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

Yet Another

[kenp2002]

Yet another revenue stream disguised as a certifcation process....

Re:Yet Another

[jimmyswimmy]

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.

How about cable and sat boxes that can power down

[Joe The Dragon]

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

[smprather]

I measured my DirecTV HR20 DVR with a KillAWatt. On: 41W Off: 40W

Re:How about cable and sat boxes that can power do

[Ark42]

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

Re:How about cable and sat boxes that can power do

[Tauvix]

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:Who is paying for my electricity, anyways?

[TheOriginalRevdoc]

You're not paying for the external cost of generating the electricity, which is the problem. Those external costs include mercury and CO2 emissions from coal-fired plants. I suppose if those costs were tacked on to your power bill you'd have a case.

Re:Details up front

[asc99c]

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.

[RingDev]

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

Re:This is exactly what we need.

[tfoss]

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 in the long run. Or increasing refrigerator standards didn't do anything. 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