Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Government Power Television Hardware Technology

California Publishes Television Efficiency Standards For 2011 265

Posted by timothy
from the use-them-to-watch-the-electric-company dept.
eldavojohn writes "It's been nine months since California announced their intentions to create new standards on energy-consuming televisions in their state, but yesterday the California Energy Commission finally released the first draft of the regulations. (More information straight from the horse's mouth.) If you live in another state, you may be unfamiliar with California's history of mandating power usage among anything from dishwashers to washing machines to other household appliances. This has also led to California pushing to ban incandescent light bulbs. From their FAQ on TV Efficiency Standards: 'The proposed standards have no effect on existing televisions. If approved, they would only apply to TVs sold in California after January 1, 2011. The first standard (Tier 1) would take effect January 1, 2011, and reduce energy consumption by average of 33 percent. The second measure (Tier 2) would take effect in 2013 and, in conjunction with Tier 1, reduce energy consumption by an average of 49 percent.' The Draft from December 2008 is available on their site (PDF, with a shorter 'Just the Facts' flier for those of you without two hours to burn). There's no indication whether that's what they're going with, or if it's been updated since then."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

California Publishes Television Efficiency Standards For 2011

Comments Filter:
  • Counterpoints (Score:5, Informative)

    by eldavojohn (898314) * <[moc.liamg] [ta] [nhojovadle]> on Saturday September 19, 2009 @02:25PM (#29477677) Journal
    So I submitted the summary and it was getting long, I didn't have enough room to add the counter arguments against this proposal (I may have made it look fairly unopposed). While the governator had his monicker on the linked documents, the New York Times [nytimes.com] has him likening this to water:

    I am totally against protectionist policies because it never works. You have to understand that we get our water from outside California. We get it from the Colorado River, for instance. Why can we get the water from the Colorado River but we can't get renewable energy from outside the state? We get most of our cars from outside the state; why can't we get renewable energy?

    With Reuters outlining some challenges [reuters.com]. Aside from that, you have some groups like the CEA speaking out against it [reuters.com] and a surprisingly negative response from the California citizens for smart clean energy claiming that it cuts jobs for citizens [reuters.com]. A rep from them said:

    We all believe in the importance of energy efficiency, but the CEC's proposed regulation is simply bad policy that will do little to achieve energy efficiency and a lot to destroy California jobs. The consumer electronics industry has been trying to work with the CEC since day one on alternatives that would help achieve energy efficiency without causing undue harm on California's economy. But time and time again, we have been disappointed with the CEC's approach and process.

    • Re:Counterpoints (Score:4, Interesting)

      by pegasustonans (589396) on Saturday September 19, 2009 @02:45PM (#29477795)

      I believe the article from the New York Times is about the bill passed by the California legislature to limit renewable energy from in-state sources. The governer's response, therefore, is focused on his support for receiving renewable energy from both inside and outside the state of California. The article doesn't really have anything to do with televisions.

      As for the Consumer Electronics Association speaking out against a mandatory increase in energy efficiency in televisions, who saw that coming? An industry lobby is hardly where I would go for reliable advice on cutting down on energy consumption.

      By the way, the other group opposed is named "Californians for Smart Energy" not "California citizens for smart clean energy," a difference I am sure we can all appreciate. According to their website, they are a group consisting of "consumers, small businesses, trade groups and associations." So, they are another industry-associated organization. Again, not the place to go for real advice on how to reduce waste.

      • Correction, first sentence in the post above should read: I believe the article from the New York Times is about the bill passed by the California legislature to limit renewable energy *to* in-state sources.

        Thus, the point is that all renewable energy used in California would come from within the state of California. Legislature passed this bill and the governer (Schwarzenegger) is opposed.

    • Re:Counterpoints (Score:5, Insightful)

      by spectrokid (660550) on Saturday September 19, 2009 @02:49PM (#29477819) Homepage
      Why is it that anything you don't like "will cost jobs"? We gonna need a ???? / Profit!!! thing for this.
      1. Joe Sixpack doesn't look at consumption when he buys a TV.
      2. So you impose some standards by law.
      3.????????????
      4. Jobs are lost!!!
      • Both groups opposed are closely tied with industry (see my other response post).

        So, it's no surprise that they're going to say the bill will cost jobs. "Costing jobs" is the "fighting terrorism" of 2009.

