Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Earth Displays Television Toys

Response To California's Large-Screen TV Regulation 619

An anonymous reader writes "It's great that unelected bureaucrats in California are clamoring to save energy, but when they target your big-screen TVs for elimination, consumers and manufacturers are apt to declare war. CEDIA and the CEA are up in arms over this. Audioholics has an interesting response that involves setting the TVs in 'SCAM' mode to meet the energy criteria technically without having to add additional cost or increase costs to consumers. 'In this mode, the display brightness/contrast settings would be set a few clicks to the right of zero, audio would be disabled and backlighting would be set to minimum. The power consumption should be measured in this mode much like an A/V receiver power consumption is measured with one channel driven at full rated power and the other channels at 1/8th power.' This is an example of an impending train wreck of unintended consequences, and many are grabbing the popcorn and pulling up chairs to watch."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Response To California's Large-Screen TV Regulation

Comments Filter:
  • Hooray! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by czarangelus ( 805501 ) <iapetus@gma i l .com> on Friday November 20, 2009 @12:00PM (#30171894)
    It's about time the government focuses on real issues, like how big your television screen is. I mean, if California was facing one of the worst financial crises in history or something, it would be totally absurd theater meant to detract from the fact that our legislative body has failed us deplorably. But since California is in fine shape, with no farmers in the Central Valley going without water, without widespread corruption, brutality, and incarceration - well, there's no reason not to focus on such an important and substantial issue.

    Hey Sacramento - if I want a bigger television, I'll drive out of state to get it and you won't get any tax money out of it. Suckas!
    • Tax (Score:2, Interesting)

      by NoYob ( 1630681 )
      Because they have a huge budget shortfall and they want to get rid of the big screen TVs, why not tax the shit out of them? It won't get rid of the TVs but it will really curtail their consumption.

      Yeah, I know, there the issues of a black market or keep folks from crossing over to another state to buy them....

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        It's a good thing most Californians like along the Pacific coast, and the Nevada line is far, far away. That makes it less practical to drive that far just to save a few sales tax dollars. It's why even though I could drive to Delaware to get tax free goods, I opt not to.

        I just heard on the news last night that California's Treasury Secretary is investigating the Constitution. He's wondering if California can revert back to being a territory, in order to resolve its budget crisis!!! Wow. Frankly I d

        • by cromar ( 1103585 )
          Ha! I would love to see Califronia try to secede from the Union. Technically, the states have the right to secede at any point, but practically the result of the Civil War says otherwise...
          • Re:Tax (Score:4, Interesting)

            by czarangelus ( 805501 ) <iapetus@gma i l .com> on Friday November 20, 2009 @12:25PM (#30172296)
            I think nothing could be better for the people of California. Tell the Federal Empire which robs us blind, kills our young men, and embroils us in endless overseas conflict to get lost. California would save tens of billions a year not paying taxes to the Empire, which we could turn around and use on our own infrastructure and defense. We have the eighth largest economy on our own, we don't need the American albatross hanging around our neck.
            • Re:Tax (Score:5, Interesting)

              by DJRumpy ( 1345787 ) on Friday November 20, 2009 @01:38PM (#30173558)

              California's problems are self created. They spend more than they take in, it's just that simple. Removing themselves from the union would just add additional costs for subsidies that they currently get at the federal level.

              Their problems stem mostly from social services run amok and loss of tax income revenue. They have a huge illegal problem (some estimates as high as 10 percent of their workforce [sacbee.com]) according to a recent non-partisan study, where folks earn money, and then simply send it back to Mexico. Same on the health care front. They end up offering social services not only to tax payers, but to the large illegal population. They also spend millions on wasteful social services they simply can't afford. I found it odd that everyone was screaming when they put those services on the chopping block in order to get a budget that would pass muster. They simply don't realize that you can't spend what you don't have. They've been in that sort of spend cycle for years, and it finally came to a breaking point.

