California Regulates Power Usage of Big-Screen TV's?

[AZRedhawk44]

Isn't this similar to that supreme court case where one state decreed that the only suitable tires for use on the roads in that state were brand "X", manufactured in that state?

Seems like a great application of that commerce clause we normally get shafted by.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-tv3-2009jan03,0,2869589.story

Reporting from Sacramento -- That 52-inch, flat-screen television on the family room wall may have a terrific picture, but there's a big drawback: It's an energy hog.

State regulators are getting ready to curb the growing power gluttony of TV sets by drafting the nation's first rules requiring retailers to sell only the most energy-efficient models, starting in 2011.

The consumer electronics industry opposes the regulations, expected to pass in mid-2009, and claims that they could remove some TVs from store shelves and slightly boost sticker prices.

But the California Energy Commission is looking for ways to relieve the strain on the power grid. Officials say the standards, once fully in place, would reduce the state's annual energy needs by an amount equivalent to the power consumed by 86,400 homes.

During a peak viewing time when most sets are on, such as the Super Bowl, TVs in the state collectively suck up the equivalent of 40% of the power generated by the San Onofre nuclear power station running at full capacity. Televisions account for about 10% of the average Californian's monthly household electricity bill.


Some manufacturers could struggle to meet the new standards, particularly those that make plasma TVs. And the regulations could create a "gray" market, sending consumers intent on buying power-hungry models to Amazon.com and other Internet retailers based outside the state.

Sales of television sets are growing by 4 million a year, the vast majority of them flat-panels. LCD -- liquid crystal display -- sets use 43% more electricity, on average, than conventional tube TVs; larger models use proportionately more. Plasma TVs, which command a relatively small share of the market, need more than three times as much power as bulky, old-style sets.

The regulations would be phased in over two years, with a first tier taking effect on Jan. 1, 2011, and a more stringent, second tier on Jan. 1, 2013. Purchasers of Tier 1-compliant TVs would shave an average of $18.48 off their residential electric bill in the first year of ownership, the Energy Commission estimates. Tier 2 sets would save an additional $11.76 a year.

Over the years, California has pioneered similar tough standards for appliances, home insulation and food service equipment that eventually were adopted by the federal government and promoted to consumers with utility rebate programs.

"I think this is basically doable," said Energy Commission member Arthur Rosenfeld, an international leader for more than three decades in finding ways to save energy by boosting the efficiency of household appliances.

"Refrigerators and air conditioner manufacturers have grown up with standards, and, now, they are generally considered successes." he said. "But this is a new wrinkle for the TV industry."

Television manufacturers, wholesalers and national electronics chains stress that they are committed to making energy-frugal products and are moving as quickly as they can to respond to consumers' desire for energy-efficient televisions. But they aren't enthusiastic about the California plan, which they say will limit customer choice.

"The passion is correct. The proposal is not," said Doug Johnson, senior director of technology at the Consumer Electronics Assn. in Arlington, Va. "We can accomplish this without regulation as a result of innovation and voluntary approaches."

Mike McMaster, president of Wilshire Entertainment Inc., worries that a rush to impose TV efficiency standards "would be basically the end of our business." His locations in Thousand Oaks and Valencia employ 54 people and specialize in sales and installation of custom home theater systems centered on extremely large TVs.

"It would kill dealerships because people would buy on Amazon and have them shipped in and maybe not pay sales tax," he said. "If a customer wants a 12-cylinder car or a 60-inch plasma that uses this much energy, they're going to get it."

But shoppers waiting for a Best Buy store to open in Sacramento's post-Christmas fog showed little concern that some less efficient televisions might not be available two years from now.

"They should take them off the shelves," said Sam Ortega, a retired state worker. "We need to monitor our energy. It's good for everybody."

California should apply the same efficiency standards to televisions that it has used for the last 32 years with refrigerators and other products, argued Duane Larson, director of customer energy efficiency at Pacific Gas & Electric Co., the state's largest investor-owned utility, which serves customers from the Oregon border to the Tehachapi Mountains north of Los Angeles.

About two years ago, PG&E began thinking about applying energy-efficiency know-how to the consumer electronics industry, whose products, including computers, televisions and audio equipment, have become common in nearly every room of a house.

"We project that by 2010, one-quarter of the energy in a house will be used by consumer electronics," Larson said.

