New Energy Efficiency Rules For TVs Sold In California 609
petehead writes "The LA Times reports on regulations expected to pass in 2009 that will not allow energy-inefficient TVs to be sold in the state. 'State regulators are getting ready to curb the growing power gluttony of TV sets by drafting the nation's first rules requiring retailers to sell only the most energy-efficient models, starting in 2011... The regulations would be phased in over two years, with a first tier taking effect on Jan. 1, 2011, and a more stringent, second tier on Jan. 1, 2013.'" According to the Energy Commission's estimates, purchasers of Tier 1-compliant TVs would shave an average of $18.48 off their residential electric bill in the first year of ownership.
Details up front (Score:5, Insightful)
Savings (Score:5, Insightful)
Yep, you can save $18 and year and pay an extra hundred today. Sounds great for something like a TV that is only going to be used for 5 years or so anyway these days. Never mind that time value of money consideration. Thank you Nanny State for saving me from high energy bills, and myself.
This is not the droid you are looking for (Score:2, Insightful)
Save 19$! (Score:1, Insightful)
...and then the utilities raise their prices by 19$ because they "lost" that money. Great...
Re:How about cable and sat boxes that can power do (Score:3, Insightful)
DRV's that spin down the HD when they are off and have no planed shows coming up.
Your DVR doesn't know if your TV is on. How useful is a DVR which doesn't offer rewind, but only records scheduled programs?
Re:Smart Financial Thinking (Score:3, Insightful)
$18.48 in just a year? That new LCD HDTV will practically pay for itself!
-Peter
And just when you think you recovered the cost of the TV, its time time to buy a new one! Oh, did I mention there is a special disposal fee for your old one?
Who is paying for my electricity, anyways? (Score:5, Insightful)
You'd think that I was stealing my electricity from the government.
But I'm not. I'm paying for it out of my own pocket, but the government still insists on regulating how much I use of it, and now even what I'm allowed to buy to use it with...
One would think that, since I'm the one PAYING for electricity (not to mention various taxes and sales taxes associated with a TV, if I had a TV), I'd be allowed to pay more and use more? Now THERE is a novel concept - if I have more money, I can use more money to get more things! Wow. And if I'm smart, I can save money by buying a more power-efficient TV! Wouldn't that be a thought...
California, frankly, is wacky :)
Sorry? Why can't this be done indirectly? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think this is overstepping it a bit.
I'm a big a/v-phile and I dislike LCD and "flat" tv's because they don't have true black points or uniform color.
I want a CRT, and CRTs are power hungry.
This doesn't mean i'm not environmentally conscious.
I use all CFL's and avoid having anything on unless i'm making immediate use.
How about introducing power consumption rules for homes, at least maximum peak power consumption to help lessen the load on the grid by incorporating localized temporary storage?
This would also have a side benefit of helping to prevent the kind of chaos mass blackouts produce by providing a bare minimum power to, say, keep your fridge running for 24-72 hours when the grid goes.
Re:Savings (Score:4, Insightful)
They're not doing it to save you money. They're doing it to save the earth.
'cos there's only one Earth, and you're supposed to leave it in better condition then you found it. That way the history books won't point to the "SUV era" as a bunch of greedy, self centered morons. Perhaps the first generation who had full knowledge of what was going down ecologically, but did absolutely nothing to change their obesity-driven lifestyle.
Misleading "science" (Score:5, Insightful)
Hell, my neighborhood newsletter is way more popular* and produces much better advertising results** than the LA Times!
I don't know why the "California Energy Commission" would make such a preposterous claim, unless they're not comparing the same size LCD and CRT, which would be ridiculous of course. I also don't know how the LA Times could be so ignorant as to not notice this obvious error, and how they could be so irresponsible as to report such obvious nonsense without doing any research or checking with other sources, or at least questioning or pointing out the (unfair) comparison of small CRTs to large LCDs.
Educate thyself [eu-energystar.org] and read any of the dozens of results [google.com] that show LCDs use less power than CRTs.
Then wonder why the tax/power requirements isn't based on size/overall power consumption instead of just being arbitrarily assessed on LCDs in general. (Hint: it's another money grab, and what better way than to focus it on the better selling, higher-value product?)
* "popular" is defined as the percentage of my relatives that read it daily.
