Calif. requires TVs to be more energy-efficient
#1
DVD Talk Legend
Thread Starter
Calif. requires TVs to be more energy-efficient
By SAMANTHA YOUNG, Associated Press Writer Samantha Young, Associated Press Writer – Thu Nov 19, 4:19 am ET
SACRAMENTO, Calif. – California regulators have adopted the nation's first energy-efficiency standards for televisions, a move that will eventually ban power-hungry sets from the state's store shelves.
Wednesday's action by the California Energy Commission could lead the way in a general reform of standards for an industry increasingly focused on wide-view, flat-screen, high-definition sets.
The 5-0 vote by the California Energy Commission is just the latest effort by the state to secure its place in the forefront of the environmental movement.
California represents such a big consumer market that environmental groups hope the new standards will lead manufacturers to make energy-saving TVs for the rest of the nation, just as California's stringent fuel standards for cars and trucks forced automakers to produce more efficient models for all of the U.S.
"Once again, California is leading the way, and we hope others will follow," said Noah Horowitz, senior scientist at the Natural Resources Defense Council.
Some manufacturers warned that the regulations will cripple innovation, limit consumer choice and hurt California stores, because people could simply buy TVs out of state or online. The industry also complained that manufacturers will be forced to make televisions with poorer picture quality and fewer features than those sold elsewhere in the U.S.
"Instead of allowing customers to choose the products they want, the commission has decided to impose arbitrary standards that will hamper innovation and limit consumer choice," said Jason Oxman, a vice president with the Consumer Electronics Association. "It will result in higher prices for consumers, job losses for Californians, and lost tax revenue for the state."
Californians buy about 11 percent of the 35.4 million TVs sold in the U.S. each year, according to industry figures. The industry group said it was already working with the federal government to promote more efficient TVs through the federal Energy Star program.
"We have every confidence this industry will be able to meet the rule and then some," Energy Commissioner Julia Levin said. "It will save consumers money, it will help protect public health, and it will spark innovation."
At least one TV manufacturer has said it could meet the standards — Vizio Inc., the largest seller of flat screens.
The regulations requiring televisions to be more efficient will be phased in beginning in 2011.
The new standards will apply to new televisions up to 58 inches. Those larger than 58 inches, which account for no more than 3 percent of the market, were left out in a concession to sellers of high-end home-theater TVs. But the commission is expected to regulate them in the future.
The commission estimates that TVs account for about 10 percent of a home's electricity use. The fear is that energy use will rise as people buy bigger, more elaborate TVs, put more of them in their homes, and watch them longer.
The average plasma TV uses more than three times as much energy as an old cathode-ray tube set. Liquid-crystal display, or LCD, TVs use about 43 percent more energy than tube sets, according to Pacific Gas & Electric Co., the state's biggest utility. LCDs now account for about 90 percent of the 4 million TVs sold in California each year.
Under the rules adopted Wednesday, all new 42-inch TV sets must use less than 183 watts by 2011 and less than 116 watts by 2013.
That is considerably more efficient than flat-screen TVs placed on the market in recent years. A 42-inch Hitachi plasma TV sold in 2007 uses 313 watts, while a 42-inch Sharp Liquid-crystal display, or LCD, TV draws 232 watts, according to the Energy Commission.
The energy commission previously set aggressive energy-efficiency standards for refrigerators, washing machines and other household appliances, paving the way for more efficient models sold nationwide.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091119/...rnia_tv_energy
SACRAMENTO, Calif. – California regulators have adopted the nation's first energy-efficiency standards for televisions, a move that will eventually ban power-hungry sets from the state's store shelves.
Wednesday's action by the California Energy Commission could lead the way in a general reform of standards for an industry increasingly focused on wide-view, flat-screen, high-definition sets.
The 5-0 vote by the California Energy Commission is just the latest effort by the state to secure its place in the forefront of the environmental movement.
California represents such a big consumer market that environmental groups hope the new standards will lead manufacturers to make energy-saving TVs for the rest of the nation, just as California's stringent fuel standards for cars and trucks forced automakers to produce more efficient models for all of the U.S.
"Once again, California is leading the way, and we hope others will follow," said Noah Horowitz, senior scientist at the Natural Resources Defense Council.
Some manufacturers warned that the regulations will cripple innovation, limit consumer choice and hurt California stores, because people could simply buy TVs out of state or online. The industry also complained that manufacturers will be forced to make televisions with poorer picture quality and fewer features than those sold elsewhere in the U.S.
