitment to support the policy position that they were taking in helping to explain to their constituents and to the American public the great benefit of this bill."

The measure's fate is less certain in the Senate, where Democrats lack the 60 votes needed to block a certain filibuster.

Still, in an interview with a small group of reporters, Obama energy adviser Carol Browner said: "I am confident that comprehensive energy legislation will pass the Senate." But she repeatedly refused to say exactly when the White House expected the Senate to pass the measure, and she wouldn't speculate on whether Obama would have legislation sent to his desk by year's end.

The White House is working to keep energy in the spotlight even as Congress takes a break this week for the July 4 holiday. Obama has spent the past few days pressuring the Senate to follow the House while also seeking to show that the administration is making quick, clear progress on energy reform without legislation.

In February, the president directed the Energy Department to update its energy conservation standards for everyday household appliances such as dishwashers, lamps and microwave ovens. Laws on the books already required new efficiency standards for household and commercial appliances. But they have been backlogged in a tangle of missed deadlines, bureaucratic disputes and litigation.

The administration already had released new standards on commercial refrigeration. Lamps were next.

© 2009 The Associated Press

Bob-tx wrote:
It looks like this guy, obama, is a dictator, not a president.
What does he know about lighting standards?
Is anyone else fed up with the government trying to take care of us
and protect us by not letting us make any of our own decisions?
Bob-tx

White House announces new lighting standards

By LIZ SIDOTI
The Associated Press
Monday, June 29, 2009 4:46 PM



WASHINGTON -- Aiming to keep the focus on climate change legislation,
President Barack Obama put a plug in for administration efforts to
make lamps and lighting equipment use less energy.


[...]

But the article doesn't say what the new standards ARE.

Perhaps the president is merely going to say "Let there be light..."

HeyBub wrote:
Bob-tx wrote:
It looks like this guy, obama, is a dictator, not a president.
What does he know about lighting standards?
Is anyone else fed up with the government trying to take care of us
and protect us by not letting us make any of our own decisions?
Bob-tx

White House announces new lighting standards

By LIZ SIDOTI
The Associated Press
Monday, June 29, 2009 4:46 PM



WASHINGTON -- Aiming to keep the focus on climate change legislation,
President Barack Obama put a plug in for administration efforts to
make lamps and lighting equipment use less energy.


[...]

But the article doesn't say what the new standards ARE.

Perhaps the president is merely going to say "Let there be light..."


I heard yesterday that the new energy bill will require your home be
inspected by a government agency to check for energy efficiency before
you can sell it.

Just wait till they try to regulate how many galons of water
a toilet flush can be.... oh, nevermind. That's already
happened.

I can see an instance or two where BHO may have stepped
outside the constitutionally assigned powers.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"Bob-tx" wrote in message
...
It looks like this guy, obama, is a dictator, not a
president.
What does he know about lighting standards?
Is anyone else fed up with the government trying to take
care of us and protect us by not letting us make any of our
own decisions?
Bob-tx

Is anyone else fed up with the government trying to take care of us and
protect us by not letting us make any of our own decisions?


Actually my summer electric bill is HALF of what it was years ago because of
things like this. Basically because of "Energy Star".

I don't know if Energy Star *required* A/C, refrigerator, and freezer
manufacturers to make their units more energy efficient or if it just
required labeling? (Then consumers could pick the best models?)

But I got a new A/C unit, new refrigerator, and new freezer and this cut my
summer time use of electricity in half because these use less electricity to
operate. PLUS the A/C has a bit more BTU's than the old! And it was less
expensive ta boot!

So I LIKE this type of stuff myself.

wrote:

On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 06:01:05 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Bob-tx wrote:
It looks like this guy, obama, is a dictator, not a president.
What does he know about lighting standards?
Is anyone else fed up with the government trying to take care of us
and protect us by not letting us make any of our own decisions?
Bob-tx

White House announces new lighting standards

By LIZ SIDOTI
The Associated Press
Monday, June 29, 2009 4:46 PM



WASHINGTON -- Aiming to keep the focus on climate change legislation,
President Barack Obama put a plug in for administration efforts to
make lamps and lighting equipment use less energy.


[...]

But the article doesn't say what the new standards ARE.

Perhaps the president is merely going to say "Let there be light..."