** "results" is defined as how many free gifts I get from advertisers.
*** Hey! Look at that! I'm full of shit but at least I cite my bullshit definitions, which is more than you can say for the LA Times and the California Energy Commission!
Re:Mine goes to 11 (Score:5, Insightful)
These new TVs will be identical to other TVs sold elsewhere in the country, except that have a price tag that is 25% higher.
Here fixed that for you.
I'd love it if JUST ONCE... (Score:1, Insightful)
...An industry would look a state like CA that wants to foist stupid regulations upon them STRAIGHT in the eye and tell them to "go suck it". Californians just simply would have to go to other states (thus losing the morons in Sacramento some serious tax revenue) to buy these things.
What will happen is that this will make these products more expensive for those of us who live in the sane part of America. It's all about foisting a radical green agenda on the rest of us.
If California wants to be crazy, fine, to each his own. But don't force ME to have to pay for it.
Re:Mine goes to 11 (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Saves Almost $19? (Score:4, Insightful)
Sometimes things are done for a bigger picture then saving you a little $
Re:Details up front (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, because everyone calculates the $20 per year savings that one TV has over another and takes that into their voluntary decision of which to buy.
If the labeling was clear enough, I think they would take it into account.
Legislation that mandates clear, consistent labels allowing consumers to make informed decisions about their own costs seems more reasonable than legislating forbidding the sale of a whole class of products. I'm no free market fanboy, but this seems like a case where the self interest of consumers is directly in line with the goal of reduced energy consumption. The only thing missing is good information.
Re:Details up front (Score:5, Insightful)
Question: if you're presented with two TVs with otherwise identical specifications, but one is A-rated and the other is B-rated for efficiency, which one do you buy?
That's right: you buy the one with the glossier black surround.
Re:Who is paying for my electricity, anyways? (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with electricity is that how much a device actually uses is pretty well hidden from the user, so most people just don't know it and don't factor it into their buying decisions, so good old free market can't really work. Another thing is that many electronic devices use much more then they have to, stand-by mode is a classic case, its easy to not waste much power on it, yet many devices still do. A little regulation that nocks the makers into the right direction can be a good thing sometimes.
Peoples Republic? (Score:5, Insightful)
I find it a little saddening that nearly everyone complains about this type of legislation while at the same time demanding that something be done about global warming.
The fundamental problem we have is that we aren't currently being billed the true cost of (most of) the power we are using. The energy companies have been getting away with polluting the environment on a massive scale for at no cost to them.
We can tackle that problem in two ways: 1) force power companies to pay to clean up their pollution. 2) Increases taxes so that Government can clean up the pollution. Either way it means that things are going to get a lot more expensive. Government isn't about to raise taxes to clean up the atmosphere and they certainly aren't going to try to make energy companies fix the problem so the only really option is to bring in strict guidelines on how much power devices can consume and hope the problem goes away.
Re:This is not the droid you are looking for (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps they should focus their energies (pun not intended)
Dear Reader,
Please direct your attention towards my pun. Admittedly I do think it's clever, but I think that you think so highly of me, that I want you to know that I would never resort to using such a commonplace literary device in my prose. Therefore, I would like to formally renounce my attempt at humor and assure you that I am above making puns as a writer, as a pupil of language, and as citizen of Earth.
Sincerest apologies, D. Baggerson
P.S. - It was totally intended.
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=puns [thebestpag...iverse.net]
Re:LAND OF THE FREE! (Score:5, Insightful)
No it isn't. Planet Earth is everybody's business.
Step up and be a man, not a spoiled brat.
Re:Who is paying for my electricity, anyways? (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem with electricity is that how much a device actually uses is pretty well hidden from the user, so most people just don't know it and don't factor it into their buying decisions, so good old free market can't really work.
The solution to that is labeling (Energy Star), not outright bans.
Re:Mine goes to 11 (Score:5, Insightful)
We know that V = I*R. Since V is constant (120v RMS), we can only change the current in a circuit.
Undimmed the Light provides a resistance RL on the circuit.
Dimmed the Light plus dimmer (assuming a resistive dimmer, some are choppers, but I'm ignoring that now) provides a resistance RL+RD on the circuit.
So Undimmed the current, IL, is V/RL
Dimmed the current, ID, is V/(RL+RD)
That means that ID is less than IL and if the Power is V*I, then PD=V*ID is less than PL=V*IL. So less power is being consumed.
