October 13, 2009 12:57 PM PDT

Utilities back California TV efficiency standards

by Martin LaMonica
  • Font size
  • Print
  • 9 comments

The California Energy Commission on Tuesday received the endorsement from utilities at a public hearing on television efficiency rules, a set of standards which could have national impact.

The Commission has proposed a set of rules that set efficiency levels for televisions in two phases, the first starting at the beginning of 2011 and then becoming more stringent in 2013. The power consumption limits are based on screen size.

Officials from the California Energy Commission listed a number of technologies, including LED back lights and ambient light control sensors, which they said will allow the television industry to meet the standards.

During the hearing, representatives from California utilities voiced their support for the proposal which is expected to be voted on next month.

Among them was a representative from Sempra who read a statement saying the more stringent power consumption levels are feasible, cost effective, and critical for meeting the state's environmental goals. By implementing the standards, the state could save $8.1 billion a year in electricity bills and avoid building a 500-megawatt power plant to meet growing electricity use, he said.

TV efficiency regulations, which already cover other household appliances, are needed because electricity consumption from televisions has climbed from about three percent in the 1990s to eight percent in 2008 in the state, according to the Commission.

A number of environmental advocacy groups, including the National Resource Defense Council and the Environmental Defense Fund, back the initiative.

But the rule proposals have been opposed by the industry group the Consumer Electronics Association. The CEA has argued that the Cmandates are unnecessary because products are already becoming more efficient and the voluntary EnergyStar program already exists.

Speaking in advance of Tuesday's public hearing, executives from Panasonic echoed that view, saying that the California Energy Commission's proposed rules are "an answer in search of a problem."

Panasonic, which is a large seller of plasma flat-screen televisions, said it has been able to improve efficiency by 30 percent every year. Meeting the EnergyStar 4.0 standard, which goes into effect next May, is more challenging but Panasonic is adopting a number of techniques in an effort to attain the EnergyStar 4.0 and 5.0 certifications, executives said.

Although the California Energy Commission is proposing to regulate efficiency for televisions only sold in its state, passage of the rules would likely have a broader effect. Others states, including Massachusetts, are also considering efficiency mandates for televisions which would be the same or similar to California.

Martin LaMonica is a senior writer for CNET's Green Tech blog. He started at CNET News in 2002, covering IT and Web development. Before that, he was executive editor at IT publication InfoWorld. E-mail Martin.
Recent posts from Green Tech
Smart-grid spending to hit $200 billion by 2015
China introduces law to boost renewable energy
Ford sees bump in hybrid sales
Obama says disappointment at Copenhagen justified
U.S. senators to take up biodiesel credit next year
Utility solar project adds molten salt for storage
U.S. cap and trade looks out of reach in 2010
First Solar opens utility-scale power plant
Add a Comment (Log in or register) (9 Comments)
  • prev
  • 1
  • next
by Renegade Knight October 13, 2009 1:08 PM PDT
They didn't say why CA didn't like the EPA Energy Star standards. Unless something is broken why spend state money solving a non existant problem.
Reply to this comment
by odubtaig October 13, 2009 10:52 PM PDT
That's not what the article says.

What the article says it that CA claim the CEC mandates to be redundant _because_ of the voluntary Energy Star ratings.

So, go back and read the article _properly_ and try again.
by ikramerica--2008 October 13, 2009 1:12 PM PDT
So an LCD TV will go from costing $25 a year to operate to $15 by moving from CCFL to LED (a move happening ANYWAY), but likely will cost $200+ more to buy, which will of course include a fee paid to the board to certify. Hidden taxes = CA.
Reply to this comment
by carlhage October 13, 2009 3:19 PM PDT
"The CEA has argued that the mandates are unnecessary because products are already becoming more efficient and the voluntary EnergyStar program already exists." An Energy-Star label for a TV doesn't disclose how much electricity would cost.

True, products are becoming more efficient, but consumers don't know which ones! The report notes that in some cases, TV are becoming more efficient because it's cheaper. But if people know how much the TV energy costs, they can take this into account, and possibly buy a TV that's even better than the minimum. LEDs are touted as being more efficient that CFL backlights, but consumers can't determine how much the savings will be, and both LED and CFL TVs already qualify for EnergyStar.

Note that the future most stringent CA standards, they are not as strict as the future Energy-Star. So if these regulations are passed, then people still end up choosing Energy-Star or non Energy-Star, but they will be able to make the choice knowing the costs.

One important part of the proposed regulation is to label the energy consumption-- then people can figure out if they are willing to pay $200 more or whatever.

Wrong, people won't have to pay $200 more to save $10/year. The savings are much more-- you need to read the actual annual costs for TVs (not easy to come by). Some TVs use $200/year in electricity (double that if you are in California and over the baseline usage, and more if the TV is on more than 5 hours/day).

The electric savings will be many times more than any cost increase. If you claim otherwise, you need to back this up with actual numbers, not just make up some bogus statement.

When they say "reduce the average by 33% or 49%" that means some TVs (that already meet the standards) won't reduce at all, and for each poor TV, the savings will be more. If the average savings is $30, and half the TVs meet the standard and half don't, then the TVs that need to be improved will save $60.

Quite a number of TVs-- even large screen already meet the future limit of .12W/in2 according to CNET measurements. Some are .44 with high consumption while turned off-- why should they be able to cover up their high cost of ownership? How terrible to have to admit your product sucks!
Reply to this comment
by libertyforall1776 October 13, 2009 9:16 PM PDT
More proof that more government is the PROBLEM, NOT the solution.
Reply to this comment
by HeavyJim October 14, 2009 2:15 AM PDT
When the time comes and tv producers actually put something on worth watching, then it will be an issue.
Reply to this comment
by TheHBK23 October 14, 2009 9:57 AM PDT
Why don't they ban gas guzzling cars while they are at it? Or before when all these gas prices were going up? Only because the utilities are a monopoly in their area and can raise prices no matter what. And it benefits them to not have to have such a load on their grid, because it shuts things down.
Oil companies can just run out, raise the price, but that doesnt shut down the infrastructure. This is ridiculous and if California is serious about energy efficiency, pass sweeping measures, not dumb little like this one.
Reply to this comment
by gabrielbear October 14, 2009 3:17 PM PDT
if this was a solution in search of a problem, he cea wouldn't spend $$ protesting it, they would welcome the "further endorsement."
the fact that power companies endorse this--rather than ask for an easier time building another 500 megawatt plant and have more product to sell says everything that needs to be said.
"hidden taxes" ??? dues paid to things like cea are hidden taxes on consumers with the $$ going to lobbyists for garbage. generally, imported garbage designed for no other net purpose than maintaining jobs in china.
Reply to this comment
by gggg sssss October 14, 2009 6:16 PM PDT
what a crock. If they wanted to cut back on energy, why not mandate no heatesr in hot tubs, ban electric golf cartss, ban lights over 100 watts on movie sets. Only in California.
Reply to this comment
(9 Comments)
  • prev
  • 1
  • next
advertisement

15 sites that went kaput in 2009

Web sites launch all the time, but they also shut their doors. We highlight 15 that bit the dust this year.

Top 10 news stories of the decade

Let the debate begin: Was the iPhone more important than iTunes? Was anything bigger than Google finding a great business model? CNET offers its list of the 10 most important stories of the '00s.

About Green Tech

Innovation in energy and environmental technologies is long overdue, in business and at home. Green-tech reporter Martin LaMonica and other CNET writers serve up fresh clean-tech news and commentary.

Add this feed to your online news reader

Green Tech topics

advertisement
advertisement

Inside CNET News

Scroll Left Scroll Right