              Public schools are a biggie. They actually tried to deny illegal children the right to attend public schools but a federal judge blocked that. The illegal population can collect welfare, as well as take advantage of health services all on the taxpayer dollar. Many of these are also avoiding taxes simply because they are paid cash for day labor. I'm generally about as left as you can go, but I have to stop short on giving a free ride to illegals. Unfortunately most border states suffer from the same issues.

              Add on top of all that their tax system, which relies almost heavily on income taxes (over half of their budget money comes from this). Every time the economy tanks, so does their revenue.

              They have a lot of problems that have to be addressed both in their taxation, and spending. Succeeding from the union won't fix them.

          • Re:Tax (Score:4, Funny)

            by Duradin ( 1261418 ) on Friday November 20, 2009 @12:39PM (#30172512)

            I don't think anyone in the rest of the U.S. would stop California (or Texas) from leaving.

            Sure we'd have to spend a fair bit in border security to make sure none of them ever get back in but it'd be worth it.

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by Wyatt Earp ( 1029 )

            No, states don't have the right to leave the Union.

            The United States Supreme Court ruled in Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869), that while the Union was "perpetual" and that secession ordinances were "absolutely null."

            The thought that states can leave is just another misconception, like that Texas can go if they want. They can't, but they can be split into five states.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by nomadic ( 141991 )
          Cuoldn't California just lay people off, and cut their costs for 2010? That's why companies do when they face a financial crisis.

          No, because Californians live in a statewide, narcissistic reality-distortion field where they use referendums to increase services yet limit what they pay in taxes. The politicians are limited in what they can do.
          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            Politicians are limited in what they can do only because the layout of the legislative districts locks in a Democrat majority just shy of being able to pass a budget on its own. However, there are plenty of places that can see changes that they're just not willing to make unless their backs are against the wall, like they were a few months ago. Now their backs are now inside the wall with another $21 billion gap over the next 19 months, the census is coming up, and the chances that the process used in 200

        • Re:Tax (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Archangel Michael ( 180766 ) on Friday November 20, 2009 @01:43PM (#30173630) Journal

          Frankly I don't understand this. Cuoldn't California just lay people off, and cut their costs for 2010?

          Well silly, don't you know that most politicians steal from Peter to buy Paul's vote? If they had to cut, you know, spending and stuff, then they would not be able to live off the public dole for their entire lives.

          The only way to get this situation fixed, is the stop voting for people promising things like free healthcare, welfare and benefits for people who are perfectly capable of otherwise having a job and earning money.

          And stop taxing people into leaving California for other less regressive tax states, like Texas.

          In this budget crisis, it is interesting to see the states in the biggest mess financially are the ones with the highest taxes.

          But the liberal progressives scream bloody murder every time their pet government project is cut. They just don't get it.

          And the wimpy conservatives are unable to counter the "grandma on dog food" crap that the liberal progressives love to spew.

          Next time you hear "Think of the Children" crap, whether it is from an (R) [porn/crime] or (D) [starving/homeless], tell them to STFU and address the real problems, and not politically expedient anecdotal cases.

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by toadlife ( 301863 )

            In this budget crisis, it is interesting to see the states in the biggest mess financially are the ones with the highest taxes.

            That would be a good argument if it were based on reality. In reality, states financial distress right now directly correlates to the impact of the housing crises. See Nevada and Florida - two very tax friendly states.

      • Re:Tax (Score:4, Interesting)

        by hey! ( 33014 ) on Friday November 20, 2009 @12:18PM (#30172152) Homepage Journal

        Actually, the goal of saving energy/reducing pollution from energy generation would be better served by taxing energy. You wouldn't have to have a TV set power consumption regulation office, you just take whatever the electric company charges and slap a percentage on top of that. Then you except commercial uses, and give everyone a standard tax rebate so that it's possible for nearly everyone to avoid the the tax by using electricity moderately.