This accomplishes nothing... (Score:4, Insightful)
Except making some people in power the thrill of being 'better' than 'you'. And in this case, 'you' means everybody except them.
Saving the power needed to run 86,400 homes? The Census reported 11,502,870 in 2000. So they want to save about .75% of total power generation? Maybe? Their power consumption numbers are so far off they may end up saving a tenth of THAT...
What an utter waste of time. More impact would be realized if they required datacenters to be located further north, requiring less demanding cooling systems.
Dammit, now I'm giving them more cockamamie ideas. I hate when I do that.
Re:Details up front (Score:1, Insightful)
I am kind of a free-market fanboy. The government has no business forbidding a TV above a certain power rating threshold. In fact, they shouldn't even be forcing companies to supply us with specific information. People should demand it or take their business elsewhere (or nowhere).
I understand the intention of forcing fast food restaurants, for example, to post nutritional information. However, the inclusion of information without the education of the population is the fast lane to the castration of logical contemplation.
Re:This is exactly what we need. (Score:5, Insightful)
You won't voluntarily curb your energy use, and damn it it's MY planet you're warming. I'll bet you bitched about taking lead out of gasoline, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act... when your actions impinge my life, government SHOULD get involved.
Not all of us worship money and the free market. Some of us understand what is REALLY important in life. And it ain't a bigger SUV and outspending the neighbors. I have gworn kids, it it's THEIR planet you're fucking up.
Re:Details up front (Score:5, Insightful)
The only thing missing is good information.
Why educate when you can regulate?
--The Govenment
Re:Details up front (Score:4, Insightful)
This is actually good. Look at the power rating for new TVs. They are all over the board, and the price isn't related to the power consumption.
Energy is becoming limited, as some point a line has to be drawn. I think appliances is a fine place.
Listing power rating on other appliances has been fine and hasn't cause in castration of logical contemplation.
Re:Details up front (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How about cable and sat boxes that can power do (Score:4, Insightful)
Typically DVRs only disable the display drivers when power is off. Not a lot of power usage there. Going into a true low-power standby state requires a decent amount of work - you want the thing to be awake enough to record your programs, download the latest guide, etc. - and also to turn on fast when you want to watch the tube. Why spend the time doing that design when most consumers have no idea how much power the device uses at any point?
I'm actually coming around to the idea of regulating something regarding power use of always-powered devices. At least (as I posted above) something akin to the yellow tag you get on a dishwasher, boiler or other household device. It shows how much power the device uses in a year of typical use and its annual cost, and compares to "similar" equipment. (I can never find the items on the low end of that scale, though). For most equipment, a scale showing how the device compares to its competitors for power use in operating and standby modes could certainly sway me when buying a new TV or DVR. Assuming all else is equal, that is.
Re:Details up front (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:This is exactly what we need. (Score:3, Insightful)
Listen, we've tried your way. It doesn't work. And constantly reiterating the same tired point about regulation = bad and government = bad is getting silly. The Republican/Libertarian idea of a free-market may be ideal. Ideal for defrauding most efficiently. Ideal for using limited resources the most quickly. Ideal for concentrating wealth into the fewest hands possible. Ideal for using government resources for the needs of a few limited corporations rather than the individual citizen. Ideal for running up debt with nothing to show for it.
Your ideas have failed. Let's talk again about burdensome regulation once we stop having to worry about melamine in our food. We're no where near burdensome regulation. We're in a period of fear brought about by a lack of regulation.
Actually, keep saying that government regulation is bad. You're helping to remind the majority of US citizens what they want the government to focus on.
Re:This is exactly what we need. (Score:4, Insightful)
I think you think I'm more of a troll than I actually am...
I'm not old enough to have bitched about all of those things, and certainly there are both good intentions and good results, as many of those reforms can fall under the common-sense category (especially lead in gasoline...), but for every common-sense reform I can point at three that just resulted in wasted time and tax dollars, or caused severe market repercussions elsewhere.
Usually the problem with those negative examples is that someone freaked out about something (global cooling! global warming! global climate change! financial crisis!) and decided that SOMETHING needed to be done NOW. They then came up with a half-baked short-term solution to that problem and put it into place and continued living their lives. That's exactly what I classify this as: a half-baked short-term solution that won't do anything in the long run.