    • That press release doesn't say anything except what is necessary to scare people. How does it kill Californian jobs? What TVs or TV components are still being made in California? I don't know if TVs can be made in the US anymore. They're being made in China, Taiwan and Mexico because US labor is just too expensive.

    • I am totally against protectionist policies because it never works

      In fairness, a lot of those protectionist policies seem to work.....we have shower heads that save water, more efficient appliances and dishwashers, etc now. Whether that is solely because of California regulation can be debated, but by pursuing a consistent, directed policy of regulation towards lower power usage, California seems to have achieved some success in reaching their goals. I still miss powerful showers, though.

      • Drill out the flow regulator in your shower.

        Typically they are made of easy to drill aluminum if they are not outright removable.

        BTW I don't think 'protectionist' means what you think it means.

        Look it up.

        Arnold is talking about the requirement that all renewable energy used in CA be generated in CA.

        Like we're going to turn our noses up at hydro power from out of state, much of it generated at damns CA utilities own.

  • Regulations! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Dyinobal (1427207) on Saturday September 19, 2009 @02:31PM (#29477695)
    Leading us to a bright new future! or at least that's what the politicians want you to think.
  • Why regulate? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by selven (1556643) on Saturday September 19, 2009 @02:33PM (#29477713)
    Why not just make people pay the full price of the electricity they're using so they can leave lights, heating and AC on 24/7 but it's only they who are suffering.
    • Re:Why regulate? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by OrangeTide (124937) on Saturday September 19, 2009 @02:52PM (#29477835) Homepage Journal

      Because being rational doesn't get you reelected. It's better to spread around progressive ideas so you look like you have accomplished something.

      We pay a bunch for the electricity too. We also pay a tax when we buy a display to cover the disposal of that display (around $16 last time I bought something). Of course what I wonder is why we didn't just mandate garbage companies to deal with electronic waste, thus raising the cost of disposal in a way that can adjust to free market demands. We would benefit from additional efficiencies, and adapt to changes without having to write new legislation.

    • Why not just make people pay the full price of the electricity they're using so they can leave lights, heating and AC on 24/7 but it's only they who are suffering.

      But that's not true. If we look at this like an ideal demand causes prices to go up scenario, then the increased demand in energy causes prices to go up for people that make less than those with the money to keep the lights, heating and AC (wtf?) on 24/7. The brownouts might also cause needs for more infrastructure which raises the average cost per kilowatt hour for every consumer -- rich and poor.

      I'm not advocating this regulation but I'm do recognize the argument against your counterpoint and I thi

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by selven (1556643)
        You could always make the other taxes more progressive to compensate. You could also use the money this would raise to give people the initial investment needed to upgrade to lower power-expenditure technology, proper insulation, etc.
        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by easyTree (1042254)

          There are more issues at stake than cost per unit of electricity. I have this idea that we're all supposed to be reducing our carbon footprint. It makes perfect sense to make personally-painless reductions in needless waste before we start infringing upon our ways of life.

          Why would someone want to buy a device which isn't as energy-efficient as possible? Waste isn't cool ppl.

          • Why would someone want to buy a device which isn't as energy-efficient as possible?

            Because the inefficient device is better in some other way?

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by HornWumpus (783565)

            Waste isn't cool ppl.

            You have obviously never done a sub 13 second quarter mile. Gone over 80 in a boat.

            The fact is that _waste is cool_.

            Very, very cool.

            Kind of expensive though.

    • Re:Why regulate? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by pegasustonans (589396) on Saturday September 19, 2009 @03:06PM (#29477921)

      Because all the morons polluting up the planet by leaving their AC on 24/7 make the rest of us suffer. Seriously, if it were only a matter of economics, there would be no alternative energy movement.

      • Because all the morons polluting up the planet by leaving their AC on 24/7 make the rest of us suffer. Seriously, if it were only a matter of economics, there would be no alternative energy movement.

        I run my AC 25/8 just to piss you off.

    • by shentino (1139071)

      Because then the poor will be left out while the rich folks mop up all the goodies.

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward

        It's also wasteful to live in a large house or to fly more than x airmiles per year. We could regulate everything to make sure the rich folks don't mop up all the goodies, but then there won't be any point in getting rich.

    • by aaarrrgggh (9205)

      Because few consumers make choices based on energy efficiency; style, color, and brand are more likely to be deciding factors that efficiency of a single tv. When you talk about 30 million TVs though it makes a much bigger difference.

      Regulation is the only way to force manufacturers to produce goods that they would have no other incentive to do otherwise, even if it is better.