"Instead of allowing customers to choose the products they want, the commission has decided to impose arbitrary standards that will hamper innovation and limit consumer choice," said Jason Oxman, a vice president with the Consumer Electronics Association. "It will result in higher prices for consumers, job losses for Californians, and lost tax revenue for the state."
Californians buy about 11 percent of the 35.4 million TVs sold in the U.S. each year, according to industry figures. The industry group said it was already working with the federal government to promote more efficient TVs through the federal Energy Star program.
"We have every confidence this industry will be able to meet the rule and then some," Energy Commissioner Julia Levin said. "It will save consumers money, it will help protect public health, and it will spark innovation."
At least one TV manufacturer has said it could meet the standards — Vizio Inc., the largest seller of flat screens.
The regulations requiring televisions to be more efficient will be phased in beginning in 2011.
The new standards will apply to new televisions up to 58 inches. Those larger than 58 inches, which account for no more than 3 percent of the market, were left out in a concession to sellers of high-end home-theater TVs. But the commission is expected to regulate them in the future.
The commission estimates that TVs account for about 10 percent of a home's electricity use. The fear is that energy use will rise as people buy bigger, more elaborate TVs, put more of them in their homes, and watch them longer.
The average plasma TV uses more than three times as much energy as an old cathode-ray tube set. Liquid-crystal display, or LCD, TVs use about 43 percent more energy than tube sets, according to Pacific Gas & Electric Co., the state's biggest utility. LCDs now account for about 90 percent of the 4 million TVs sold in California each year.
Under the rules adopted Wednesday, all new 42-inch TV sets must use less than 183 watts by 2011 and less than 116 watts by 2013.
That is considerably more efficient than flat-screen TVs placed on the market in recent years. A 42-inch Hitachi plasma TV sold in 2007 uses 313 watts, while a 42-inch Sharp Liquid-crystal display, or LCD, TV draws 232 watts, according to the Energy Commission.
The energy commission previously set aggressive energy-efficiency standards for refrigerators, washing machines and other household appliances, paving the way for more efficient models sold nationwide.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091119/...rnia_tv_energy
So I remember one poster saying the Samsung LED LCDs use far less power, so I suppose there will be more demand for them which could be a good thing.
eidt: fixed link.
Last edited by Ranger; 11-19-09 at 04:25 PM.
#2
New Member
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Calif. requires TVs to be more energy-efficient
Governor Schwarzenegger is shooting himself in the foot!
1. Taxation is better for everyone, if energy really needs to be saved.
TV set taxation based on energy efficiency - unlike bans - gives Governor Schwarzenegger's impoverished California Government income on the reduced sales, while consumers keep choice.
This also applies generally,
to CARS (with emission tax or gas tax), BUILDINGS, DISHWASHERS, LIGHT BULBS etc,
where politicians instead keep trying to define what people can or can't use.
Politicians can use the tax money raised to fund home insulation schemes, renewable projects etc that lower energy use and emissions more than remaining product use raises them.
Also, the energy efficient products can have their sales taxes lowered.
2. Product regulation, bans or taxation, are however unwarranted:
Where there is a problem - deal with the problem!
Energy: there is no energy shortage
(given renewable/nuclear development possibilities, with set emission limits)
and consumers - not politicians - pay for energy and how they wish to use it.
It might sound great to
"Let everyone save money by only allowing energy efficient products"
However:
Inefficient products that use more energy can have performance, appearance and construction advantages
Examples (using cars, buildings, dishwashers, TV sets, light bulbs etc):
ceolas.net/#cc211x
For example, big plasma TV screens have image contrast and other advantages along with the bigger image sizes.
Products using more energy usually cost less, or they'd be more energy efficient already.
Depending on how much they are used, there might therefore not be any running cost savings either.
Other factors contribute to a lack of savings:
If households use less energy,
then utility companies make less money,
and will just raise electricity prices to cover their costs.
So people don't save as much money as they thought.
Conversely,
energy efficiency in effect means cheaper energy,
so people just leave TV sets etc on more, knowing that energy bills are lower,
as also shown by Scottish and Cambridge research
ceolas.net/#cc214x
Either way, supposed energy - or money - savings aren't there.
----------------------
Why energy efficiency regulations are wrong,
whether you are for or against energy and emission conservation
ceolas.net/#cc2x
Summary
Politicians don't object to energy efficiency as it sounds too good to be true. It is.
