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

Mine goes to 11

[StikyPad]

These new TVs will be identical to other TVs sold elsewhere in the country, except that have a governor that limits the brightness to 7.

Re:Mine goes to 11

[CodeBuster]

except that have a governor that limits the brightness to 7.

You mean a Governator right?

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.

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:Mine goes to 11

[shadow349]

The dimmer is just hooked up to a resister behind the wall, which gobbles up the remaining current.

Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.

Re:Mine goes to 11

[cthulu_mt]

Mars Bars are fattening and are prohibited in the People's Republic of California.

Re:Mine goes to 11

[bmwm3nut]

I don't think even the dumbest electrical engineer out there would design a dimmer with the resistor in parallel unless their goal was burning down houses.

Re:Mine goes to 11

[barzok]

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?

I've seen these

[Anonymous Coward]

the models where the power cord doesn't end in a 3-prong plug, but in a stationary bicycle...

Re:I've seen these

[calmofthestorm]

And healthcare costs drop suddenly...

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

[geekoid]

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

[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:Details up front

[Applekid]

If they both have similar specs, but one is rated for 1000W and the other at 500W, would you not choose the latter?

A key part of my media room design is that the TV should automatically dim the lights in the room.

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.

Re:Details up front

[von_rick]

...its on the back and its measured in watts. Shocking no?

A simple rule of thumb is that a unit consuming 1W if left on for a full year would cost $1 in electricity bill (with the present rates in US).

1W x 24 Hr = 24Wh

24Wh x 365 days = 8.76 KWh

11 cents/KWh x 8.76 Kwh ~ 97 cents

Re:Details up front

[Tmack]

Given the choice between a plasma, and a same-sized cheaper more energy efficient LCD with higher refresh that doesnt come with the legends of plasma-burn-in/burn-out, and doesnt feel like you are standing in front of an oven.... I went with the lcd.

tm

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.

This is exactly what we need.

[andytrevino]

Great, more government intervention in both the market and our lives; the net result will just be less choice and higher prices for TVs everywhere.

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.

[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.

[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.

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

Smart Financial Thinking

[pete-classic]

$18.48 in just a year? That new LCD HDTV will practically pay for itself!

-Peter

Meanwhile ....

[molesdad]

Non purchasers will save up to $1000 in the first year. lol

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.

Re:Savings

[Black-Man]

Typing your rant on a power-hungry computer sucking electricity from that evil coal-fired power plant. Rant on!

Re:Savings

[YouWantFriesWithThat]

i resent that!

I know what's going down with the environment. i also drive an SUV and could stand to lose some weight, but i did change my lifestyle. when i was reading about global warming i realized that most of the area i live in is going to be destroyed by flooding from the great lakes. that made me invest in some bigger tires for my truck. now i am riding high on 35" mudding wheels and a 5" lift kit. it cost a bundle and there is a pretty big hit in the gas mileage, but it is worth it to prepare for the impending ecological disaster.

kindly don't lump us all together, because some of us are trying to do our part!

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

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.

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.

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.

E-Waste Disposal Fee

[Ohio Calvinist]

In California we already pay an Electronic Waste Disposal Fee whenever we purchase a new TV that varies based on the price of the TV, but was $20-30 last time I purchased one. Yet another example of the state trying to control its citizens, and those of other US states given that California is such a large segment of the US economy, and manufacturers will be less likley to export units that meet environmental standards in other states. When I lived back in Ohio I always got a card in the package when I purcased solder that said "WARNING: This product contains chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm.", and often see links on websites for "Your California Privicy Rights."

All it really does is hurt retailers whom are going to loose out on sales in border cities where consumers have more choice in other states (such as Nevada, Oregon or Arizona), and making life difficult for online sellers to keep track of what units they can/can not sell to CA residents. All the while, most Californians are probably watching TV on their old CRTs that are burning up energy and are probably going to be dumped in the desert somewhere when they quit working. Southern California (where energy is hardest to come by) has literally millions of square miles of desert and lots of folks moving there to find affordable housing but still commute to the LA area to find reasonable paying jobs. If they built a power plant or two up there and some manufacturing they could cut down on transportation costs, improve the quality of life of residents in the desert and the valley and not be so desperate to save power that they're going to restrict tvs and non CFL lightbulbs (wish I still had the URL for that nonsense someone was proposing about a year ago).

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: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:Saves Almost $19?

[LandDolphin]

Doesn't California have power problems? If so, then if they can cut the power useage from everyone, even a little bit, then it helps resolve soem of their pwoer problems.

Sometimes things are done for a bigger picture then saving you a little $

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

Interstate commerce anyone?

[DaveV1.0]

I don't think they can do it. This falls afoul of the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution.

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: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.

This accomplishes nothing...

[rickb928]

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:Saves Almost $19?

[WCguru42]

California is the only state in the union that I know of that has maintained a steady energy consumption per capita since the 1970s. That means that even with the expansion of silicon valley the amount of energy used per person has stayed the same for over 30 years. Take a look at the rest of the US, it has steadily grown. So maybe people should shut up about how Californians are just a bunch of hippies and start wising up to the fact that maybe you're just jealous that California has succeeded at both economic expansion and energy efficiency.

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

[daybot]

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

...and your KillAWatt lived up to its name :)

Re:I'd love it if JUST ONCE...

[pi_rules]

...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".

We're getting there.

STI and Barrett (both gun companies) now refuse to sell to any law enforcement or government agency in California.

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

[jimmyswimmy]

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.

It's not misleading

[KalvinB]

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.