They are going to make CFLs look more attractive, probably by
outlawing or taxing the hell out of incandescents

I've been using pretty much all CFLs for several years, and they are
fine. The only time you will notice a difference is if you have more
than one type of light source in a single room, so just make sure that
in any given room it's all or nothing. Any yes, they do save a
noticeable amount of power, as well as having a much longer life span
than incandescents.

Bob-tx wrote:

It looks like this guy, obama, is a dictator, not a president.

Don't forget to hang up that soaked crying towel or it will get mildew.

On Jun 30, 11:16*am, "Bill" wrote:
Is anyone else fed up with the government trying to take care of us and
protect us by not letting us make any of our own decisions?

Actually my summer electric bill is HALF of what it was years ago because of
things like this. Basically because of "Energy Star".

I don't know if Energy Star *required* A/C, refrigerator, and freezer
manufacturers to make their units more energy efficient or if it just
required labeling? (Then consumers could pick the best models?)

But I got a new A/C unit, new refrigerator, and new freezer and this cut my
summer time use of electricity in half because these use less electricity to
operate. PLUS the A/C has a bit more BTU's than the old! And it was less
expensive ta boot!

So I LIKE this type of stuff myself.

I like it too. I just don't want to be dictated to. The new cap and
trade bill is a killer.

Pete C. wrote:
WASHINGTON -- Aiming to keep the focus on climate change legislation,
President Barack Obama put a plug in for administration efforts to
make lamps and lighting equipment use less energy.

But the article doesn't say what the new standards ARE.

They are posted on the energystar.gov site, but I don't recall the
specifics.

Perhaps the president is merely going to say "Let there be light..."

They are going to make CFLs look more attractive, probably by
outlawing or taxing the hell out of incandescents

Non-compliant bubs will gradually become unavailable, starting with
100-Watt ones and then progressing to lower-wattage ones. Specialty
bulbs, including 3-ways and those for appliances will be exempt.

The regs. are "technology neutral." I.e., they do not specify any
particular kind of lighting.

I've been using pretty much all CFLs for several years, and they are
fine. The only time you will notice a difference is if you have more
than one type of light source in a single room, so just make sure that
in any given room it's all or nothing. Any yes, they do save a
noticeable amount of power, as well as having a much longer life span
than incandescents.

I've been using CFLs for years -- mostly Sylvania -- and they do not
last as long as is claimed, they take a noticeable time to achieve full
brightness, and some of them emit a distinct "fried electronics" smell
when they finally quit.

I've bought a few LED bulbs but of course haven't used them long enough
to comment on their longevity. 3.5 to 5 Watts consumption for the
equivalent of a 50-Watt bulb; i.e., considerably more efficient than
CFLs. The light is bluer than that of CFLs or incandescents -- closer to
daylight; some people don't like them, but they are fine for me.

Perce

"Bill" wrote:

I don't know if Energy Star *required* A/C, refrigerator, and freezer
manufacturers to make their units more energy efficient

There are indeed minimum efficiency standards for appliances that are expressed
as Energy Star standards (ie SEER for A/Cs).

On Jun 30, 7:54*am, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

Just wait till they try to regulate how many galons of water
a toilet flush can be.... oh, nevermind. That's already
happened.

And happening again. Next year the new flush standard is going down
from 1.5gpf to 1gpf. You think there was a lot of complaints about
the Al Gore toilet in the past, you ain't seen nothing yet.

On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 18:15:34 -0700 (PDT), against all advice,
something compelled Red , to say:

On Jun 30, 7:54*am, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

Just wait till they try to regulate how many galons of water
a toilet flush can be.... oh, nevermind. That's already
happened.

And happening again. Next year the new flush standard is going down
from 1.5gpf to 1gpf. You think there was a lot of complaints about
the Al Gore toilet in the past, you ain't seen nothing yet.


My toilets were installed in 1977.


WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSSSSSSCCCCCCH!





--

Don't worry about people stealing an idea. If it's original, you will
have to ram it down their throats.
- Howard Aiken

The issue with this is the same as with more gas efficient cars, and
anything else where there the current technology remains less expensive to
produce. There is no incentive for manufactures to develop improvements or
for consumers to buy the more expensive alternatives that are available. We
have to continue investing in the future and since we won't do it on our
own, legislative moves are about the only alternatives.

