California is imposing energy-efficiency requirements on new TVs starting in January 2011...but they only apply to sets measuring 58 inches and under.
The state of California often leads the rest of the United States on environmentally-conscious regulation and legislation, perhaps most notably with a long-term effort to reign in motor vehicle emissions. Now, the state has turned its attention to televisions, adopting energy efficiency standards that will be imposed on new televisions starting in January 2011—and then get even tougher in 2013.
“In California, televisions (along with DVRs, DVD players, and cable/satellite boxes) now consume about 10 percent of a home’s electricity,” California Energy Commission members Arthur Rosenfeld and Julia Levin wrote in a statement. ” Increasing sales of flat screen televisions, larger screen sizes, the growing number of TVs per household, and increased daily use of televisions all contribute to greater electricity consumption.”
The new regulations cover LCD and plasma televisions up to 58-inches in size: larger televisions are exempt. By 2011, new televisions sold in California will be allowed to consume a maximum of 1 watt of electricity when turned off, and a maximum of 0.2 watts per square inch of screen real estate, with a base allowance of 32 watts. In 2013, the regulations will clamp down even further, with new TVs allowed to consumer just 0.12 watts per square inch, with a base allowance of 25 watts.
The California Energy Commission estimates that after the existing “stock” of televisions in the state are replaced—a process that might take decades—the total energy savings from the regulations could be as high as 6,515 gigawatt-hours—enough to power over 800,000 households for a year.
While many Energy Star-certified televisions for sale today already meet the 2011 requirements, not all do. California is banking on support from large flat-screen TV manufacturers as well as leading consumer electronics retailers to support the regulations.
Showing 2 comments
RSSAre you guys in the 'Free America' or are you wannabees to join our
Bureaucratic ban-loving EU? :-)
Either way,
Governor Schwarzenegger is shooting himself in the foot!
1. Taxation, while still wrong, is better than bans for all concerned.
TV set taxation based on energy efficiency - unlike bans - gives
Governor Schwarzenegger's impoverished California Government income on
the reduced sales, while consumers keep choice.
This also applies generally,
to CARS (with emission tax or gas tax), BUILDINGS, DISHWASHERS, LIGHT BULBS etc,
where politicians instead keep trying to define what people can or can't use.
Politicians can use the tax money raised to fund home insulation
schemes, renewable projects etc that lower energy use and emissions
more than remaining product use raises them.
Energy efficient products can have any sales taxes lowered, making
them cheaper than today.
People are not just hit by taxes, they don't have to buy the higher
taxed products - and at least they CAN still buy them.
2. Product regulation, bans or taxation, are however unwarranted:
Where there is a problem - deal with the problem!
Energy: there is no energy shortage
(given renewable/nuclear development possibilities, with set emission limits)
and consumers - not politicians - pay for energy and how they wish to use it.
It might sound great to
"Let everyone save money by only allowing energy efficient products"
However:
Inefficient products that use more energy can have performance,
appearance and construction advantages
Examples (using cars, buildings, dishwashers, TV sets, light bulbs etc):
http://ceolas.net/#cc211x
For example, big plasma TV screens have image contrast and other
advantages along with their large image sizes.
Products using more energy usually cost less, or they'd be more energy
efficient already.
Depending on how much they are used, there might therefore not be any
running cost savings either.
Other factors contribute to a lack of savings:
If households use less energy,
then utility companies make less money,
and will just raise electricity prices to cover their costs.
So people don't save as much money as they thought.
Conversely,
energy efficiency in effect means cheaper energy,
so people just leave TV sets etc on more, knowing that energy bills are lower,
as also shown by Scottish and Cambridge research
http://ceolas.net/#cc214x
Either way, supposed energy - or money - savings aren't there.
----------------------
Why energy efficiency regulations are wrong,
whether you are for or against energy and emission conservation
http://ceolas.net/#cc2x
Summary
Politicians don't object to energy efficiency as it sounds too good to
be true. It is.
--The Consumer Side
Product Performance -- Construction and Appearance
Price Increase -- Lack of Actual Savings: Money, Energy or Emissions.
Choice and Quality affected
-- The Manufacturer Side
Meeting Consumer Demand -- Green Technology -- Green Marketing
--The Energy Side
Energy Supply -- Energy Security -- Cars and Oil Dependence
--The Emission Side
Buildings -- Industry -- Power Stations -- Light Bulbs