California mandates TV energy efficiency improvements by 2011
By Tim Stevens 
posted November 20th 2009 7:54AM
posted November 20th 2009 7:54AM
posted November 20th 2009 7:54AM
A look back on popular stories from today in a specific year.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
The posting states "per inch of screen area". Area is length * width. A 58" diagonal 16:9 TV has an area of about 3364 inches. So it must use
@Paco hmm it ate part of my comment.. continuing. So it must use no more then 704.8w for 2011 and no more then 428.68w for 2013.
@Paco "Area" Implies Sq Inches. You can't measure Area in a linera measurement like what is used in a diagonal screen measurement.
hmm part of my comment was eaten. Continuing. So it must use no more then 704.8w for 2011 and no more then 428.68w for 2013. Under these regulations a 19 inch screen would need to be under 104.2w and 68.32w.
So three questions
1. What is stopping people from buying out of state TVs? With cars requiring California emissions controls, they can prevent out of state cars through licensing and registration. I don't see how this is enforceable without requiring the licensing of TVs (of course that too could help with the budget crunch, just charge a $50 license fee). Otherwise people will just buy from out of state, especially if the higher efficiency models sell for more than the lower older models.
2. Won't the TV manufacturers just produce models with firmware artificially limiting the brightness level to reduce energy consumption. Firmware that will inevitably be hacked or replaced with other states version of the firmware?
3. Isn't competition already leading to efficiency gains without government force? Plasmas have made great strides in efficiency to compete with LCDs since it became a comparison chart item when consumers buy TVs. Likewise LCD efficiency is being sought for longer battery life for laptops and portable devices, longer battery life is a good selling point. I am just saying that I don't think there are a lot of R&D departments that weren't investing in higher energy efficiency, then saw this new law and suddenly decided to start focusing on improving energy efficiencies.
It is a stupid and unnecessary law.
@RandomGuy
Maybe Wikipedia will help you understand the reasoning for this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_electricity_crisis
@D W I fully understand the energy crisis in California, I just don't feel that this law is going to be beneficial or effective.
Side Effects that I can think of off the top of my head;
1. Consumers will jump to larger than 58" sets. They will be cheaper to produce, good luck convincing people that they should pay more for a 42" TV than a 58". People will see them being the same price and get the biggest they can. This means that you will actually be offering an incentive for people to use more energy.
2. Energy efficiency requirements are based on area of the screen instead of total consumption. So a 53" TV that runs 350 Watts meets the standard, but a 27 Inch LCD that uses only 100 Watts does not. Which is better for the environment and energy consumption?
3. The ratings are for maximum power consumption, not actual or average power consumption. This means that technology like OLED will be rated for its highest power consumption (Which would be when it is displaying a brilliant solid white screen with the volume at full blast), when in dark screens it uses far, far less power than other technologies. Overall the average power consumption of OLEDs is less than an LCD that uses power at a consistent high rate due to a need for a constantly lit backlight. This will make more efficient technologies illegal and lead to slower adoption and investment. For those ECO nuts out there, it would be like rating the gas mileage of a Prius while some leadfoot is driving it at 120MPH. I don't think you will find many folks that would buy into that methodology for determining mileage, why do it for TVs. The power consumption ratings are there to let you know if you are going to trip the breaker, not to tell you how efficient the TV is.
So if you want to make a difference in energy consumption, then make a law that actually reduces energy consumption. Have the balls to implement a surcharge for homes that use beyond a certain amount of energy per sq ft. Have an incentive program that gets people to trade in their horribly inefficient old 20" CRTs for 20" LCDs, etc. But making a blanket efficiency rating is ineffectual and leads to more negative side effects than leaving the situation alone.
On this note, does anybody know why the SUV craze was started? It was because CAFE standards on cars were implemented. The average fuel efficiency of all cars sold by a particular company had to be above a certain amount. Well Station wagons (which was the former family cruiser) were throwing off the curve and making it difficult for automakers to meet the efficiency standards and still sell high profit , fuel wasting, sports cars and luxury sedans. So instead of scrapping the fuel wasters, they started importing and re-badging little economy cars (like GEOs), and they killed station wagons in lieu of SUVs. You see SUVs are not "cars", but "trucks", and they had different CAFE standards.
So in essence it was environmental laws like this that got people out of their cars and into their SUVs. Better to just leave well enough alone or tax consumption itself if you must.