As others have stated, I'm happy with the CFLs I've installed. I use to
keep a pack of 60w in my nightstand because the dang light would always burn
out when I was dog tired and just wanted to get to bed - not go hunting for
a new bulb. I haven't had to replace it since putting in the CFL a couple
years ago.


"Frank" wrote in message
...
On Jun 30, 11:16 am, "Bill" wrote:
Is anyone else fed up with the government trying to take care of us and
protect us by not letting us make any of our own decisions?

Actually my summer electric bill is HALF of what it was years ago because
of
things like this. Basically because of "Energy Star".

I don't know if Energy Star *required* A/C, refrigerator, and freezer
manufacturers to make their units more energy efficient or if it just
required labeling? (Then consumers could pick the best models?)

But I got a new A/C unit, new refrigerator, and new freezer and this cut
my
summer time use of electricity in half because these use less electricity
to
operate. PLUS the A/C has a bit more BTU's than the old! And it was less
expensive ta boot!

So I LIKE this type of stuff myself.

I like it too. I just don't want to be dictated to. The new cap and
trade bill is a killer.

"Mark" wrote in message
...
The issue with this is the same as with more gas efficient cars,
and anything else where there the current technology remains less
expensive to produce. There is no incentive for manufactures to
develop improvements or for consumers to buy the more expensive
alternatives that are available. We have to continue investing in
the future and since we won't do it on our own, legislative moves
are about the only alternatives.

As others have stated, I'm happy with the CFLs I've installed. I
use to keep a pack of 60w in my nightstand because the dang light
would always burn out when I was dog tired and just wanted to get
to bed - not go hunting for a new bulb. I haven't had to replace
it since putting in the CFL a couple years ago.

Spoken like a true Liberal. Someone who can't or won't, take care
of himself so likes big brother to force him to do the right thing.
Bob-tx

Mark wrote:
The issue with this is the same as with more gas efficient cars, and
anything else where there the current technology remains less
expensive to produce. There is no incentive for manufactures to
develop improvements or for consumers to buy the more expensive
alternatives that are available. We have to continue investing in
the future and since we won't do it on our own, legislative moves are
about the only alternatives.

So, then, in a nutshell, the government forces me to transfer some of my
money to someone else and that someone else is a person or company that I
would not have otherwise chosen.

I think that's called a tax, although it IS more efficient without the
government being in the middle.

Further, the money I am forced to transfer is money I can't use for
something more to my liking, such as food for my malnourished child. Or more
beer.

As for the claim that there's no incentive for manufacturers to provide
alternatives, florescent lights have been around for a really long time.
Fuel-efficient cars have likewise been available.*

No, the arguments you put forth are simply not valid and the results of this
forced conversion are immoral. Especially the less beer part.

--------
* My 1957 VW bug got better gas milage than today's Pious.

Robert Neville wrote:
"Bill" wrote:

I don't know if Energy Star *required* A/C, refrigerator, and freezer
manufacturers to make their units more energy efficient

There are indeed minimum efficiency standards for appliances that are expressed
as Energy Star standards (ie SEER for A/Cs).

Our A/C -- installed by the previous owner in 2002 -- has a SEER rating
of 11 and apparently was one of the better ones in its day. Since 2006
it has been illegal to sell A/C in the USA with a SEER of less than 13,
and to get the new tax credit for energy-efficient appliances the
minimum SEER is 16. Some on the market now have a SEER of 20 or more.

Perce

On Jun 30, 4:13*am, Frank wrote:
HeyBub wrote:
Bob-tx wrote:
It looks like this guy, obama, is a dictator, not a president.
What does he know about lighting standards?
Is anyone else fed up with the government trying to take care of us
and protect us by not letting us make any of our own decisions?
Bob-tx

White House announces new lighting standards

By LIZ SIDOTI
The Associated Press
Monday, June 29, 2009 4:46 PM

WASHINGTON -- Aiming to keep the focus on climate change legislation,
President Barack Obama put a plug in for administration efforts to
make lamps and lighting equipment use less energy.

[...]

But the article doesn't say what the new standards ARE.

Perhaps the president is merely going to say "Let there be light..."

I heard yesterday that the new energy bill will require your home be
inspected by a government agency to check for energy efficiency before
you can sell it.

Where did you "hear" that? More of the cr**p that the Reps put out
with the sole aim of destroying Obama?

