California appears poised to be first to ban power-guzzling big-screen TVs

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Industry lobbying efforts appear to elicit little sympathy from the state Energy Commission, which may vote as soon as Nov. 4.

Reporting from Sacramento - The influential lobby group Consumer Electronics Assn. is fighting what appears to be a losing battle to dissuade California regulators from passing the nation's first ban on energy-hungry big-screen televisions.

On Tuesday, executives and consultants for the Arlington, Va., trade group asked members of the California Energy Commission to instead let consumers use their wallets to decide whether they want to buy the most energy-saving new models of liquid-crystal display and plasma high-definition TVs.

"Voluntary efforts are succeeding without regulations," said Doug Johnson, the association's senior director for technology policy. Too much government interference could hamstring industry innovation and prove expensive to manufacturers and consumers, he warned.

But those pleas didn't appear to elicit much support from commissioners at a public hearing on the proposed rules that would set maximum energy-consumption standards for televisions to be phased in over two years beginning in January 2011. A vote could come as early as Nov. 4.

The association's views weren't shared by everyone in the TV business. Representatives of some TV makers, including top-seller Vizio Inc. of Irvine, said they would have little trouble complying with tighter state standards without substantially increasing prices.

"We're comfortable with our ability to meet the proposed levels and implementation dates," said Kenneth R. Lowe, Vizio's co-founder and vice president.

Last month, the commission formally unveiled its proposal to require manufacturers to limit television energy consumption in a way that has been done with refrigerators, air conditioners and dozens of other products since the 1970s.

"We would not propose TV efficiency standards if we thought there was any evidence in the record that they will hurt the economy," said Commissioner Julia Levin, who has been in charge of the two-year rule-making procedure. "This will actually save consumers money and help the California economy grow and create new clean, sustainable jobs."

Tightening efficiency ratings by using new technology and materials should result in "zero increase in cost to consumers," said Harinder Singh, an Energy Commission staffer on the TV regulation project.

California's estimated 35 million TVs and related electronic devices account for about 10% of all household electricity consumption, the Energy Commission staff reported. But manufacturers quickly are coming up with new technologies that are making even 50-inch-screen models much more economical to operate.

New features, such as light-emitting diodes that consume tiny amounts of power, special reflective films and sensors that automatically adjust TV brightness to a room's viewing conditions, are driving down electricity consumption, experts said.

The payoff could be big for TV owners, said Ken Rider, a commission staff engineer. Average first-year savings from reduced electricity use would be an estimated $30 per set and $912 million statewide, he said.

If all TVs met state standards, Rider added, California could avoid the $600-million cost of building a natural-gas-fired power plant. Switching to more-efficient TVs could have an estimated net benefit to the state of $8.1 billion, the commission staff reported.

Consumer Electronics Assn. officials disputed that figure, arguing that it was based on out-of-date numbers that fail to account for recent industry innovations. "With voluntary compliance, manufacturers can meet the targets over time, managing the cost impact, yet not in any way impeding innovation," said Seth Greenstein, an association consultant.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-bigt...0,4908205.story

[Darnell 8,478]

Note to Californians - sell me your electricity-guzzling TV !!! I'll put up pickup points in SFO, LAX and San Diego, export em all to Mexico. YUM !

[SuperDuper! 230]

Note to Californians - sell me your electricity-guzzling TV !!! I'll put up pickup points in SFO, LAX and San Diego, export em all to Mexico. YUM !

And you expect to make money on this after all your up front capital and expenses?? You are the one who thinks mental issues are fun, right?

[Ban Hammer 13,348]

Note to Californians - sell me your electricity-guzzling TV !!! I'll put up pickup points in SFO, LAX and San Diego, export em all to Mexico. YUM !

i wonder how many californians will be not so green once they can't have a huge tv.

Note to Californians - sell me your electricity-guzzling TV !!! I'll put up pickup points in SFO, LAX and San Diego, export em all to Mexico. YUM !

And you expect to make money on this after all your up front capital and expenses?? You are the one who thinks mental issues are fun, right?

calm down tiger.

[Peikko 1,575]

It doesn't say anything about not having big screens, simply that, like refrigerators, they must be energy efficient. I can't see that as being so terrible somehow...

Apart from anything else, lower energy use means it'll cost less to run, win win.

Edited October 17, 2009 by Madame Cleo

[trailmix 77]

nm

Edited October 17, 2009 by trailmix

[Peikko 1,575]

So you don't use energy efficient appliances then Trailmix? You prefer to waste energy for no good reason? There is nothing wrong with asking manufacturers to seek low energy solutions and it does the consumer a favour. Electricy isn't going to get cheaper, you do know that, right?

LOL

Whether it should be mandated rather than requested, that's really the rub question. From my point of view, whatever delivers low energy using big appliances that bring the cost of use down is good with me.

Edited October 17, 2009 by Madame Cleo

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Those tv's must use a lot of power. Everytime I walk past all those giant screen tv's on the back wall of Walmart, I get a third degree burn from all the radiation.

[NickD 203]

Surprised they on not picking on a LED in a coffee or some other appliance that consumes 15 mw, heard a guy on radio scream about that.

If California wants to save energy..

Los Angeles at night.

San Francisco at night.

California at night....

They should go to bed when the sun sets, and turn off those damn lights.

Edited October 17, 2009 by NickD

[Peikko 1,575]

I noticed the increase in our electric bill when we got one, and it is meant to be one of the more energy efficient ones, and we don't use the tv as much as some people do - went up about $10.00.

[dalegg 143]

So you don't use energy efficient appliances then Trailmix? You prefer to waste energy for no good reason? There is nothing wrong with asking manufacturers to seek low energy solutions and it does the consumer a favour. Electricy isn't going to get cheaper, you do know that, right?

LOL

Whether it should be mandated rather than requested, that's really the rub question. From my point of view, whatever delivers low energy using big appliances that bring the cost of use down is good with me.

Its not a great reason but this will mean the difference between Plasmas and LCDs basically, and Plasmas certainly have a much sharper picture than LCDs.

I have faith in our television engineers though on this one though. Too much money at stake to not figure out how to get it all.

[Peikko 1,575]

I wouldn't mind less 'always on' street lighting in every neighbourhood, but people don't like the dark anymore.

[Ban Hammer 13,348]

I wouldn't mind less 'always on' street lighting in every neighbourhood, but people don't like the dark anymore.

the criminal element usually does though.

[Peikko 1,575]

So what? The criminal element does just fine now.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I wouldn't mind less 'always on' street lighting in every neighbourhood, but people don't like the dark anymore.

the criminal element usually does though.

Bullets don't get lost in the dark, especially if you have a nightscope.