        Yes, it's another case of using the tax code to achieve something other than bringing in revenue, but it does the same thing that *regulation* would do, only across *all* uses of electric power, and without forcing anybody to change anything. If you absolutely MUST have that gigantic plasma TV, and absolutely DON'T want to pay without tax, you can go without lights or a refrigerator.

        • Then you except commercial uses, and give everyone a standard tax rebate

          No exceptions, no rebates. It's the only way to balance a checkbook.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by camperdave ( 969942 )
          That's a well thought out, logical, and reasonable way to save energy and reduce pollution. Therefore it will never be implemented by the government .
          • Re:Tax (Score:4, Funny)

            by CodeBuster ( 516420 ) on Friday November 20, 2009 @02:01PM (#30173926)

            That reminds me of a particular line from the film, My Cousin Vinny [imdb.com]:

            Vinny Gambini: I object to this witness being called at this time. We've been given no prior notice he would testify. No discovery of any tests he's conducted or reports he's prepared. And as the court is aware, the defense is entitled to advance notice of all witness who will testify, particularly those who will give scientific evidence, so that we can properly prepare for cross-examination, as well as give the defense an opportunity to have his reports reviewed by a defense expert, who might then be in a position to contradict the veracity of his conclusions.

            Judge Chamberlain Haller: Mr. Gambini?

            Vinny Gambini: Yes, sir?

            Judge Chamberlain Haller: That is a lucid, intelligent, well thought-out objection.

            Vinny Gambini: Thank you, sir.

            Judge Chamberlain Haller: Overruled.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by virg_mattes ( 230616 )
      I don't normally shout RTFA, but the writeup doesn't describe the article very well. California doesn't care about the size of your TV, the article states that they're putting mandatory limits on how much power it can use. This is a problem for manufacturers, but consumers will still be able to buy whatever TV size they care to own.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by DrData99 ( 916924 )
        And it is not even a real problem for manufacturers, since (from TFA):
        According to the CEC, nearly 1000 HDTV models on the market today already meet the Tier 1 standard for 2011, and some 300 meet the 2013 standard (Tier 2).
    • Re:Hooray! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by sustik ( 90111 ) on Friday November 20, 2009 @12:28PM (#30172348)

      It was well said already, I do not repeat:

      http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1451590&op=Reply&threshold=2&commentsort=0&mode=nested&pid=30172042 [slashdot.org]

      What is fascinating is how these discussions so soon turn towards political drivel. I am genuinely interested in finding out what makes people behave in such irrational manner. Lack of logic? Anchoring to a view and incapable of admitting the mistake?

      - TV size is not regulated, power consumption is.
      - The household energy use issue is real for CA. Remember the rolling blackouts?
      - Legislation often happens in parallel. Homework assignment: how many laws they pass in a year? Would you want them to do it one at a time in order of importance?

      Having said the last one, I also think some issues are just distraction, for sure.

    • This is a win-win-win-win solution for California.

      1> These measures ensure that California's current power plants will be capable of supplying all the electricity nmeeded for the foreseeable future. There be no need for trying to find a safe place to put new power plants that will either vastly increase CO2 emissions or worse cause increased radioactive contamination from nuclear power.
      2>In addition, it will vastly increase employment opportunities in the state. When you cross back into California wit

    • by mcgrew ( 92797 ) *

      WTF? Who modded the parent "troll"? It was a satire, and a very good one, and illustrated the point very vell. I guess someone in California's legislature or bureaucracy has mod points today. Someone please mod that back up to visibility!

    • Re:Hooray! (Score:4, Insightful)

      by geekoid ( 135745 ) <dadinportland AT yahoo DOT com> on Friday November 20, 2009 @03:23PM (#30175444) Homepage Journal

      "Hey Sacramento - if I want a bigger television, I'll drive out of state to get it and you won't get any tax money out of it. Sucka"

      You want to break the tax code, good for you. Most people aren't going to spend the time and money to drive to another state and get a TV.
      Plus that won't matter since all TV'x will be built to meet CA standards.