I'm an Independent, equally critical of all politicians, but this
crowd
of far-far-far Right Reps are truly desperate and destructive.

Watch out for "Swift Boat" type of rumors spread by a crowd that
still thinks global warming is a hoax!

Higgs Boson wrote:
On Jun 30, 4:13 am, Frank wrote:
HeyBub wrote:
Bob-tx wrote:
It looks like this guy, obama, is a dictator, not a president.
What does he know about lighting standards?
Is anyone else fed up with the government trying to take care of us
and protect us by not letting us make any of our own decisions?
Bob-tx

White House announces new lighting standards

By LIZ SIDOTI
The Associated Press
Monday, June 29, 2009 4:46 PM

WASHINGTON -- Aiming to keep the focus on climate change
legislation, President Barack Obama put a plug in for
administration efforts to make lamps and lighting equipment use
less energy.

[...]

But the article doesn't say what the new standards ARE.

Perhaps the president is merely going to say "Let there be light..."

I heard yesterday that the new energy bill will require your home be
inspected by a government agency to check for energy efficiency
before you can sell it.

Where did you "hear" that? More of the cr**p that the Reps put out
with the sole aim of destroying Obama?

I'm an Independent, equally critical of all politicians, but this
crowd
of far-far-far Right Reps are truly desperate and destructive.


It's already the law in some places. For example:

"[San Francisco] Effective September 20, 1982, owners of residential
property who wish to sell their property, must obtain a valid energy
inspection, install certain energy (since 1991) and water conservation
devices or materials and then obtain a certi?cate of compliance. All of
this must occur prior to transfer of title of any residential buildings as
speci? ed in the ordinance, and the seller must provide a copy of the
compliance certi?cate to the buyer prior to title transfer."

The certificate of compliance includes such things as attic insulation
(minimum of R19), weather-stripping, water heater insulation, low-flow
showerheads, low-flush toilets, etc.
http://www.sfgov.org/site/uploadedfi...nsBk1107v5.pdf

As to national requirements, American Clean Energy and Security Act bill
(the "Waxman-Markey Bill") did recently pass the House of Representatives
(219-212). The original bill required new and existing homes and buildings
to undergo an energy evaluation inspection at the time of transfer (sale).

The original bill was modified to apply only to new homes, exempting
existing resale homes from its requirements.

There is no denying, however, that Waxman and Markey TRIED to get all homes
included.

Maybe next year.

As to how the poster may have come by this information, he could have read
the bill (which, evidently, 435 members of the House did not), specifically:

"`(3) VIOLATIONS- It shall be a violation of this section for an owner or
builder of a building to knowingly occupy, permit occupancy of, or convey
the building if the building is subject to the requirements of-
(A) a State energy efficiency building code with respect to which a
certification has been accepted by the Secretary under subsection (c)(2)(B);
(B) a local energy efficiency building code with respect to which a
certification has been accepted by the Secretary under subsection (e)(6)(B);
or
(C) a national energy efficiency building code adopted under subsection
(c)(1)(A)(i) or made applicable under paragraph (1) of this subsection, if
the building was constructed out of compliance with such code.
http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/...Xwk6S:e248424:

Or, he could have read any of 108 news articles on the subject.
http://news.google.com/news?ned=us&h...FdOsinM&cf=all

Specifically:
"Waxman-Markey contains unpleasant surprises for Americans, including a
provision which could prevent homeowners from selling their homes if they
aren't retrofitted to meet federal "green" guidelines. But the House passed
the 1,400-page bill before its members had an opportunity to read it, much
less ponder its implications. Let's pray the Senate is more responsible."

http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll...0310/-1/NEWS32

Most of the attention to this bill is centered around the carbon-offset
business involving cap-and-trade. One of the stealth provisions, however, in
this 1,400-page document is a national building standard, at least in regard
to energy efficiency.

Obviously, treehouses and Boy Scout tents will be a thing of the past.

Bottom line: The rumored provisions are NOT crap put out by the Republicans
with a view toward discrediting Obama.

