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.
Yet Another (Score:5, Interesting)
Yet another revenue stream disguised as a certifcation process....
How about cable and sat boxes that can power down (Score:5, Interesting)
How about cable and sat boxes that can power down more then they do now and DRV's that spin down the HD when they are off and have no planed shows coming up.
Re:How about cable and sat boxes that can power do (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:How about cable and sat boxes that can power do (Score:4, Interesting)
It's possible over HDMI at least to have the DVR know if the TV is is on or not. I know some newer TV+Blu-Ray player combinations can even have the Blu-Ray player turn the TV on, and turn the input to the correct one, all automatically when you insert a disc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDMI#Consumer_Electronics_Control [wikipedia.org]
Re:Who is paying for my electricity, anyways? (Score:3, Interesting)
While you can use electricity to power TVs, and the such. But if you Don't have enough power for everyone to use everythign that they want, then you need to regulate peoples power useage.
Sure, you could follow Capitolism and raise the rates for power really high. That was those that can afford it could run thier TVs, Computers, and what ever other toys they want. But then your left with people that cnnot afford to run it for essentials (like a fridge & washer/Dryer).
However, that concept does not work for the majorty of the population as well as it works for the well off. It's a little more important to make sure everyone gets some power then the weathly getting all of th power they want.
However, I could be all worng and Cali could have fixed and power problems I am remembering. But i doubt it.
Re:Sorry? Why can't this be done indirectly? (Score:3, Interesting)
Or why not let the blackouts happen so people will figure it out themselves and maybe by decentralized power production devices like solar panels and home wind turbines to supplement their energy usage.
You could also raise the cost of electricity to push that incentive... since it's going to cost more to generate that power.
The free market works... if the government doesn't keep feeding it money in subsidies and welfare.
Re:How about cable and sat boxes that can power do (Score:4, Interesting)
However, if you've turned off the cable box (I have Time Warner Cable, and use their DVR - the Scientific Atlanta 8300HD. The box has both a power button and power light) it's not recording so it can rewind anyway. So why not spin down the hard drive, or enter into some kind of lower power mode?
Side note: the 8300HD box that TWC provides does spin down the hard drive on a regular basis. I can hear it spin up the drive when I either: A) Turn it on, or B) periodically as it performs self maintenance, records shows, or installs updates.
Re:Yet Another (Score:1, Interesting)
For extra credit: name the American city hosting the last operational television/display manufacturing facility?
At some point, the Japanese/Chinese/Koreans are just not gonna take these silly regulations and refuse to sell the screens to CA. What are these leebs gonna do then, huh?
Re:Peoples Republic? (Score:2, Interesting)
Then you needn't be saddened by me, because I do complain about this nanny state legislation while at the same time asserting that anthropogenic global warming is bullcrap.
Re:Who is paying for my electricity, anyways? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:How about cable and sat boxes that can power do (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Details up front (Score:4, Interesting)
Well I've certainly just done that with the Fridge and Freezer I've just bought. In fact I didn't buy the nicer looking Budweiser drinks chiller I'd originally set out to buy because the big energy label on it showed it took 270KWh / year instead of the 115 KWh for the similar sized plain white one.
I can't think of any reason why I'd ignore energy ratings if they were available on TVs and other electronics.
Re:This is exactly what we need. (Score:4, Interesting)
Just look at the farce that is ethanol...
Anyone with more than two braincells left knows that ethanol in the US (specifically the northern Midwest) has nothing to do with saving the planet. Ethanol in the US is nothing more than an agricultural subsidy and marketing campaign, fleesing would-be do gooders into making decisions that have a net negative effect on the environment. The real reason for the push to ethanol is profit and misinformed activist.
1. Forcibly reducing consumption will not necessarily reduce the actual amounts of the subsidies, because I think population growth will level out the relatively minute energy savings garnered by producing more energy-efficient TVs.
Population growth is independent of TV energy efficiency. California's population will grow at the same rate wether the TVs on the store shelves consume 40 watts or 40 killowatts. So you are correct in that improving the efficiency of TVs will not actually reduce the total power consumption. What it will do is reduce the growth of total power consumption.
2. My position on government intervention is consistent: the energy subsidies themselves are stupid and should be dismantled as well, allowing the market to build clean and efficient nuclear power plants and work towards technological solutions for a cleaner, power-efficient future without propping up worthless old technologies and inefficient and impractical ones like solar and wind with subsidies.
