California Moving Forward With Big-Screen TV Power Restrictions

Hugh Pickens writes "The Los Angeles Times reports that California regulators are poised to pass the nation's first ban on energy-hungry big-screen televisions just as they did with refrigerators, air conditioners and dozens of other products since the 1970s. 'We would not propose TV efficiency standards if we thought there was any evidence in the record that they will hurt the economy,' said Commissioner Julia Levin, who has been in charge of the two-year rule-making procedure. 'This will actually save consumers money and help the California economy grow and create new clean, sustainable jobs.' California's estimated 35 million TVs and related electronic devices account for about 10% of all household electricity consumption, but manufacturers quickly are coming up with new technologies that are making even 50-inch-screen models much more economical to operate. Sets with screens of up to 58 inches would have until the start of 2011 to comply with a minimum efficiency standard, with more stringent rules being introduced two years later. If all TVs met state standards, California could avoid the $600-million cost of building a natural-gas-fired power plant, says Ken Rider, a commission staff engineer. Switching to more-efficient TVs could have an estimated net benefit to the state of $8.1 billion, the commission staff reported."

Comments

I Did Not!

[Hugh Pickens]

Hugh Pickens writes

I most certainly did not!

Misses The Point

[Raisey-raison]

We do need to think about our future energy needs both with respect to the environment and energy security. What we don't need is silly government micro management of our lives. So yes that means we need to subsidize nuclear, wind and solar power. The problem is that the greenies block everything. They block nuclear energy and they even block solar energy. Diane Feinstein plans on banning solar panels in the Mojave Desert even though that is one of the best places for them. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/09/20/MN4T19OTBJ.DTL And then the greenies don't want to allow wind power on mountains in Vermont and New Hampshire even though no-one lives on the top of a mountain. They dig their heads on the sand and pretend that with a growing population we can just conserve our way out of this crisis - which is of course way out of reality. Then they try to impose draconian restrictions on the rest of us. I can just imagine the next step - banning video games because of energy use.

Re:Misses The Point

[node 3]

They dig their heads on the sand and pretend that with a growing population we can just conserve our way out of this crisis

And to dig your head in the sand and pretend that with a growing population we can just consume our way out of this crisis is any better?

Then they try to impose draconian restrictions on the rest of us.

"Oh no! They're going to outlaw low efficiency TVs when higher efficiency TVs exist!"

The hyperbolic stance of you and your ilk is just as much a problem, perhaps even more so, as the people who oppose any sort of new energy plant. We will need to increase energy production, there's no doubt about that, but we also need to make better use of the energy we already have, there's no doubt about that, either.

So quit being part of the problem. Just because you call out the foolishness from the other side of the debate doesn't excuse *your* foolishness.

Re:Misses The Point

[clarkkent09]

It's like anything else, as the energy becomes less available the price goes up and the consumption goes down. Since the gov in that state is already so heavily involved in the energy industry as in every other aspect of life, its hard to take it out overnight but a good first step would be to stop dreaming up inane regulations like this. At least increase taxes on energy so that those who use more have to pay more. What difference does it make if they use it by having an inefficient tv (illegal) or by leaving it on twice as long (legal)?

Re:Misses The Point

[Shakrai]

"Oh no! They're going to outlaw low efficiency TVs when higher efficiency TVs exist!"

I don't really give a damn about TV because I rarely watch it. What does bother me is the fact that the Government is going to mandate that I switch to crappy ass light bulbs that take half a minute to come up to full brightness and will contaminate my house with mercury if dropped.

The CFL mandate is one of the stupidest fucking things ever to come out of Washington. I'm already using them at every location in my house where it makes sense to use them -- i.e: lights that get turned on left on for hours on end. Now they are going to force me to use them in closets (where I need full brightness at once and rarely leave the light on for more than a minute or two) and all other locations? WTF?

As an added bonus, there isn't a single CFL made in the United States. There are still incandescent bulbs produced here. Thank you Uncle Sam, for removing my choice to support American jobs and ensuring that even more of our money leaves the country and goes to China.

Re:Create More Hobs ???

[Entropy98]

Where are the jobs going to be created? Best Buy and Walmart. Considering all TVs are now designed and produced overseas I can't see were any jobs would be created?

TV efficiency testers?

Re:Create More Hobs ???

[AliasMarlowe]

Where are the jobs going to be created? Best Buy and Walmart. Considering all TVs are now designed and produced overseas I can't see were any jobs would be created?

Writing regulations, testing for compliance with regulations, putting amusing stickers on compliant units, smuggling noncompliant units into the country, putting forged stickers on noncompliant units, legal actions for flouting regulations, building bigger prisons for incarcerating those who flout the laws, lots of prison guards, parole officers, etc.

All the things the US excels in!

Re:Idiots

[fredjh]

The problem is that California is so large, manufacturers are not going to make a CA TV and a rest-of-the-world TV; neither will they stop selling there.

So, the problem is that even if the TV ends up costing only a few dollars more, it costs a few dollars more for EVERYONE.

Seems like the wrong approach.

[blind biker]

Mandating low consumption TV sets, or low consumption lightbulbs (here in Finland it's now forbidden to produce incandescent bulbs) is as dumb as mandating low consumption cars. It makes the whole process of enforcement and monitoring more complicated, more expensive and prone to corruption.

The logical and simpler solution is to increase the price of electricity and/or gasoline, to reflect the real cost of the commodity, through taxes. That way, there is a natural economic pressure to decrease the consumption of EVERY appliance. And if someone has the money to pay for the electricity consumed by his/her CRT TV, then let them. Their money can be used to find better sources of abovementioned commodities. I.E. invest in research of algae-produced combustibles.

Re:Seems like the wrong approach.

[polar red]

The logical and simpler solution is to increase the price of electricity and/or gasoline, to reflect the real cost of the commodity, through taxes

hey Einstein, how is the consumer going to know how much that shiny new fridge is going to consume ? Without government intervention, he won't be able to tell the difference between a high and a low efficient device ...

Re:Create More Hobs ???

[mspohr]

Due to energy saving mandates and regulations like this new proposal, California has managed to keep per capita electricity consumption flat (no increase) since 1973 while the rest of the country has doubled per capita usage during the same period. This is a big win for everyone in California and keeps us on the cutting edge of environment and energy policy as well as lowering the costs for everyone in the state.

1. Energy efficiency regulations.

2. ????

3. Profit!

Please don't move to California and screw it up.