      Of course, modern LED TV's already meat the standard, but you go on a ignorantly pound your meat hooks against your keyboard in a futile attempt at making some sort of coherent point.

  • Simple solution (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ubergeek65536 ( 862868 ) on Friday November 20, 2009 @12:05PM (#30171950)

    If you want people to use less electricity charge more for it and use the tax to fund something good like public transit

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by swanzilla ( 1458281 )

      If you want people to use less electricity charge more for it and use the tax to fund something good like public transit

      Mr. President? Is that you?

    • If you want people to use less electricity charge more for it and use the tax to fund something good like public transit

      The difficulty is people don't know how they're using that energy. Most consumers probably don't think of their energy bill when buying a TV (they're thinking picture quality and price.) Moreover, even if they are, it's pretty difficult for a normal consumer to figure how how much energy a television will use and exactly what the additional cost of that energy usage is over the life of the

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Wrath0fb0b ( 302444 )

        Even people who are just trying to use it to run some basic necessities.

        Why does the final use of the power matter when charging for it? The power plant and grid are use agnostic. A KWH is a KWH and is just as expensive to deliver whether it powers a massage chair or a insulin pump.

        I do support tiered usage -- first 500KWH for the month at one rate, the rest at a higher rate but that doesn't really correlate with usage. I use the median amount of power for my area but a huge proportion goes to technological gizmos and very little to necessities.

  • Hilarious (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mcgrew ( 92797 ) * on Friday November 20, 2009 @12:05PM (#30171966) Homepage Journal

    New TVs, whether plasma or LCD, consume FAR less electricity than the old fashioned CRTs. My TV is one of the old ones, a 42 inch Trinitron that uses over 200 watts of energy, probably over four times as much as an LCD of the same size.

    Maybe California should subsidize the purchase of new TVs for Californians who still use CRTs?

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 20, 2009 @12:05PM (#30171968)

    "In fact, by the time the first wave of CEC regulations enter into effect in 2011, Energy Star 4.0 will be in place."
    "In short, the differences between the two are not dramatic--the CEC's requirements are ultimately not any more stringent than the Energy Star guidelines."
    "According to its analysis, many popular HDTV models already meet the CEC's requirements for the year 2011, and some LED models--which have made a selling point of their energy efficiency--already meet the CEC's Tier 2 standard."

    Stay calm, people. The Governator is not coming to steal your teevees.

  • Why the uproar? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by hawguy ( 1600213 ) on Friday November 20, 2009 @12:10PM (#30172032)
    Can anyone explain what the manufacturers are up in arms about? THe PC World article says that the new CEC requirements aren't much different than the Energy Star regulations that most manufacturers seem to be embracing. Is it that EnergyStar is voluntary and CEC is required? With the price of electricity in California, I know I look for the Energy Star label, so perhaps non of this uproar applies to me. Of course, I don't have nearly enough room for a 50" plus sized screen either. From the article:

    Today, the Energy Star 3.0 spec limits active power consumption for a 32-inch HDTV to 120 watts; the impending Energy Star 4.0 spec, which goes into effect in May 2010, drops that to 78W; and the spec for Energy Star 5.0 (due in May 2012) is 55W. For a 50-inch set, the current Energy Star 3.0 spec limits power consumption to 353W; for Energy Star 4, that drops to 153W; and for Energy Star 5.0, that drops to 108W.

    The mandatory Tier 1 CEC spec for 2011 says a 32-inch HDTV's maximum power consumption must be no more than 116W for a 32-inch model; the Tier 2 spec for 2013 drops that to 75W--higher than the Energy Star 5.0 spec, which will be introduced six months earlier. For a 50-inch HDTV, the Tier 1 CEC spec will require the maximum power consumption to be at 245W; the Tier 2 CEC spec drops that to 153W.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by jandrese ( 485 )
      I wonder at what point the TV manufacturers are just going to have to tweak down the maximum brightness on the TV just to meet the power requirements? You can't tweak it down forever without eventually sacrificing the total lumens.
    • Re:Why the uproar? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by cmiller173 ( 641510 ) on Friday November 20, 2009 @12:21PM (#30172216)

      Can anyone explain what the manufacturers are up in arms about?

