Utilities back California TV efficiency standards
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. 
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.
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!
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.
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.
- 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.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(9 Comments)