Take for example a great examples of way that private industry can help the environment: Wal-Mart reducing fuel consumption on their trucks [usatoday.com]: not only does this save Wal-Mart lots of money in fuel costs, but it drives innovation in truck and vehicle design and helps to greatly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. If they then sell this technology to other companies similarly interested in both reduced costs and increased fuel economy, the effect will be much more substantial -- and require not a taxpayer penny -- than this silly regulation and the certification process it will surely produce.
It's not misleading (Score:4, Insightful)
because they only care about what the average person buys. It doesn't matter if per inch of viewing area an LCD uses less power than a CRT if the average consumer buys 2 inches of LCD for every inch of CRT.
I'm fine with my 24-27 inch CRT. But I'm not going to buy an LCD that's less than about 34 inches.
So if the government wants to reduce my power consumption they need to make sure that the 34 inch LCD uses less power than the 24 inch CRT I already have. It doesn't matter if the 24 inch LCD uses less power because on average, nobody buys a 24 inch LCD to replace a 24 inch CRT.
Re:Details up front (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Sorry? Why can't this be done indirectly? (Score:3, Insightful)
> Or why not let the blackouts happen so people will figure it out themselves
Who's "people"? If I figure it out for myself and my neighbors don't then I still suffer blackouts.
> The free market works...
The free market "works" if your definition of "work" is the circular "what the free market determines". But if I get blackouts because of my neighbors actions I don't think it has worked at all.
Re:Peoples Republic? (Score:3, Insightful)
If the power were being generated by wind, solar and perhaps nuclear power why would having a more inefficient television be harmful to the environment? As for pollution from manufacturing the televisions themselves, an energy inefficient television is just as potentially harmful as an efficient one.
And as for global warming, it's debatable that something needs to be done about that.
As for taxes being raised, I think it's time the government cut their own waste. If their too inept to manage their own budgets they have no right coming to the people demanding more money.
I look forward to more energy efficient products, but I don't want the government cramming them down my throat.
Re:Mine goes to 11 (Score:4, Insightful)
You mean like the "California Emissions" regulations that increase the prices of cars and completely prevent the sale of new diesel cars (and some trucks) in the Northeast states that also follow those regulations?
Re:Who is paying for my electricity, anyways? (Score:3, Insightful)
the whole stack (Score:2, Insightful)
You aren't looking at the whole stack. Walmart having marginally more efficient trucks does nothing for the fact that one of the consequences of Walmart in general is an additional 1,000 (some huge number) of extremely dirty coal plants in China where the regulations aren't near as strict as the US, plus moving all the goods from China to the US on ships, and those ships have hardly any regulations at all while running on bunker fuel, which is downright nasty again.
Any savings in energy or cleaner air here are offset to a tremendous degree just by the business model of offshoring the manufacturing (let alone the hit to the wallets of all the out of work factory workers here and lost tax base). And air knows no boundaries, what was air pollution a week ago in China (remember when they had to almost close China down just to run the olympics so they could have tolerable air for the athletes?) has now traveled the Pacific and is hitting north America.
All you did was move the problem to the other side of an imaginary dotted line, plus cost tens of million of jobs domestically plus exported cash by the boatload and taken it out of the internal economy where it stopped being a force multiplier. That's why China is sitting on huge reserves of cash and is able to go around the planet and buy up the next 20-50 years of critical strategic minerals like they are doing in Africa right now, and the US is sitting in the debtors seat wondering where all the new jobs are going to come from.
So we still got way more air pollution in general, plus a lot of lost jobs that paid better than Walmart "associate" pay. The big trade was one generation of cheaper gadgets, and we got to play "make believe" that we cleaned up the environment when we didn't, we made it worse actually (looking at the planet as a whole), and now the US economy is partly collapsing from it.
Re:Mine goes to 11 (Score:2, Insightful)
Mars Bars are fattening and are prohibited in the People's Republic of California.
I know you were just going for a +5 funny but here in the People's Republic of New York our Governor wants to impose an "obesity tax" on soft drinks. No, I'm not making this up [nydailynews.com] either.
Why just target soft drinks? Orange juice [calorieking.com] actually has more calories per fl oz than coca-cola [calorieking.com] does. Should we tax OJ too? Anything consumed without moderation is bad for you. How do you purpose to use tax policy to teach moderation?