      Probably the expense of testing their products to prove they meet the regulations. Energy star is voluntary and probably less bureaucratic to get. To have to do it all over again to prove to a state that they meet the regs (even if it is just the time of a staffer to submit the paperwork) is viewed as a un-necessary expense. What if multiple states start doing this kind of thing? Pretty soon is a whole department of people needed to keep up with the paperwork. Which makes your TV more expensive.

    • Re:Why the uproar? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by amplt1337 ( 707922 ) on Friday November 20, 2009 @12:31PM (#30172394) Journal

      What manufacturers are really worried about has nothing to do with the content of these specific regulations.

      They're concerned about the possibility that individual states can have separate regulatory frameworks from the government. In that case, they'd be obliged to do testing and demonstrate that their products satisfy the regulations of every state in the Union that passed regulations. Theoretically they could just make sure they satisfy the most stringent of the state regulations, but if the regulations conflict, that's a problem; if different regulations emphasize different aspects, that's a problem. If CA mandates that televisions use less than 200 KW, and NY mandates that their manufacturing process not contain any Insidium-A, both those regulations may be achievable individually, but you may not be able to make an energy-efficient TV without Insidium-A, and now the megacorps lose the economies of scale that let them crush any smaller competition. (Though to be fair, it would be kind of a headache to keep track of all that, which was sort of the idea behind the Interstate Commerce Clause to begin with).

      I don't think it's a terrible thing, particularly when the regulations aren't onerous and no other state really does this -- CA is large enough that it deserves to be its own state (in the poli-sci sense) anyway -- and the manufacturers, like all big businesses, have an immediate knee-jerk reaction against any kind of regulation. But I can see how the precedent might not be pleasing to manufacturers.

  • Article is BS... (Score:4, Informative)

    by nweaver ( 113078 ) on Friday November 20, 2009 @12:11PM (#30172042) Homepage

    The standards are not only necessary (its a suprisingly large fraction of the household power consumption in CA), but imminently doable.

    Roughly 25% of the TVs on the market ALREADY meet the 2013 specification, with 50% meeting the 2011 specification.

    The key is "LCD with LED backlight". Such TVs easily meet the spec and are of good quality.

    LCD's with conventional backlights needs to change the backlight technology, but they are doing this anyway: LED backlights are better for longevity as well as power consumption.

    Who this hurts is those who have bet on Plasma technology, as plasma can effectively not meet these requirements, but plasma is dying anyway, as LCD screens keep getting bigger and faster reacting while being cheaper than plasma TVs.

    • It is a question of freedom. The more power we give the government, the more they will take. The more power the take, the less we will have. At some point, we will realize that we are living in a tyranny and the only way to change things will be with guns. I'd rather stop this now, when no guns are necessary. All that you need to be free, is to be willing to have your neighbor be free as well.
    • by Wrath0fb0b ( 302444 ) on Friday November 20, 2009 @12:27PM (#30172322)

      Who this hurts is those who have bet on Plasma technology, as plasma can effectively not meet these requirements, but plasma is dying anyway, as LCD screens keep getting bigger and faster reacting while being cheaper than plasma TVs.

      You can pry my plasma from my cold dead hands, because I appreciate things like dark blacks, bright whites, color fidelity and blur free motion. LCDs are a lot better than they were at these things, but 1000:1 contrast (DNC is a lie) is still a deal breaker.