HeyBub wrote:
Higgs Boson wrote:
On Jun 30, 4:13 am, Frank wrote:
HeyBub wrote:
Bob-tx wrote:
It looks like this guy, obama, is a dictator, not a president.
What does he know about lighting standards?
Is anyone else fed up with the government trying to take care of us
and protect us by not letting us make any of our own decisions?
Bob-tx
White House announces new lighting standards
By LIZ SIDOTI
The Associated Press
Monday, June 29, 2009 4:46 PM
WASHINGTON -- Aiming to keep the focus on climate change
legislation, President Barack Obama put a plug in for
administration efforts to make lamps and lighting equipment use
less energy.
[...]
But the article doesn't say what the new standards ARE.
Perhaps the president is merely going to say "Let there be light..."
I heard yesterday that the new energy bill will require your home be
inspected by a government agency to check for energy efficiency
before you can sell it.
Where did you "hear" that? More of the cr**p that the Reps put out
with the sole aim of destroying Obama?

I'm an Independent, equally critical of all politicians, but this
crowd
of far-far-far Right Reps are truly desperate and destructive.


It's already the law in some places. For example:

"[San Francisco] Effective September 20, 1982, owners of residential
property who wish to sell their property, must obtain a valid energy
inspection, install certain energy (since 1991) and water conservation
devices or materials and then obtain a certi?cate of compliance. All of
this must occur prior to transfer of title of any residential buildings as
speci? ed in the ordinance, and the seller must provide a copy of the
compliance certi?cate to the buyer prior to title transfer."

The certificate of compliance includes such things as attic insulation
(minimum of R19), weather-stripping, water heater insulation, low-flow
showerheads, low-flush toilets, etc.
http://www.sfgov.org/site/uploadedfi...nsBk1107v5.pdf

As to national requirements, American Clean Energy and Security Act bill
(the "Waxman-Markey Bill") did recently pass the House of Representatives
(219-212). The original bill required new and existing homes and buildings
to undergo an energy evaluation inspection at the time of transfer (sale).

The original bill was modified to apply only to new homes, exempting
existing resale homes from its requirements.

There is no denying, however, that Waxman and Markey TRIED to get all homes
included.

Maybe next year.

As to how the poster may have come by this information, he could have read
the bill (which, evidently, 435 members of the House did not), specifically:

"`(3) VIOLATIONS- It shall be a violation of this section for an owner or
builder of a building to knowingly occupy, permit occupancy of, or convey
the building if the building is subject to the requirements of-
(A) a State energy efficiency building code with respect to which a
certification has been accepted by the Secretary under subsection (c)(2)(B);
(B) a local energy efficiency building code with respect to which a
certification has been accepted by the Secretary under subsection (e)(6)(B);
or
(C) a national energy efficiency building code adopted under subsection
(c)(1)(A)(i) or made applicable under paragraph (1) of this subsection, if
the building was constructed out of compliance with such code.
http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/...Xwk6S:e248424:

Or, he could have read any of 108 news articles on the subject.
http://news.google.com/news?ned=us&h...FdOsinM&cf=all

Specifically:
"Waxman-Markey contains unpleasant surprises for Americans, including a
provision which could prevent homeowners from selling their homes if they
aren't retrofitted to meet federal "green" guidelines. But the House passed
the 1,400-page bill before its members had an opportunity to read it, much
less ponder its implications. Let's pray the Senate is more responsible."

http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll...0310/-1/NEWS32

Most of the attention to this bill is centered around the carbon-offset
business involving cap-and-trade. One of the stealth provisions, however, in
this 1,400-page document is a national building standard, at least in regard
to energy efficiency.

Obviously, treehouses and Boy Scout tents will be a thing of the past.

Bottom line: The rumored provisions are NOT crap put out by the Republicans
with a view toward discrediting Obama.



The plumbers around here have a loaner toilet that meets
all the government specs and after inspection, remove it
and install one that works. I see a whole new underground
industry of government required update rentals for people
who wish to sell their property. A group comes in and installs
all the water flow restricting devices and energy saving crap
and comes back later to remove it all to reuse on the next house.
People are going to figure out ways to get around all the
nonsense then some bright bureaucrat will write a surprise
inspection regulation and people will wind up getting killed
by the machine gun toting enforcement drones when they refuse
them entry into their homes. Living in a third world country
will be fun by the time the Liberal wackos get done turning The
U.S. into one. *snicker*

TDD

The Daring Dufas wrote:

The plumbers around here have a loaner toilet that meets
all the government specs and after inspection, remove it
and install one that works. I see a whole new underground
industry of government required update rentals for people
who wish to sell their property. A group comes in and installs
all the water flow restricting devices and energy saving crap
and comes back later to remove it all to reuse on the next house.
People are going to figure out ways to get around all the
nonsense then some bright bureaucrat will write a surprise
inspection regulation and people will wind up getting killed
by the machine gun toting enforcement drones when they refuse
them entry into their homes. Living in a third world country
will be fun by the time the Liberal wackos get done turning The
U.S. into one. *snicker*

We have had three 1.6gpf toilets for 4 or 5 years, and they work fine.
Some on the market now have even larger traps, so they may well work
just as well -- or better -- with even less water.