--The Consumer Side
Product Performance -- Construction and Appearance
Price Increase -- Lack of Actual Savings: Money, Energy or Emissions. Choice and Quality affected
-- The Manufacturer Side
Meeting Consumer Demand -- Green Technology -- Green Marketing
--The Energy Side
Energy Supply -- Energy Security -- Cars and Oil Dependence
--The Emission Side
Buildings -- Industry -- Power Stations -- Light Bulbs
1. Taxation is better for everyone, if energy really needs to be saved.
TV set taxation based on energy efficiency - unlike bans - gives Governor Schwarzenegger's impoverished California Government income on the reduced sales, while consumers keep choice.
This also applies generally,
to CARS (with emission tax or gas tax), BUILDINGS, DISHWASHERS, LIGHT BULBS etc,
where politicians instead keep trying to define what people can or can't use.
Politicians can use the tax money raised to fund home insulation schemes, renewable projects etc that lower energy use and emissions more than remaining product use raises them.
Also, the energy efficient products can have their sales taxes lowered.
2. Product regulation, bans or taxation, are however unwarranted:
Where there is a problem - deal with the problem!
Energy: there is no energy shortage
(given renewable/nuclear development possibilities, with set emission limits)
and consumers - not politicians - pay for energy and how they wish to use it.
It might sound great to
"Let everyone save money by only allowing energy efficient products"
However:
Inefficient products that use more energy can have performance, appearance and construction advantages
Examples (using cars, buildings, dishwashers, TV sets, light bulbs etc):
ceolas.net/#cc211x
For example, big plasma TV screens have image contrast and other advantages along with the bigger image sizes.
Products using more energy usually cost less, or they'd be more energy efficient already.
Depending on how much they are used, there might therefore not be any running cost savings either.
Other factors contribute to a lack of savings:
If households use less energy,
then utility companies make less money,
and will just raise electricity prices to cover their costs.
So people don't save as much money as they thought.
Conversely,
energy efficiency in effect means cheaper energy,
so people just leave TV sets etc on more, knowing that energy bills are lower,
as also shown by Scottish and Cambridge research
ceolas.net/#cc214x
Either way, supposed energy - or money - savings aren't there.
----------------------
Why energy efficiency regulations are wrong,
whether you are for or against energy and emission conservation
ceolas.net/#cc2x
Summary
Politicians don't object to energy efficiency as it sounds too good to be true. It is.
--The Consumer Side
Product Performance -- Construction and Appearance
Price Increase -- Lack of Actual Savings: Money, Energy or Emissions. Choice and Quality affected
-- The Manufacturer Side
Meeting Consumer Demand -- Green Technology -- Green Marketing
--The Energy Side
Energy Supply -- Energy Security -- Cars and Oil Dependence
--The Emission Side
Buildings -- Industry -- Power Stations -- Light Bulbs
#3
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Mpls, MN
Posts: 6,830
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Calif. requires TVs to be more energy-efficient
Most of that is BS, esp about the plasma vs lcd vs crt. CRTs used far more electricity per square inch than anything else. They probably compare a 50" plasma and lcd to a 20" crt. Idiots.
Maybe they should just limit the size, so Californians can't buy anything larger than 42". It would serve them right, and be far more effective in reducing energy cost.
Maybe they should just limit the size, so Californians can't buy anything larger than 42". It would serve them right, and be far more effective in reducing energy cost.
#4
DVD Talk Reviewer & TOAT Winner
Re: Calif. requires TVs to be more energy-efficient
Wonder if I can cart my 40-inch CRT down to the capitol and they'll give me a new LCD set?
#6
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Re: Calif. requires TVs to be more energy-efficient
Most of that is BS, esp about the plasma vs lcd vs crt. CRTs used far more electricity per square inch than anything else. They probably compare a 50" plasma and lcd to a 20" crt. Idiots.
Maybe they should just limit the size, so Californians can't buy anything larger than 42". It would serve them right, and be far more effective in reducing energy cost.
Maybe they should just limit the size, so Californians can't buy anything larger than 42". It would serve them right, and be far more effective in reducing energy cost.
#7
Senior Member
Re: Calif. requires TVs to be more energy-efficient
Yeah, the State of California is regulating itself into oblivion.
Taxes, special interest groups and a hatred for businesses doing business in California will lead to the single largest State bankruptcy ever recorded in the history of the US. And guess what!?! yeah, I'm pointing at you and you and you, EVERYONE gets to chip-in with California's bail out when Uncle Sam comes to the rescue.
ROTMFFMF'S!
Taxes, special interest groups and a hatred for businesses doing business in California will lead to the single largest State bankruptcy ever recorded in the history of the US. And guess what!?! yeah, I'm pointing at you and you and you, EVERYONE gets to chip-in with California's bail out when Uncle Sam comes to the rescue.
ROTMFFMF'S!