      I gladly pay for every watt that my plasma draws, so if you think that I'm not paying my fair share, I invite you to find a rate that you think is more fair (of course, remember that you'll have to pay that rate for your fridge too -- a KWH is the same irrespective of what use). Moreover, my energy use is median for my area, so I'm not using more than my neighbor even if my TV uses more than his TV -- I save energy in other ways.

      Finally, I have no problem driving up to Oregon (bonus: no sales tax) to buy my next TV. It's quite ironic that a measure intended to cut energy use would encourage such insanely wasteful behavior -- TV energy use pales in comparison to a few hundred miles on my (30mpg) vehicle.

  • What's the big deal with large TV's anyway. 12" CRT TV owner, and proud of it. And... seriously? TV's are using enough power to warrant government intervention? I doubt that highly. Another great idea from The Land of Fruits and Nuts ;)
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by tepples ( 727027 )

      What's the big deal with large TV's anyway. 12" CRT TV owner, and proud of it.

      If you're single and rarely have friends come to visit, a TV the size of a laptop PC's monitor might work. But people with a family or a social life can't easily fit four grown bodies around a 12" TV with a comfortable viewing distance and angle.

  • . IF THEY COULD MAKE MORE EFFICIENT TVS FOR THE SAME PRICE THEY WOULD. They can't, so the TVs will be more expensive. This is more or less a hidden tax on CA consumers, or worse - a hidden tax on all of us, should manufacturers decide to redistribute costs amongst all of their products.

    Why do people still believe that the price most goods are sold at is in any way affected by the cost of the manufacturing? tTere are markets where it is true, but in most it is not. Say it costs TV manufacturers an extra $100 to make high end TVs more energy efficient, but 11% less people are willing to pay for it, well if the TV is more than $1000 it's not worth it and the $100 will just eat into profit margins, if it was less than $1000 they would have been charging the extra $100 already. There are marke

  • Why is People's Republik of Kalifornia banning these things?

    It will NOT save the state of California millions every year. Utilities are taxed. By decreasing electricity consumption, they are actually DECREASING tax revenue - something People's Republik of Kalifornia cannot afford at this time.

    If Joe Sixpack wants to spend money on a plasma television, they ought to let them. The consumers pay for the electricity they use.
    Hell if they wanted to save power, they would ban LCDs as well - my Sony 36" CRT uses l

  • by nightfire-unique ( 253895 ) on Friday November 20, 2009 @12:17PM (#30172140)

    Trying to save the planet by reducing energy usage is like trying to save a river by not drinking.

    We are not going back.

    Reasonable reduction, recycling programs, and common sense are certainly part of the picture, but the answer to the energy problem will be a technological one. We need to start rolling out more sensible power generation facilities.

    If we pretend we can get by on coal and making TVs dimmer, we will pollute the atmosphere to the point it can't support us.

    • by pla ( 258480 ) on Friday November 20, 2009 @01:51PM (#30173742) Journal
      Trying to save the planet by reducing energy usage is like trying to save a river by not drinking.

      Half true, but you ignore one important historical fact...

      From the early 1900s until the 1960s, "energy" cost a pittance and no one worried about emissions. You can see the consequences of this in home designs from that period - They leak like a sieve because, well, "just burn more oil". Older heating systems (including wood) have insane particulate outputs, simply because no one cared. If you compare almost identical houses built in the 60s vs the 80s (and not substantially renovated since), you'll find that the former has literally 2-3 times the HVAC costs of the latter.

      Thus the DoE's big push to get people to do those energy saving renovations... Get better insulation, get better HVAC systems, get double-glazed low-E windows, and they'll pay people to do this because it literally pays itself back to the US economy within a year or two (it also pays itself back to the homeowner, but most people can't afford to blow $10k on replacing all their windows without some sort of incentive).

      We need to start rolling out more sensible power generation facilities.

      I agree with you completely that we desperately need to solve our dirty and nonrenewable generation issues... But these form two sides of the same coin. If we can at least hold our energy use constant for 20 years, we can slowly replace older capacity with cleaner sources. If we keep using more and more and more, we might add in renewable capacity but we'll just end up keeping 80YO coal plants online despite the "improvements".