      Residential power is pretty highly subsidized: a 5kVA service only has a 10% premium over a 20 MVA service, despite being about 20% m

      • by selven (1556643)
        If we charge people more for electricity, consumers will start to make choices based on energy efficiency and manufacturers will cater to them.
    • by dbcad7 (771464)

      Actually, they already do and then some.. You get so much at one price, then if you use beyond that it gets really expensive. There is a problem with it though.. whatever voodoo they use to calculate the baseline is all over the place. You and a neighbor with identical houses could have different baselines before they start sticking it to you or them.. same with apartments.. you can move into an apartment and then be shocked at the low baseline that probably has something to do with the people who lived the

    • Re:Why regulate? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Hatta (162192) * on Saturday September 19, 2009 @08:17PM (#29479891) Journal

      Because a lot of the cost of energy use is negative externalites. Who pays to clean up the pollution caused by energy production? Further increased demand for energy increases the price for energy which affects everyone too.

  • other states (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Iamthecheese (1264298) on Saturday September 19, 2009 @02:34PM (#29477715)
    There be other places to buy yer electronics matey. This law will create markets blacker than the old man's beard and five times the size! By me whiskers this is the worst idea since they made grandma's medicine illegal!
    • Re:other states (Score:5, Interesting)

      by pegasustonans (589396) on Saturday September 19, 2009 @03:25PM (#29478021)

      This law will create markets blacker than the old man's beard and five times the size!

      Except, no, it won't. TV manufacturers will be forced to comply with California law as a de-facto nationwide standard because of the size of the market. So, unless you buy products directly from Korea, "black markets" will not be an issue.

      How is mandating energy efficiency a bad idea? Is it also a bad things that California has the best track-record in mandating greater energy efficiency in automobiles? Is it bad that California mandates energy efficiency and alternative energy use in power consumption? Explain how this is de-facto "bad."

      • Except, no, it won't. TV manufacturers will be forced to comply with California law as a de-facto nationwide standard because of the size of the market. So, unless you buy products directly from Korea, "black markets" will not be an issue.

        I would not be surprised if there were not even a black market for energy-sucking TVs in Korea. They deliberately chose NTSC and then ATSC for their own broadcast standards to be compatible with the US in order to better leverage economies of scale. All on its own, California's economy would make it roughly the 10th largest national economy in the world. It's just easier to standardize, after all the hardest part will be in the engineering so might as well amortize that cost over as many sets as possible

  • About time... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Manip (656104) on Saturday September 19, 2009 @02:35PM (#29477729)

    I think we all deserve better TVs frankly and I think it is fair to say that the TV industry as a whole has failed to step up. We still have brand new TVs which draw almost as much power "off" as they do turned on with the sound blazing... Hopefully California will encourage more TVs to be produced with these kind of energy saving features by default around the world.

    Yes, I too hate the "nanny state" and government intervention but when an industry or consumers fail to act in a responsible fashion at points a government has to step in... I mean lead paint in kid's toys, god knows what in our food, labelling on products to give the consumer more information, sometimes the nanny policies are good for society.

    • Re:About time... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by tjstork (137384) <todd,bandrowsky&gmail,com> on Saturday September 19, 2009 @02:48PM (#29477807) Homepage Journal

      consumers fail to act in a responsible fashion at points a government has to step in

      If you argue that consumers should be dictated to by the government, aren't you really arguing in favor of a sort of totalitarianism. Who gave you or any other Fed the right to say what is responsible and what is not. That is not among the enumerated powers we have granted to the Congress in our Constitution.

      • Re:About time... (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Entropius (188861) on Saturday September 19, 2009 @02:59PM (#29477877)

        Maybe he's arguing that industry should be dictated to by consumers, through the government the consumers elect? That's what government is supposed to be -- the collective will of the people voting for it.

        Your Constitutional argument is meaningless because this is a state action, not a federal one. Per the Federal constitution California can mandate that new televisions come with a rubber duckie if they want.

        • by colganc (581174)
          The government is supposed to protecty my rights. Especially my private property rights.
          • Re:About time... (Score:5, Insightful)

            by Kohath (38547) on Saturday September 19, 2009 @05:45PM (#29479003)

            Yeah, California is the land where individual rights and freedoms are forgotten.

            You really have only a few choices left under such a regime:
            - Escape while you still can,
            - Live there as a criminal,
            - Get a government position and be above the law,
            - Or just learn to do what you're told.