@RandomGuy: I assume you were joking about the licensing of TVs, but don't be too quick to laugh off the idea--the United Kingdom licenses TVs to enforce collection of their BBC subsidy tax. And we all know that anything the British can screw up, we Americans can screw up better.
The "best" part is the numbers are looking at max power consumption, which is an unrealistic metric for plasma TVs since their power consumption varies dependent on the image on the screen. Typical TV content has a rather low APL so they aren't really power hogs. An LCD TV on the other hand uses basically the same amount of power all the time (excluding sets that dim their backlight).
Perhaps California can implement a ban on bad legislation next.
@Stereodude Since most TV and Movie Production occurs in California, maybe they should instead enact a law that requires all TV shows to follow the CSI model and film only at night and in dimly lit rooms. Think how much power they would save throughout the world. Plasma, OLED, Laser, DLP and CRT all use less power in darker scenes.
Road trip to Vegas, baby!
WONDERFUL!!!
Government doing what they do best. Driving the cost of goods and services UP UP UP! No wonder people are fleeing big Dem states like CA, NY, and MI besides raping people's income. The gov of NY has come up with 70 plus new tax proposals...YIKES!
Vote these idiots out.
Throw some LEDS on that bitch
It is refreshing to see the majority of comments noting clearly what a bad idea this is and giving clear examples as to why. I hope that we can all work together to bring back individual responsibility to these collective crazed governments of ours.
They are supposed to be for We the People, let's start holding them to that.
Here's a presentation regarding this law:
http://www.energy.ca.gov/appliances/2009_tvregs/documents/2009-10-13_hearing/2009-10-13_STAFF_PRESENTATION.PDF
Most current TVs already meet the first-level proposal, since both technology and the desire to reduce production costs have driven down power consumption over time. The law mostly prevents you from being sold outdated junk.
I think it would have been better if lawmakers had just required retailers to post on the front of each set the amount of energy consumed in dollars and cents (something people understand). I think the EnergyStar program already does this for most major appliances. Perhaps it should be extended to everything with a plug.
California is the dumbest state in the union. $27 billion in the red and they want to regulate energy consumption on my TV. How about you quit being idiots instead.
another reason to shop in beautiful nearby Reno!
@Hbishop they worry because higher usage leads to more brownouts and blackouts in the larger areas. I work for a tech based editing shop and we had two of our machines damaged by rolling brownouts cutting off the system in the middle of processing files. sure we could rebuild but it set us back a good two days and for us that's not cool
"Any set greater than 58-inches is exempt..."
Way to exclude the filthy rich California. Is anyone really surprised by this? The largest energy hogs are excluded. That seems backwards to me. Though I fully realize that by quantity alone that may have an effect but still, it should be universal and fair.
*Perhaps I'm a little jealous. :)
What is the CA unimplemented rate again? Is their 6 billion hole filled yet? I don't keep up with it much, just wondering.
@rickjamess04
I feel as if the government wants to blame us for this crises. Yes it's our fault we exist and we use resources to establish our lives lol.
They're the ones to ultimately blame because we gave them our tax dollars to spend on this country not to bail out their friends.
Huh?
You know, maybe I was wrong, maybe this will actually reduce energy consumption in California. After all, the more stupid laws they implement the more people will move to other states. Thus lower population = lower energy consumption. Maybe those legislators aren't so stupid after all.
For a 55" TV (1292.58 square inches of display), the first law would mean your TV could only consume 290.5W. LCDs already meets this TODAY! The end result is that they are trying to phase out plasmas since they use a crap load of electricity.
The next stricter law means your TV could only consume 180.1W..LED backlit LCDs already meet this TODAY!
This law is not tough to meet at all...modern TV's already fall under the requirements
@pio!pio! Except Plasma's use much less power under actual use vs. their maximum power consumption. It is not a very fair comparison. I love plasma's but they do consume more power than LCDs. However, this law will also affect OLED screens which use more power than LCDs at maximum power consumption, but in real use actually use much less than LCD and are being developed as a power efficient alternative. This would essentially outlaw OLEDs as they are, even though they are more efficient than LCDs.
12 months from now nobody will care and we will have TVs that are cheaper to operate. I wish my TV used less power.
It's the Trans Fat debate all over again. Trans Fats are banned and nothing tastes any different, yet people are going to be healthier.
@rcappo
Have you tasted a new McDonalds french fry. They taste a lot different. They also give you a nice Olestra effect. Remember Olestra potato chips. Charmin was very happy.
My 42" set that uses around 240 watts when it is turned on is killing the planet, OHHH NOOOO!!!! That is at max settings. Using a power meter at the current settings it draws around 180.
