New Energy Efficiency Rules For TVs Sold In California

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.

Comments

Details up front

[SoundGuyNoise]

We're getting to a point where items like TVs and game systems should have power consumption ratings on them in the store, like with many kitchen appliances.

Re:Details up front

[SlashDotDotDot]

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

[Rogerborg]

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:Details up front

[houstonbofh]

The only thing missing is good information.

Why educate when you can regulate?
--The Govenment

Re:Details up front

[timeOday]

Then I side with the government on this one. Because on an individual basis, there is NO motivation to do the right thing. Clear blue skies may be very important to me personally. Does that mean I should drive a low-smog car? No, not at all. No matter how bad my own car is, it will have NO observable (even measurable) impact on the air. The only way to clean up the skies (which California has been a leader in, and very successful at) is to regulate. That may be a simple emissions limit, it may be a cap & trade system, it may be a pollution fee to internalize long-term costs, but one way or another, regulation IS the answer to environmental protection.

Savings

[DarkOx]

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.

Re:Savings

[Joce640k]

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.

Who is paying for my electricity, anyways?

[CannonballHead]

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 :)

Re:Who is paying for my electricity, anyways?

[grumbel]

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.

Sorry? Why can't this be done indirectly?

[plasmacutter]

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.

Misleading "science"

[randyest]

The article and in particular this "infographic" is completely wrong or at least misleading. LCD TVs do not consume more power than the same sized CRT as claimed. In fact, an LCD set will consume 50% or less power than a comparably-sized CRT. Of course, if you decide to base each type of set's power consumption on "average set size" without fucking bothering to define what that average is or even bothering to keep the same average for each type of TV (!), then you can pretty much "prove" anything you want, can't you?

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 and read any of the dozens of results 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

[Attila Dimedici]

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.

Peoples Republic?

[squoozer]

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

[Alarindris]

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

Re:LAND OF THE FREE!

[Joce640k]

No it isn't. Planet Earth is everybody's business.

Step up and be a man, not a spoiled brat.

Re:Mine goes to 11

[bmwm3nut]

Nope, that's not right. Since we're talking about a resistive load, I can make the simplification that Power=Volts times Amps (and Power is proportional to Dollars).

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.

Re:This is exactly what we need.

[mcgrew]

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:This is exactly what we need.

[andytrevino]

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: 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.