        • That is until your Nanny State starts to go bankrupt, and goes begging for federal dollars to bail its ass out. For the most part, Federal dollars are two things:

          - Tax revenue from all the states combine (those with good fiscal policy and those with bad)
          - Borrowed money (that will need to be paid in the future, with interest)

          Your "Statist" argument fails because the federal government has gotten into the "extend, embrace, and assimilate" business via bail outs with money it doesnt even have.

          For more informa

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by couchslug (175151)

          "Maybe he's arguing that industry should be dictated to by consumers, through the government the consumers elect? That's what government is supposed to be -- the collective will of the people voting for it."

          What the consumers purchase is a direct expression of their will. What a government composed mostly of appointed officials whose agendas are not directly set by the people is something different.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by SuperQ (431) *

        So I take it you're in favor of leaded gasoline and are opposed to catalytic converters.

        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by tjstork (137384)

          So I take it you're in favor of leaded gasoline and are opposed to catalytic converters.

          No, just slavery, wife beating and the holocaust.

        • by Kohath (38547)

          So I take it you can't argue the point because you're losing and need to change the subject?

    • by SEWilco (27983)

      I think we all deserve better TVs frankly...

      Aye, but what we really need be TVs with a "stupidity" dial, matey.

    • by jimicus (737525)

      I think we all deserve better TVs frankly and I think it is fair to say that the TV industry as a whole has failed to step up. We still have brand new TVs which draw almost as much power "off" as they do turned on with the sound blazing...

      I don't know if the manufacturers are shipping vastly different sets to the US compared to the UK, but I tested my own cheap & nasty 6 year old CRT set and it draws hardly anything on standby compared to when it's running.

    • Re:About time... (Score:4, Informative)

      by dgatwood (11270) on Saturday September 19, 2009 @03:42PM (#29478111) Journal

      I think we all deserve better TVs frankly and I think it is fair to say that the TV industry as a whole has failed to step up. We still have brand new TVs which draw almost as much power "off" as they do turned on with the sound blazing...

      Either you don't know what you're talking about or you are lying to push a political position. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you simply know nothing about modern electronics.

      First, modern TVs use much less power than older TVs. The move away from CRTs alone made a big improvement (ignoring projection TVs), and even within the CRT space, things improved a lot over the years when they built those.

      Second, power consumption when idle is almost invariably a tiny fraction of the active power consumption if you're looking at anything built in the past few years. Anything with the Energy Star logo is required to draw <1W standby, compared with 200W or more for a large LCD set. Even with non-Energy-Star-certified plasma sets, they typically draw low single digit Watts. Either way, there's typically at least a factor of 100 difference in power consumption between standby power and active power consumption in most modern TVs.

      So citation needed. Find me a recent TV that draws almost as much power when idle as it does when turned on. The backlight alone for an LCD set is between half and 2/3rds of its power consumption, so good luck.

      • by jonbryce (703250)

        LCD screens may use less electricity, but Plasma screens use a lot more. Also, screens have got a lot bigger than they used to be, and bigger screens mean more electricity everything else being equal.

        • Also, screens have got a lot bigger than they used to be, and bigger screens mean more electricity everything else being equal
          And then there is the whole widescreen issue, almost all modern sets are widescreens and that basically means some area at the edge of the screen is filled with "fluff" (they can't put anything important in that area since a lot of people still have 4:3 TVs) which means to get the same effective viewing size you have to buy a bigger TV.

    • Yes, I too hate the "nanny state" and government intervention but when an industry or consumers fail to act in a responsible fashion at points a government has to step in

      At times government regulation is a good thing of course, but I want to point out that your argument here is similar to arguments made for prohibition. Maybe it was a valid argument then too?

  • Water heater consumes the most energy in most households. I'm pretty sure it's possible to make it more efficient than it currently is. Same goes for electric heating and air conditioning.

  • by SuperBanana (662181) on Saturday September 19, 2009 @02:47PM (#29477803)

    ...for example, motor vehicle emissions laws which allow an officer to stop your vehicle on suspicion that you have non-CARB-certified equipment on your car or if your car is "modified for racing." Apparently CA whalehuggers aren't aware of those of us who like to drive our cars fast...at the racetrack or dragstrip. Or that many car enthusiasts have the best-running (and thus cleanest running) cars on the road, asshats who gut their catalytic converters excepted.