There is a major problem with that though. Coal is cheap. Coal is really cheap. Way cheaper than nuclear. If it weren't for government subsidies, loans, and incentives, the only nuclear reactors would be in Universities. Technology for wind and solar power sources has improved greatly in the past decade, to the point now where it is realistic to see a ROI with only minimal incentives.
I do agree with you though, subsidies are like the anti-competition. On the other hand, if we raise the taxes on known inefficient systems, we can promote free market investment in alternatives. Last year in Wisconsin the state legislature voted to end the automatic inflationary gas tax hike. A move that many used as a marketing move for campaing season. And now that prices have come back down, people are driving less, and inflation is ramping up, we really need that automatic hike back in, but no one wants to burn the political capital to actually do it. I would go even a step further though. In addition to reinstating the automatic hike, I would tack on another 15-25 cent tax. The purpose being obviously to raise more capital for road maintenace (and jobs!) when the reduction in travel is reducing the DoT budget. And a secondary cause being that the more expensive gasoline is, the more marketable it is to invest in alternative energy, which creates more jobs and drives engineering, skilled labor, and education in the US.
Ideally, we would have seen $4/gal gasoline back in 2004-2005 to get the "green economy" (I hate that phrase, but I like the job creation associated with it) started up when it was becoming obvious that the housing market was bubbling.
-Rick
Regulate the damned wall warts instead! (Score:3, Interesting)
So why aren't they considering regulating the excess of so-called wall warts? How many of the critters do you have in your house, continually sucking juice unless you make an executive decision to yank them off the hose?
Many years ago I read an estimate that AC adapters accounted for up to EIGHT PERCENT of the average household electricity bill. How much worse must that figure be now in 2009, given that so many manufacturers abuse them as a cop-out for better design? It's one thing to have an AC adapter for a device that MUST be as tiny as possible, can't dissipate heat, or is intended to be active all the time, like a router or cable modem... but does an HP or Lexmark printer or scanner need an AC adapter? Does a recharging station for a cordless Black and Decker hand vacuum need one? No!
Re:Yet Another (Score:5, Interesting)
According to wikipedia, California held the 9th largest economy in the world (compared to entire countries) in 2006. Were manufacturers to decide not to sell their wares in CA to avoid regulations would result in their forfeiting sales opportunities the size of Canada or Spain. That would be simply foolish.
These "silly regulations" often lead to positive change. For example, the tag on the side of all of your pillows which scratches my itchy nose at night. Or clean air regulations, which were driven largely as a result of smog in California cities.
I'm no fan of regulation, preferring voluntary programs like Energy Star (which promote buyers to consider energy efficiency by providing a readable energy cost rating). But the free market doesn't always provide consumers with the choices they desire on its own, either. A reasonable compromise - like Energy Star - often works well. I'd love to see standby and operating power usage displayed on the box - like the big yellow tag when you buy a new boiler or dishwasher.
Re:Mine goes to 11 (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Saves Almost $19? (Score:2, Interesting)
Economic expansion I'll grant. Energy efficiency is laughable.
This is the state that has yearly rolling brown outs. Has to import a very large percent of it's power from nearby states, and NEVER has a surplus to sell back.
California isn't energy efficient, they may be energy stable, but that is not the same thing.
Re:Mine goes to 11 (Score:3, Interesting)
Oh don't be such a douche nozzle. It's like buying certain blank media here in Canada. The RIAA (CRIA actually, their Canadian militia) get money from it. A levy that's placed on top of the actual cost.
So yeah, that is ass raping IMO. Stuff you need (and fuck off with your "discretionary" shit as everything but food is "discretionary") with extra crap on top you have to pay for that you receive absolutely no benefit from.
Re:Details up front (Score:3, Interesting)
What you suggest is why democracy is the worst form of government ever devised. The tyranny of the majority can be just as bad as any other tyranny. This is why the US founding fathers, for instance, REJECTED democracy and constructed a federation of democratic republics instead, where the will of the majority is (supposed to be) severely limited by the law to protect individual liberty.
Re:This is exactly what we need. (Score:4, Interesting)
I think you think I'm more of a troll than I actually am...
Well I just think you are placing way too much faith in market forces to deal with negative externalities.