Increasing TV energy efficiency provides a triple benefit to California by boosting the economy, lowering electricity ratepayers' utility bills and helping the state meet its goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions 15% by 2020, Larson said. "Every dollar spent on energy efficiency returns $2 in savings," he added.

Such savings should be encouraged, but not at the expense of businesses, large and small, that may see sales fall if they don't offer a wide variety of televisions, industry officials say.

The industry isn't sure how the regulations will affect it. The Consumer Electronics Assn. presented three scenarios to the commission, showing 10%, 20% and 30% drops in product availability and each of their potential financial effects.

If 30% of televisions fail to meet standards and can't be sold, California could lose $130 million in tax revenue and 15,800 jobs, Shawn DuBravac, an economist with the Consumer Electronics Assn., testified at a Dec. 15 Energy Commission workshop.

Rosenfeld was skeptical. DuBravac's numbers sounded "like arguments we heard from General Motors and Ford that SUVs are more profitable to make and create more jobs," he said. "There's a catch to it, as we all know."

What's more, Rosenfeld noted that a number of television makers already produce models that meet the proposed commission efficiency standards and that 87% of current stock complies with the planned 2011 threshold. That deadline may be pushed back a bit if the industry needs a little more time "to get used to the standards," he said.

More time might make the efficiency standards a lot more palatable, said Bob Smith, a training executive at AVAD, a Van Nuys wholesaler that supplies TVs and related equipment to independent installation contractors.

"I would hate to wake up one day and discover that 30% of my flagship products were no longer allowed to be sold." he said. "But I have no objection to regulations per se as long as there's enough lead time for manufacturers to meet the target."

[Manedwolf]

I have no problem with this. Eventually, many companies will just choose not to do business in California altogether, hastening the discontent of its people that will lead to a long overdue political revolution in the state.

[RJMcElwain]

If Washington can tell Detroit to build more efficient cars, it seems reasonable to tell TV manufacturers to build more energy efficient TVs.

[AZRedhawk44]

If Washington can tell Detroit to build more efficient cars, it seems reasonable to tell TV manufacturers to build more energy efficient TVs.

Washington hasn't flat-out prohibited GM from making a Suburban 5500 Ultra V-12 6x6 family cab longbed model.  The market has said "hmmm... that costs a lot to drive with gas being so expensive.  Maybe I'll get something else."

California will prohibit sales of a 52" Plasma over x-watts... just because.

Not that I have a 52" plasma, or that I live in California.  But the market implications are certainly interesting.  Ebay, Amazon, BestBuy.com, road trip to Oregon/Nevada/Arizona... lots of ways to get around the problem.  The problem being control by the state.

[Manedwolf]

CA already has a busy black market for banned high-flush toilets.

[RJMcElwain]

CA already has a busy black market for banned high-flush toilets.

It's one thing to mess with my gas mileage and my TV's efficiency. But when you mess with my toilet, that's going too far.

[Balog]

I have no problem with this. Eventually, many companies will just choose not to do business in California altogether, hastening the discontent of its people that will lead to a long overdue political revolution in the state.

That's unusually optimistic of you Maned. I'd say it's just as likely DC will say "What a great idea!" and everyone will suffer for their stupidity. 

[Nick1911]

Televisions account for about 10% of the average Californian's monthly household electricity bill.

Seems like a LOT.  Wonder how close that number is to reality?

[MicroBalrog]

Televisions account for about 10% of the average Californian's monthly household electricity bill.

And? Let's just say this is true.

Wait, wouldn't this mean that people CHOOSE to pay higher energy costs to own bigger televisions?

Maybe this is because people WANT bigger televisions?

[seeker_two]

Anybody want to invest in a chain of plasma TV stores along the southern Oregon and western Nevada border?.... 

[Gowen]

Anybody want to invest in a chain of plasma TV stores along the southern Oregon and western Nevada border?.... 

Looks like Reno will be the big screen meca of the US.

[French G.]

Do persons illegally residing in certain states consume more power than the TVs in question?

Maybe we can ban press conferences, lots of high usage lights there, nothing good ever comes out of them.

[Tallpine]

Suburban 5500 Ultra V-12 6x6 family cab longbed model

With a big-screen TV too I hope 

[KD5NRH]

The regulations would be phased in over two years, with a first tier taking effect on Jan. 1, 2011, and a more stringent, second tier on Jan. 1, 2013. Purchasers of Tier 1-compliant TVs would shave an average of $18.48 off their residential electric bill in the first year of ownership, the Energy Commission estimates. Tier 2 sets would save an additional $11.76 a year.