    If stopped, you're told to open your hood and allow the inspection. If you refuse, you're immediately arrested, your car is impounded and towed to the nearest CARB inspection facility. You better hope and pray that everything in your engine compartment is original or has a CARB stamp on it or your car (yes, the entire car) will be confiscated and you'll be facing thousands in fines. The CARB stamp is just a massive tax / attempt to discourage aftermarket parts, because it is irrelevant whether the modified car passes emissions standards, and CA charges a fortune to certify parts.

    Unreasonable search and seizure anyone? Oh, look, a baby seal. Welcome to the People's Republic of Kalifornia, the most legislated state in the nation, and sadly, that fucks over the rest of us, since product manufacturers don't want to be unable to sell in that market.

    Remember the clusterfuck that is MTBE, aka the chemical which reduces smog but pollutes the hell out of groundwater and is a known carcinogen? Guess who we have to thank for that?

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      What makes you think any of this is unconstitutional? The constitution places a lot of limits on what the FEDERAL government can do. State governments not so much.

      If Californians behaved in a more rational manner less of this nonsense would be needed. Like if you have electricity supply issues build some power plants instead of exporting the electrical supply problem to Texas. If air pollution from burning gasoline is a problem, tax the hell out of gasoline. As far as street racers modding their cars in vio

      • What makes you think any of this is unconstitutional? The constitution places a lot of limits on what the FEDERAL government can do. State governments not so much.

        I stopped reading your post there because that's so wildly inaccurate I wouldn't know how to set you straight.

        Posting this mostly so you don't get modded informative.

    • by pegasustonans (589396) on Saturday September 19, 2009 @03:36PM (#29478071)

      Apparently CA whalehuggers aren't aware of those of us who like to drive our cars fast...at the racetrack or dragstrip. Or that many car enthusiasts have the best-running (and thus cleanest running) cars on the road

      Last I checked, you could have the best running car on the road and still get 5 mpg.

      I'm sorry that you dislike the penchant for people in California becoming annoyed at your self-righteous pollution of the atmosphere. We all happen to breathe your self-righteous fumes and are unable to jog in L.A. without becoming ill due to fumes such as yours.

      If you don't support a strict effort to control such fumes and just don't realize how serious a problem they are, then I suggest you move to one of the many areas in the United States that never takes such things into consideration and you can fumigate yourself all you like.

      • MPG != pollution (Score:4, Insightful)

        by SuperBanana (662181) on Saturday September 19, 2009 @04:50PM (#29478611)

        Last I checked, you could have the best running car on the road and still get 5 mpg.

        Last I checked, miles per gallon has nothing to do with pollution (and CARB stickers on aftermarket engine components don't get better mileage.) Witness cities in the 2nd and 3rd world where mopeds and motorcycles (which are not required to be inspected by CA) fill the air with choking smoke. You could be getting 40MPG and spewing NOx everywhere.

        If emissions are so important, why does CA except from emissions testing COMPLETELY: Vehicles made in 1975 or prior, Diesel-powered vehicles (which includes the ENTIRE TRUCKING INDUSTRY), Natural gas powered vehicles weighing more than 14,000 pounds, Hybrids, Motorcycles, trains, planes? Why aren't airplane emissions regulated? Did you know that a jumbo-jet taking off puts more pollution into the air in one takeoff than many cars will in their entire service life? Airports aren't transportation hubs: they're giant kerosene burners.

        I ride my bicycle every day in the city and emotards on their 1970's mopeds are spewing 1000 times more pollution than a car to look trendy and save money on gas, undoing all the work the rest of us are doing to cut our personal emissions. When I ride the subway, I see the commuter line roar by, its diesel engine belching a 3-foot-wide plume of blue diesel smoke..

        I drive a car that is actually negative-emissions because its radiator is coated with catalyst. And, it's a heavily modified for performance. It's not CARB legal, despite being negative-emissions, because the company that made my exhaust (which has a catalytic converter) didn't bother to spend the hundreds of thousands of dollars to get a CARB stamp. I take public transit to work, use the train to travel when possible instead of fly, and I bicycle 120 miles a week. So don't you fucking lecture me about emissions or saving the environment or the air we share.

        And, incidentally, I don't live in CA. I live in a state which proxies their emissions laws off CA, which means I don't have any legislative representation in the matters which affect me as a citizen of a different state.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Fished (574624)
        Am I the only one that finds it a bit ironic that the most polluted states are also the most environmentally conscious? I suppose that the arrow of causation probably goes from pollution towards environmental activism (rather than from environmental activism towards pollution), but STILL. Living in Virginia and looking at how other states do things, I'm often struck by just how hard-nosed and practical Virginia usually manages to be on most of the "core" issues (roads, taxes, regulation)--and how well it
        • Am I the only one that finds it a bit ironic that the most polluted states are also the most environmentally conscious?

