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This discussion has been archived.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) * <eldavojohn.gmail@com> 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.

  • by stfvon007 (632997) <enigmar007@NOsPaM.yahoo.com> on Saturday September 19, 2009 @02:57PM (#29477867) Journal

    The water heater dosnt consume the most energy, If thats the case, why does the apartment building I live in use 30 therms of gas/month in may-october (water heaters for all apartments and cooking for 2 of the 3, and the shared clothes dryer) and ~150/month therms average in nov-apr when the heat is on. I wouldnt call that most of the energy.

  • by tftp (111690) on Saturday September 19, 2009 @03:08PM (#29477929) Homepage

    I have a storage water heater (with a 40 gal tank) and it is electrical. However the tank is exceptionally well insulated, so much that the temperature rise in the closet is only a couple of degrees. I think the power leakage does not exceed 20 Watts, judging by comparable power release from electronic equipment in a comparable enclosed volume.

    Those 20W of power will add up to (20*24*30/1000) = 14.4 kWh per month. At $0.10/kWh that would cost you $1.44. If you use hot water then that costs extra; the $1.44 number above is only the cost of keeping the water hot.

    But a modern TV can draw 60-100W when off. So a single TV will definitely cost more than an idling water heater. Even if you draw lots of hot water the TV can't be ignored.

  • by the eric conspiracy (20178) on Saturday September 19, 2009 @03:21PM (#29478007)

    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 violation of state laws, cry me a river.

    I will be really pissed if this nonsense makes it hard for me to buy a really really big TV next year. Right now I have a 60" set and when I replace it I will be extremely unhappy if I have to downsize when I want to upsize because of some fruit loops living in California who don't want a power plant or transmission line their neighborhood.

  • 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.

  • Re:Why regulate? (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 19, 2009 @04:04PM (#29478249)

    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 lyml (1200795) on Saturday September 19, 2009 @05:40PM (#29478957)
    You're imagining things. For the last thirty years the only place where you have found incandescent lighing has been at peoples home.

    Every mall, school, workplace already use flourescent lamps (though you might only recognize them looking like this [made-in-china.com] instead of this [nature.com]).
  • Re:Counterpoints (Score:5, Informative)

    by UltraAyla (828879) on Saturday September 19, 2009 @05:59PM (#29479119) Homepage

    Higher cost. Seriously...

    doubtful. Efficiency regulations have a long history of saving consumers money. Even if it costs 10% more, which is unlikely, you're going to save a significant amount of money in its usage and easily recoup that cost over the lifetime of the product. Most efficiency regulations save consumers money rather than cost them money.

  • by Menkhaf (627996) on Saturday September 19, 2009 @06:13PM (#29479215)

    There was. I even did a search for you. I can understand why you didn't do it yourself, I used an astounding THREE, not one, nor two, but three, search terms to find the article. "slashdot \"energy star\"".
    Here you go: http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/02/08/1322228 [slashdot.org]

    Have a nice weekend!

  • Re:Counterpoints (Score:3, Informative)

    by pegasustonans (589396) on Saturday September 19, 2009 @07:38PM (#29479695)

    Uhh, are you responding to the right post? Which part of my post did you disagree with? Is it that I'm in favor of clean beaches, air, water, less disease and a longer lifespan?

    Exactly where did you think I was suggesting that it's okay for corporations to "exploit and pollute at will?" It's funny this is the message you received from my post, since I was suggesting exactly the opposite.

    I assure you that my post is in cogent English. If you read my statement carefully, there is no room for error in the interpretation of my intent. Therefore, I suggest you go back and look again.

  • by pegasustonans (589396) on Sunday September 20, 2009 @12:27AM (#29480967)

    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 conservative agenda on issues that have nothing to do with the budget. Meanwhile, the governor (Schwarzenegger) encourages this activity by threatening vetoes unless he gets exactly what he wants as well.

    In an environment like this, no wonder it is easier to pass bills that don't involve the 2/3 majority clause.

    Basically, these two stipulations in the state constitution are ruining the budget. How exactly would you propose to solve the situation? Sitting on the sidelines and yelling about "bureaucracy" doesn't change the fact that California voters voted for these additions to the state constitution that make it impossible to pass a budget or raise taxes.

  • Fuck California (Score:0, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 20, 2009 @01:05AM (#29481087)

    I'm in California because the military ordered me here,not because I want to be. That being said, the people here are the worst educated people in our country. Hell, the dumb rednecks I grew up with in West Virginia have much closer to a classical education then these fucks here. However, they do have decades of brainwashing and still think that "organic" foods are magically more nutritious then "chemical foods". Let's see, my upper middle class neighbors also believe that $300 power bills are unreasonable, but don't recognize that half of that comes from taxes and regulations. They think that it's good that the city has standing water in the (pretty) soccer field but that it's bad that rice farmers waste water to grow rice. They think that the military is "evil" yet reject any concept of good v.s. evil as applied to their own choices. They think it's wrong that guys would ever get custody of a child, unless the man happens to be gay. The only way people here are more free then in the rest of the US is line riding, but again, see the CARB restrictions. Fuck this place.

  • by dkegel (904729) on Sunday September 20, 2009 @01:47AM (#29481201) Homepage

    "Energy Star requires power consumption of less than 1 watt in standby to qualify."

    Well, yes. But Energy Star by itself voluntary. The proposed regulations *require* Energy Star compliance:

    "If the commission adopts the new rules, beginning in 2011, California retailers would be able to sell only TVs that meet the guidelines of the voluntary federal Energy Star program."

    Sounds good to me.

Things are not as simple as they seems at first. - Edward Thorp

Working...