      Nothing wrong with pruning your your orchard for a better harvest next year, but don't ignore the existing low-hanging fruit you already have.
  • Geniuses (Score:2, Interesting)

    by PonyHome ( 625218 )
    This is the same stupidity that energy gurus did to ceiling fans. They decided that, in order to save energy, all ceiling fans would have to go to the candelabra-sized base, from a standard full-size base bulb. Their thinking (if you can call it that) was that those bulbs are not made in anything over 60 Watts, so that's bound to save power, right? Okay, so let's see what they did: They eliminated the possibility of using almost any compact fluorescent bulb in a ceiling fan, because the choices of CFL b
  • The only people this is going to hurt are people who sell large screen TV's in California, and the moronic government that will now miss out on the revenue from it.

    Unless they are prepared to guard the borders to check Californians for "illegal" large screen TV's people will still get what they want.

  • by Monkeedude1212 ( 1560403 ) on Friday November 20, 2009 @12:24PM (#30172254) Journal

    (I mean I don't live in the States, let alone in California)

    But if the Government wants to get serious about energy consumption, just put a system in place that gives users a fixed amount of Energy for the day. Give me a 1 hour warning that my juice is almost up - and I'll know to finish my round of Halo, go take a shower, and either go to bed or read a book with a flashlight.

    I mean, my hot water tank won't last long enough for me and 3 room mates to take showers one after another, but its not like its a such a huge inconvenience that I can't survive. The same could go for energy.

  • With that name, I'm amazed the politicians didn't come up with the idea themselves.
  • This is idiotic; what would stop someone from driving to AZ, NV or Oregon and buy a TV from another state? Ironically, this bureaucratic idiocy will create more pollution as a result of folks driving to buy TVs from another state AND it will cost CA sales taxes, with neighboring states benefiting from the decision.

    And what's next, TV police vans, like the UK has?

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by zenslug ( 542549 )

      This is idiotic; what would stop someone from driving to AZ, NV or Oregon and buy a TV from another state?

      Well, given that the two largest population centers (SF Bay, LA) are not a 20 minute drive to the border, how much money would be saved driving out of state? The cost of gas to drive to and from the border would outweigh the savings on a cheaper, less-efficient set. On top of that, the energy bill for the TV will be higher over its lifetime. If you are going to be buying a huge TV, then you'll need an SUV or a big truck, and that doesn't sound like a cheap tank of gas.

  • Ship any offending models to California with some cheap, heavy batteries to supply power above the maximum wattage. They can take their charge during the "passive drain" when the television is turned off. Since these are residential TVs we're talking about, the regulator should be cool with the notion that they're only on for 8 hours a day, and the excess voltage after that period (when the batteries run out) is from abuse.
  • by Animats ( 122034 ) on Friday November 20, 2009 @12:47PM (#30172684) Homepage

    Too many of the comments seem to come from Fox News viewers. All rant, no facts.

    First, here are the actual regulations. [ca.gov] All comments submitted (including e-mail rants) are on-line. Some of the better ones:

    • Best Buy did comment [ca.gov]. What bothers Best Buy is that consumers might be able to purchase non-compliant TVs from out of state over the Internet, making Best Buy look non-competitive. They're also complaining about the label placement requirement.
    • Sony has a long list of complaints. [ca.gov] An amusing one is that the power requirements at standby prohibit TVs from doing background processing ("download acquisition") when turned off. They also complain about the requirement for power factor correction in power supplies on large units.
    • Panasonic wants the measurement procedures harmonized with the Federal standard. [ca.gov] They have no other complaints.
    • Sharp is concerned about hotel TVs. [ca.gov] "Hotel TVs maintain a 24/7 link to the server". (Sending what data, one wonders.) So they have trouble with the standby power limit.
    • The Consumer Electronics Retailer Coalition wants a six-month delay [ca.gov] because the product cycle for TVs changes models at mid-year, and the regulations change at January 1.