          First of all, your suggestion California is the "most polluted" is downright inaccurate. If you're referring to air pollution in LA and other cities, then you have to consider local climate plays a role in retaining certain pollutants that form smog, as does the fact the area has around eighteen million people.

          As for "how" I can live here (here, for me, being in the San Francisco Bay Area), for some reason I have trouble understanding the question. Are you seriously asking how I can live in one of the mos

        • It's not at all surprising. People react to pollution that they can see, smell, and touch. In less populated areas where smog just blows away, few are going to care what their emissions are doing. California has wonders like the LA basin. Smog stays trapped near the source. When people have to breath the smog they produce, they tend to care a little more.

  • by Kohath (38547) on Saturday September 19, 2009 @03:41PM (#29478101)

    While the California government overlords spend their people's time and money worrying about a few watts of electricity, the unemployment rate in California hit 12.2% and continues to rise [bloomberg.com]. The San Joaquin valley continues to suffer under a drought, but the water that would normally be used to irrigate the crops is being used to protect an endangered minnow [wsj.com]. This has resulted in nearly 40% unemployment in some agricultural communities and will lead to higher food prices for produce across the US -- yet another burden heaped on poor and middle class families.

    But they have lots of time to force you to buy more expensive TVs in order to save a couple of watts of electricity.

    Maybe Californians (who are not part of the elite, effete ruling class) should consider getting out while they still have something left to bring with them.

    • Yeah, next time they (voluntarily) buy a new tv they will have to buy something that will be more energy efficient. Oh fucking dear. And how much more expensive will it be ? No more expensive than the last one. Meanwhile California continues to exist on borrowed time because they have exhausted the Colorado river and will die of thirst within 20 years. Why don't you buy an island somewhere and expire quietly ?
      • by bky1701 (979071) on Saturday September 19, 2009 @10:55PM (#29480619) Homepage
        The point is that the government wastes time and money on this sort of regulation when they could be using both to actually do something useful. Given CA's known bureaucracy, this is easily going to cost 10-20 million... for what, exactly? Is this even worth concern when the majority of new TVs are now LCD, which have minuscule power requirements compared to just about everything else in your house? No, it's not. It's wasteful. It's purposeless. It's feel-good regulation that does nothing for anyone's good. It's the sort of thing that is slowly running the state into the ground.

        I don't live there anymore, luckily, but I still know this from experience.
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by pegasustonans (589396)

          The point is that the government wastes time and money on this sort of regulation when they could be using both to actually do something useful.

          The California Constitution dictates that the budget must pass with a 2/3 majority in the legislature. In addition, the constitution stipulates you need a 2/3 majority in the legislature to raise taxes. Hence, the budget is impossible to pass and taxes are not raised. The republicans hold the budget hostage every year until they receive ridiculous concessions. It is basically the only time during the year when the republicans have any say in the legislature, and they use it to push through their entire

  • What's being left out is that its not illegal to own such a TV, only sell one in California. This means people who want larger TV's or a better picture at that cost of more energy consumption (like Plasmas) will just buy the TV's out of state through something like Amazon or BestBuy.com.

    The only thing the CEC should do, if anything, is mandate labels on the TV's which list the average cost to run each TV. This way consumers could make the choice about which kind of TV to purchase.
  • ...this? Wow, looks like California is trying hard to maintain their reputation as the most dysfunctional state government. Granted, over here in NY state we may still hold the record for the least amount of actual legislation written this year (so far almost none); but at least our government is talking about thinking about proposing to hold meetings about news conferences about talking about proposing to write legislation that spends money looking into our budget problems.

    Of course, they'll do that ri
  • These sort of state mandates are STUPID. Stupid because industries have to react to an ever increasing morass of standards across the country, stupid because, while California is a large state and has more resources than say.. Rhode Island I suppose, it's a state, they've done this to other industries and it's terribly counterproductive and just stupid. Why? 1: State Legislators are experts in... What? Being Lawyers? Possibly running state Government, how many scientists, engineers, people who understand h

"It is better to have tried and failed than to have failed to try, but the result's the same." - Mike Dennison

Working...