Anybody got a California electric bill handy to tell us how much electricity you're actually when you cut usage by $30.24 per year?

[Gewehr98]

Ok, so before I set up a shop in Reno or the Nevada side of Lake Tahoe to sell incandescent light bulbs, high-flush toilets, and large-screen televisions, does anybody know whether the microstamping bill went through?  I can add handloading components to the store inventory, too. 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Televisions account for about 10% of the average Californian's monthly household electricity bill.

Seems like a LOT.  Wonder how close that number is to reality?

That does sound high, doesn't it?

Hmm...

Ok, so a 42" Samsung plasma TV uses 350 watts.  Figure the average American household watches 4 hours of TV a day (I think I read that somewhere).  That's 1.4kwh per day or 42kwh per month.  The average US household uses 900kwh per month in total (Cali residents probably use more than that, what with all of the air conditioning they do).  So a plasma TV in every household would only account for about 4% of household electrical usage, nowhere near the 10% they claim. 

[zahc]

LCD -- liquid crystal display -- sets use 43% more electricity, on average, than conventional tube TVs;

I always heard that they used less.

[Standing Wolf]

But the California Energy Commission is looking for ways to relieve the strain on the power grid. Officials say the standards, once fully in place, would reduce the state's annual energy needs by an amount equivalent to the power consumed by 86,400 homes.

California's electrical power generating problems are 100% self-inflicted. No sympathy.

[MechAg94]

Wouldn't it make more sense to force residents to turn off the lights when they have the TV on? 

I wonder if they will just put a maximum KW use limit on each household?  Oh wait, that would mean rich campaign contributors with big houses would have to cut back.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Wouldn't it make more sense to force residents to turn off the lights when they have the TV on? 

No, it would make more sense to build new power plants.

Since when has America rejected the notion of "progress"?

[Firethorn]

I always heard that they used less.

Well, I just so happen to have just replaced my old CRT TV.  32", panel 140 watts, with a 46" LCD TV, 256 Watts.

Handy Dandy Kill-a-watt gives an average of 145 watts during operation for the 46" TV, 0 watts 'turned off'

During a test play, the 32" TV gave me an average of 71 watts.  1 watt soft off.

On the other hand,
46" TV: 40"X22.5"=900 Square Inches
32" TV: 25.5X19 = 484.5 In^2

For the screen area, a theoretical 32" LCD TV, scaled perfectly down, would be 78 Watts.
A theoretical 46" widescreen CRT would use 132 Watts.

I'm shocked.  My old Sharp CRT uses less juice per square inch of screen, than my energy star rated LCD 46" Sharp.  Honestly enough, having bought the old TV 10 years ago I don't remember if it was energy star then, I remember it being a decent TV.  I might have the manual still around somewhere, but it's been 3 moves(I kept the box), and I'm not going to go through the bother of searching through a sub-zero garage at the moment.  I've been somewhat 'green' for a long time - selecting energy star appliances if available and somewhat sane in price.

Oh, and on the plasma side:  46" Plasma, 628 Watts.  Going by the difference in panel ratings(256 vs 628), and 4 hours a day, .20/kwh, the LCD could save you $109/year.  From my experience at work, Plasmas DO put out quite a bit more heat than a LCD.


Interesting coincidences keep cropping up:  Both are sharps, bought both from the BX, signed up for the AAFES card both times to get extra money off, both times the TV was on special.

[Zed]

That's unusually optimistic of you Maned. I'd say it's just as likely DC will say "What a great idea!" and everyone will suffer for their stupidity. 

Lets not give them any ideas ok?

[Antibubba]

Since they can't pass a budget, they have to toss out distractions.

[Manedwolf]

Ok, so before I set up a shop in Reno or the Nevada side of Lake Tahoe to sell incandescent light bulbs, high-flush toilets, and large-screen televisions, does anybody know whether the microstamping bill went through?  I can add handloading components to the store inventory, too. 

If it did, I know SIG already said "Yeahno, we're not going to retool just for you, it'd hurt our profits less to simply write off CA as a market." I'd seen the letter they released in regard to the issue. I think some other makers also said as much.

So if that passed, no SIG. Probably no for some other names as well.

[Lennyjoe]

Before you know it Californians will be under law to go lights out at 2000 hrs or be fined. Sure that sounds far fetched, but is it really?