Analysis of Cash for Appliance Clunkers Programs: A best of the net pick
Submitted by advisor on Mon, 07/19/2010 - 10:33pm.
A concise analysis of the consumer psychology that resulted from the 54 cash for clunker programs around the country. Enjoy.
Did Cash for Appliances Work: by Energy 2.0
Money grab for the states
Most of these programs are a joke. the purpose of the program was to get more energy efficent appliances in the homes of American. But with the states writing there own rules it is clear ( Alaska you had to be diabled and you got more money for living in rual areas, Kansas you had to be poor!!!!) that money will be siphon off to use to help balance budgets or other things this money was not intended for.
I never ...
... read the programme the way you do !!! I assumed that the programme was designed to move product, just like the automobile programme was ... energy efficiency was a secondary consideration ...
Remember that extending the interpretation of any rules by fifty (50) states is akin to creating a committee ... and you know what you get when you ask a committee to do anything, right ???
A camel is said to be a horse created by a committee !!!
hate to disagree with you...
on this but if the program was design to move product why was the only restriction that the Feds required was product had be "ENERGY STAR QUALIFLIED"?????
Feel Free to Disagree
Feel free to disagree, but your disagreement is not based on fact. The program was designed primarily to ignite economic activity and growth in manufacturing, distribution and in the service trades, with a secondary goal of energy efficiency.
The Federal guidelines for states to create their programs and federal oversight of state programs can be found here:
http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/states/appliance_rebate.cfm
Wrong
OK maybe I'm wrong about the primary reason for the program, though I do not uderstand why the Feds didn't require ALL energy star qualified appllances to be rebated, California program only rebated higher tier products. Why would a state limited products if the goal was to move product. If all energy star fridges qualified me and my cohorts in California would have moved more product and maybe they would be out of money by now. Maybe the money in a interest bearing account could be the reason??California has a web site that has gone 3 weeks with out being updateed, a little fishy for me. http://www.cash4appliances.ca.gov/ And Alaska as I stated in a previous comment require you to be disable.http://www.ahfc.state.ak.us/energy/appliance_rebates.cfmAnd Kansas you had to be low income.http://www.ahfc.state.ak.us/energy/appliance_rebates.cfmSo why would these states limited products and people who would qualifly if the goal is to move product??? Was thier intent to keep the money as long as possible??? In hopes some of it might get lost in the suffle???And who in the Depaetment of Energy is going to audit states to see if the money went to where it's suppose to go?????
Shell Answer Man
I will attempt to answer your questions in order:
1) If the Feds required all energy star appliances to be included, then this would be a federal program, instead of a state program under federal guidelines.
2) If all energy star appliances were included it would be impossible to manage, and would include too many different dealers.
3) The Feds had the goal of moving metal, and increasing efficiency. States had other goals including supporting the poor or the disabled, or supporting water efficiency, or energy efficiency or whatever it was the state was trying to accomplish.
4) Yes, even in some segments, such as refrigerators, some states limited rebates to units with efficiency better than Energy Star. Energy Star is not nearly efficient enough. It is easier to upgrade the rebates than it is to upgrade Energy Star.
5) Again, your suspicion does not make any sense. The money in insignificant, so states generally just want the money gone, and the program finished.
Who is going to audit the program? I believe I supplied you with the DOE guidelines. If you read that you might be able to find information on the oversight plan.
reports?
So the states submit reports to the DOE. That's suppose to satisfy me. As far as the insignficance of the money $35,200,000 that California, who is in desperate economic state, recieved dose not seem insignificant to me.
Remember ...
... that Perception is Truth ... even if it is factually convoluted !!!
Money Grab Not Orange Man
Your characterization of the Cash for Appliance program is not correct, because it's not practical.
Not because it’s not possible. Anything is possible. The program is simply piss ant money. Just $1 person sent to each state. A very small program with very high visibility. In the world of money grabs it’s a loser.
Better to target very large programs with very low visibility. Interstate highway money, education money, health care money.
If I'm wrong.....
please tell me why the feds did not setup the guide lines like they did for clunkers??? And where is the over sight like they had for clunkers???
Money Grab Not II
Every state program had to be written to fit federal guidelines (Energy Star appliances only), and then approved by the feds. Unlike the car clunker program, there were 50 programs, run by 50 states. Lots of metal was moved, and much was learned about buyer behaviour and rebate sensitivity.
Your characterization is false. It is not based on fact.
Unfortunately
For all of us that have spent a good amount of our careers in the appliance industry the clunkers program will not have the same effect as the automotive program has had. Especially at the high end portion of the business.Automotive employees directly affects a broader cross section of workers in the states. Doesn't say much for the weasals in purchasing and ops that think the way to success is to buy from China. I did work in automotive for 12 years and the organization I worked for had 12,000 employees and we were one supplier. I doubt if we have 12,000 appliance employees in the country in total that produce the goods. I am sure those weasals that went to China for quick fixes have padded their resumes saying they reduced cost, they did nothing but buy cheap.A baboon could be trained to do just that. May help them find a job at Burger King ya think ?
Getting the "Word" Out ...
... might have been the biggest hinderance to those states who took the longest to "sell-out" of their rebates !!!
I honestly think that it is simply because of how people get their news today ... personally, we read three (3) newspapers each day and subscribe to a few others on line ... Now I know that's out of the ordinary, but if you went to your favourite grocery store and asked each and every person who would speak to you "What newspaper do you read daily ???" I proffer that you'd be surprised to find that many people get their news from other sources ... which means they are getting snippets, or otherwise incomplete reports !!!
I know of Appliance Dealers who do everything but fill out any rebate forms for their clients and readily admit that they use rebates as a sales tactic ... so I have to conclude that there had to be a breakdown in getting the word out about these rebates !!!
Just one man's opinion, trying to look @ it from both sides ...