Seems to me like it's just another revenue grab under the guise of being for the public benefit.
Re:I'd love it if JUST ONCE... (Score:3, Insightful)
If the top three tv makers were to stop selling in California, you'd end up with a new top 3 tv makers because someone would still sell in California.
Barret is making the decision to not sell to law enforcement in California(a relatively small market) in order to try and save the ability to sell to regular people in California(a much larger market). They're risking a relatively small amount to try and save a much larger amount.
A television company is risking a massive market in order to save the $5 they should have been spending per unit to make them more efficient in the first place, which they'll more than recoup by tacking on extra costs(even when it no longer costs them a cent). Their cost of boycotting is high, their cost of compliance is low.
Better energy efficiency is a good thing, and the various companies are too damned slack to do it on their own. As for the additional costs, your problem lies more with the fact that the companies you buy from will charge a $200 price increase to cover a $5 cost increase using the legislation as an excuse. They'll have to retool things a little bit, but they have to do that with all their new models anyway.
Re:Mine goes to 11 (Score:3, Insightful)
I mean...Cal, has fucked up cars for us...can't get fun cars with good exhaust systems on them stock (hell, hard to get good 3rd party stuff more and more because they insist on being CARB or whatever it is compliant).
I don't live where they do sniff tests....and I've lived in states with no car inspection at all...but, with the crap that comes out of CA...more and more states follow along..and so do manufacturers...even though other states don't need it all and don't have the same environmental problems...or granola tendencies.
Re:Details up front (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, shouldn't they do both? Wouldn't that be the most effective solution? That way, you tackle the problem from both ends. By increasing the maximum amount of energy available AND cutting down the energy cost of appliances, they win both ways.
I believe my previous sibling post is implying that this is exactly what the State of California and other states are trying to do.
As an aside, I don't think that the state government should be able to tell you to stop running those 4 computers at 500 W if you want to shell out that kind of cash on utilities, but I don't think thats what this law is aiming to do. It's not attempting to force you into making certain decisions regarding your household appliances, its designed to force companies to spend money on designing energy-efficient household appliances , which are then offered to you. You are then allowed to make your choice, as usual, from there.
Don't get me wrong, a big side of me feels and resonates with the "love of power and energy and brightness and Plasma TV's", but that age may be long gone and it's time that people considered that possibility. Many things are going to change in this country in the next two decades, and not just because Barack Obama was elected as POTUS. Unfortunately for our fantasies, we all need to start thinking a little more sensibly. I own a Plasma TV now, and honestly, while it is beautiful, it is probably the last one I will ever own. It's added about 30 bucks to my electric bill a month ever since I've purchased it, and it may not be a viable thing to own sensibly in the future.
Re:I'd love it if JUST ONCE... (Score:3, Insightful)
It won't solve a single crime, let alone stop one. You can quote me on that.
You're not likely to see anybody actually tool up for this. It's going to be too expensive. The final result of it will be that any semi-automatic handgun not on the California DOJ approval list come Jan 1, 2010 just won't be sold in California. Anything on the list before then won't have to implement the microstamping technology unless they fall off the list by failing to renew their spot.
It's completely pointless legislation. On one hand I want to attribute this to politicians that are simply looking to make an end-run around any Constitutional barriers to end all handgun ownership in CA. On the other hand is the more likely explanation: These idiots have no idea what they're doing in the legislature.
Re:Details up front (Score:4, Insightful)
tm
Re:Details up front (Score:3, Insightful)
Hell, thats how my future in-laws do it TODAY in Japan. The entire house didn't have heaters, they just put a kotatsu (basically a table with a blanket over it and a small heater under it, so the heat is trapped) and a small space heater in the room. They have a very small energy footprint; we tripped a breaker on accident which started a discussion on how much energy they have available to their house. It was some ridiculously low amount. When sleeping, we just slipped an electric blanket over the futon.
Of course, everyone wore sweatshirts. I didn't have one, much to their amusement. I explained that not only is the heat almost always on in American housing, in a lot of my apartments it was controlled by the building, and I couldn't even turn it off.
I'm not saying that everyone should live in freezing houses, but I bet we could collectively save energy by lowering the thermostat, wearing a sweatshirt, and using the fireplace/space heater/electric blankets.
Re:Mine goes to 11 (Score:3, Insightful)