I'm not old enough to have bitched about all of those things
But your logic is the exact same that was used by those who did. All the examples are ones where the effects of producers actions made stuff cheap(er), and harmed the environment and people. The constant cry of 'government shouldn't meddle in the market' is a little hard to take philosophically, and extremely hard to take pragmatically (financial industry bailout much?)
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.
I'd submit that the problem is more that something bad for people/environment is happening, and though the gov't is finally get around do something about it, the industry that is going to be effected tried its damnedest to minimize the effectiveness of the regulations. Care to give any examples that exemplify your assertion?
That's exactly what I classify this as: a half-baked short-term solution that won't do anything in the long run.
Right, like raising CAFE standards didn't do anything [npr.org] in the long run. Or increasing refrigerator standards didn't do anything [politico.com]. Or limiting tailpipe emissions didn't do anything.
Energy efficiency is one the best examples of where government regulation can, and has, made verifiable improvements in real, meaningful areas.
-Ted
Re:MOD PARENT DOWN (Score:3, Interesting)
They certainly can do it, it just costs them money to do and therefore they charge the customer for it.
Re:Details up front (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
I agree that sensible regulation is also a key factor, especially during the transition to my proposed solution. Ultimately, though, we can viably have nearly endless energy available to us in our homes. It is only a matter of breaking our current chains of old-tech influence and revolutionizing our energy sources. I'm not saying we can run megawatts in each home, but we could definitely run way more than what we do now, at a fraction of the price.
The thing that bothers me is that the interest in conserving energy is due to the environmental aspects and limited supply. Both of these factors are due to our reluctance to move forward and our politically-facilitated ties to keep us chained to coal and nuclear power. I'm not even opposed to using nukes while we transition, but goddamn.. 70% of our energy comes from COAL... COAL! This is America. We *should* be better than that. I almost wrote 'we are better than that' but the last couple decades have really taken us in some stupid directions. As a country, we're basically a religiously intolerant, obese, uneducated white trash slob. Even though so many of us want it to be better than that.
Re:Mine goes to 11 (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't agree. California imposed their regulations for clean diesel car in 2006. However the ultra-low sulfur diesel was not available until 2008. What California should have done was postpone the regulations until 2008, that way there would have been no need to ban the cars at all.
I forgot to mention in my last posting that Ford and Honda will also be releasing clean diesels soon. Honda's going to be selling a Diesel version of their Civic in 2010! Supposedly it gets 50mpg.
Re:I've seen these (Score:3, Interesting)
The UK government estimated that each person cycling to work instead of driving saves the country £160 in public spending each year (mostly, healthcare savings and reduced road maintenance) and takes less days off due to ill health.
I think they even took account of the people living longer (so costing more in state pensions etc).
They also estimated that in 2050, if people were still as lazy/inactive as today, then the National Health Service would be spending half it's budget (£50bn) on obesity-related treatments.
However, if they actually want more people to cycle to work, they should spend more than £1 per cyclist on cycling facilities, and give over some road space to them.
I think in Norway government workers are paid to cycle to work instead of drive, to reflect the saving.
The utilities don't have enough power. (Score:3, Interesting)
That is the problem, and right now, its a major bitch to get a new power plant built. Natural gas is now obviously foolish given all the price variance, coal and nuclear are both politically impossible, and windmills and solar can't yet even fill the role of a good peak demand unit. So, there is no more electricity to buy, and therefor, the government rations it.
Re:Mine goes to 11 (Score:3, Interesting)
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?
The problem with your whiny argument is that a) it is not true and b) emissions restrictions WORK.
Los Angeles was the most polluted city in the world before instituting harsh emissions standards. They were the first county at least in the US to start sending people around with handheld meters to test particulate outputs etc. They did this because the pollution was becoming a health hazard, causing bleeding lesions in the lungs of children and the elderly, things like that. Today there is more Chinese pollution in LA than Los Angeleno pollution. Does that prove that it doesn't work? No, it proves that it needs to be writ globally.
You can buy diesel cars and trucks in California RIGHT NOW. So I don't know what those other states' problems are. But if I had the money I could go pick up a Golf TDI at 9am or whenever it is that the VW dealer opens up.
Re:I've seen these (Score:3, Interesting)
Did they factor in the quality of life loss from working around stinky, sweaty Englishmen all day?
Probably cancelled out with the quality of life gain in not having to look at fat people.
(London has something like 1% of all journeys made by bike, but Amsterdam has over 50%. The Dutch must have worked something out.)