Most 19" CRT computer monitors use more than that. In fact many old 20" CRT TV sets used more than 250 watts. I bet the computers in the office of every California congressman and senator stay on 24/7.
Replace two 100 watt lightbulbs with 10 watt fluorescents and you save enough for your TV. In fact you may be using less energy if you buy a big screen LCD to replace your old SD set. BUT IF YOU USE LESS ENERGY HOW CAN YOU USING MORE!!! Oh the set is bigger so it must use more energy. Why does it matter, California isn't paying for the power, the citizens are.
What California hopes is that the manufacturers will not be able to meet the guidelines adn they will be able to fine people.
California, making the world pray for the big one since 1969.
Those "vampires" that creep across the border are actually productive members of society that pick your food. Did you want to go pick your own food in heavily pesticided fields? Go for.
stupid homosexual californians. Global warming is a farse. Stop meddling with our lives!
I live in the FU*KED up state. I so much HATE S.F. and avoid it like the Plague that it is!!! The rest of the state isn't much better. I love the Climate here in the Bay Area, and Family live here. so just up and fleeing like so many others really isn't a option.
The Rich getting taxed to death, Except for the Democrat that seem to all be TAX CHEATS, are fleeing, and what we have left is a lot of low Income and None paying Tax people left. Same problem New York is having, People fleeing to Florida and you have the Poor left that pay no taxes and your loosing money. What's the Solution? Raise the taxes some more, like that will get the state any more money. HAHAHAHAHA
Governor Schwarzenegger is a Republican in name only like many others are. They GIVE IN, and the problem gets worse. Sure we all want the FREE STUFF, but someone has to pay for it. Even CHINA now is laughing at us!!! Give it a couple more years, less if this Heath Care SCAM actually goes though, and the Dollar really will be worth nothing. We'll be a Banana Republic!!! That 60" HDTV will now cost $30,000. A Gallon of Milk will be $20, same with Gas. Oh and of course there will 20%+ Interest Rates on Home and other loans. It's coming, worse then when Jimmy Carter was in office.
Barak Obama has SPENT more money then every single President COMBINED, from Washington all the way to BUSH, in under a year, and that's WITHOUT the Heath Care SCAM, and they're not done yet, and want to kill even more jobs with this B.S. Cap & Trade bill (CAP & TAX). They do want to spread the Wealth, not with just others in the U.S either, but the whole rest of the world. WE give our money to everyone else in the world to bring them UP, which really would mean, bringing everyone here DOWN. Hey want to start making $10 a day here in the U.S. Everyone will be THE SAME, that's really all that matters. People better wake up.
As for the new HDTV standards. Well like a lot of my other stuff I buy, Usually from AMAZON, pay ZERO in tax to what once was a great state. I can either buy my next HDTV Online and pay NO TAX again, or at least have a excuse to buy a 60"+ HDTV!!! Yep, more B.S that doesn't help the state. Over Tax, Kill all the Farms, and give in to Unions which are far over paid. They could take 100% of everyone's money and spend it ALL and still be billions Dept.
It's at the point where people on Welfare are driving new BMW, and Mercedes, live in a nice house, and spending Food Stamps!!! Living better then someone that Actually WORKS!!! Sorry to say it's really true!!!
Hmm, remember when california was in the United States of America?
shut up, idiot.
Hmmm....
Is this like bans used to be...a ban on an unsafe product, like lead paint?
Nope
Just a ban to reduce electricity consumption.
Yet there is no energy shortage
(given renewable/nuclear development possibilities, with set emission limits) and consumers - not politicians - pay for the electricity and how they wish to use it.
http://www.ceolas.net/#cc2x
Now, If there was an energy shortage, the electricity price rise would limit people using it anyway. No need to legislate for it!
I know there are exceptions, but I have a feeling that many politicians have never lived in the real world before, hence, we get laws that have nothing to do with reality.
You wonder why people are moving out of California at an alarmingrate, why the State is bankrupt lol...They should just declare California a National park and make everyone move out lol...One thing is trying to save energy but force people and industry and mandating power consumption which is a service that is paid for by the consumer is ridiculous...Whats next? they going to put limits on bulb wattage for you home? limits on having lights on? limits on using the microwave? limit you at how long you can keep your lights on? Limit you on cell phone usage to not use up too much electricity?
If history has shown, you start with minute mandates and b4 you know it, our homes will be our jail cells because they mandate that into law to keep us safe because they know our best interest...