    Other than Sony, most of the big players don't seem to have major problems with the requirements.

  • Now is not the time. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by jwiegley ( 520444 ) on Friday November 20, 2009 @01:03PM (#30173006)

    Disclaimer: I'm all for "green" and the environment when it makes sense. [cents?]

    The problem with "green" is that it is not always the right time to do it. California's economy is in serious trouble. (Not the serious like.. Oh my, we need a new governor; I mean serious like in a few years we may not have a higher education system or any small businesses left. I'm employed in what's left of our higher education system and I see federal receivership as a real possible end.)

    But what does this have to do with television regulation? I'm renovating a house. I want to improve my home, my neighborhood and California. But we have a piece of regulation called "Title 24" that is a lot like the Television regulation proposed. What does this mean for my renovation... Lighting costs 500% of what it should. You must have high efficacy lighting. This means compact fluorescent and, no, you can't get cheap Type A incandescent fixtures and screw in a retrofit CFL bulb. You have to use the plug socketed CFL fixtures. So "green" lighting for my house costs $6000 while older incandescent would have cost $1000.

    This is a serious impediment to purchasing these lights. The same is going to be true for the televisions. They will be more expensive because they will have to be built with more sophisticated technology. People will balk at buying them. Oh.. wait... they don't have a choice because it's a draconian state law; so the only choice is not to buy a TV... or move to where you can. More people will move to any other state to avoid this crap (we are currently having a mass exodus of talented, skilled people and families). Manufacturers will move their manufacturing and marketing to areas more conducive to sales (again... already happening without, yet another, regulation).

    And the end result is that California's economy and culture will slip into an even deeper disaster.

    "Green" regulation gets myopic... "Since it's better for the environment it MUST be done, at all costs." Well, other factors of equal and greater importance, such as "will we be able to educate our children", exist and should be considered first. It might be the right time to regulate the banking industry but it is certainly not the time to regulate, yet another, consumer oriented product that in the last decade has already seen leaps and bounds of improvements in efficiency just based on natural evolution of the product's technology. Remember tube TVs?

  • by m.dillon ( 147925 ) on Friday November 20, 2009 @02:00PM (#30173908) Homepage

    California is basically the only reason we have efficient washers and dryers, wallwarts with switching power supplies instead of transformers, consumer electronic devices which actually have low power modes, and vehicle requirements that vastly improve safety and mileage over federal standards. It has all been beneficial in reducing per-capita energy consumption (and water consumption too when it comes to washing machines).

    The problem the U.S. has is that most people can't see beyond the end of their nose when it comes to shaping policy. It's really unfortunate that the Feds can't get their act together and it takes action by a state like CA to actually get something done. It's doubly unfortunate that CA regulations designed to give industries upwards of a decade to make changes aren't allowed to take effect until the very last minute by idiot politicians who think they are doing industry a favor when all they are really doing is making our industry non-competitive with other countries and creating massive shocks to the system that are totally unnecessary.


  • Fradulent Summay (Score:4, Insightful)

    by careysub ( 976506 ) on Friday November 20, 2009 @03:11PM (#30175246)

    Everyone, please read the article. The summary is a deliberate prevarication (three dollar word for "lie"). There is no plan or proposal to " target your big-screen TVs for elimination". Under the proposed California regulations anyone can sell or buy and size TV they like now and in the future. In fact the proposed regulations are unremarkable: they are essentially the same as the voluntary Energy Star program, considered to be well within reach by the industry. The CEC mandate simply makes them mandatory instead of voluntary. The better TV manufacturers (e.g. Visio) are in full compliance, and fully support both the standards, and making them mandatory. The only whiners here are companies that wish to hawk cheap inefficient TVs, and ideologues who feel that any government regulation is inherently evil in principle.

User hostile.