Perce

In , HeyBub said in part:

SNIP previopusly quoted material

SNIP what appears to me to be various energy efficiency mandates that
some or many buildings have to meet in order ot be legally sold,
with some of these mandates being municipal in scale

Obviously, treehouses and Boy Scout tents will be a thing of the past.

It appears to me that this line is an overstatement detracting from your
argument. Treehouses and Boy Scout tents appear to me to be put into use
and to be used either when/where/how building codes have less
applicability, or when/where there is cultural lack of enforcement of
building codes that make such things illegal.

Furthermore, it appears to me that treehouses and tents rank very low
worldwide for energy consumption for climate control. As a result, I
expect that their exemptions, whether overtly legal or a matter of local
culture, did well, continue to do well, and will do so in the foreseeable
future and do so justifiably.

Bottom line: The rumored provisions are NOT crap put out by the Republicans
with a view toward discrediting Obama.

I like what you said elsewhere about (IIRC) Texas penal code allowing
use of deadly force to defend property.
But I think that exaggerating negative effect of proposed upcoming laws
calls into question credibility of opponents of proposed upcoming laws.

- Don Klipstein )

In , The Daring Dufas wrote:

I snip to what Daring Dufas wrote:

The plumbers around here have a loaner toilet that meets
all the government specs and after inspection, remove it
and install one that works. I see a whole new underground
industry of government required update rentals for people
who wish to sell their property. A group comes in and installs
all the water flow restricting devices and energy saving crap
and comes back later to remove it all to reuse on the next house.
People are going to figure out ways to get around all the
nonsense then some bright bureaucrat will write a surprise
inspection regulation and people will wind up getting killed
by the machine gun toting enforcement drones when they refuse
them entry into their homes. Living in a third world country
will be fun by the time the Liberal wackos get done turning The
U.S. into one. *snicker*

And so how many gallons per flush are those mandated toilets that
are so weak as to be rentals rented to be present for the inspection?

As much as I heard 1.6 gallon/flush toilets badmouthed 5-12 years
ago, the best-flushing toilets I ever saw were 1.6 gallon/flush ones
that came in after the earlier failing 1.6-GPF ones that appeared to me
"to be made for showing insufficiency of 1.6 GPF toilets".

- Don Klipstein )

Don Klipstein wrote:
In , The Daring Dufas wrote:

I snip to what Daring Dufas wrote:

The plumbers around here have a loaner toilet that meets
all the government specs and after inspection, remove it
and install one that works. I see a whole new underground
industry of government required update rentals for people
who wish to sell their property. A group comes in and installs
all the water flow restricting devices and energy saving crap
and comes back later to remove it all to reuse on the next house.
People are going to figure out ways to get around all the
nonsense then some bright bureaucrat will write a surprise
inspection regulation and people will wind up getting killed
by the machine gun toting enforcement drones when they refuse
them entry into their homes. Living in a third world country
will be fun by the time the Liberal wackos get done turning The
U.S. into one. *snicker*

And so how many gallons per flush are those mandated toilets that
are so weak as to be rentals rented to be present for the inspection?

As much as I heard 1.6 gallon/flush toilets badmouthed 5-12 years
ago, the best-flushing toilets I ever saw were 1.6 gallon/flush ones
that came in after the earlier failing 1.6-GPF ones that appeared to me
"to be made for showing insufficiency of 1.6 GPF toilets".

- Don Klipstein )

The toilet we have here at the grouchy old fart's lair
must be one of the older low water usage variety. I have
to be very careful and flush it after the first load of
ready mix or it will clog up and overflow. Sometimes I'll
have a three flusher. I've often been told I'm full of it
but that's ridiculous. The old standard potties work well
for me. I even carry my own drilled out shower head with
me when I travel.

TDD