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

[snopes]

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.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...,4908205.story

[Troberg]

Well, that ban won't last. It's a very efficient way to lose voters to take away the toys they've spent lots of money on.

[jimmy101_again]

That triggers some random synapses...

There is a significant reason for a manufacture making things in the states. Even if it costs more there are reasons.

The state of California would not be considering any new regulations on big-screen TVs if any of them were actually made in California.

[kanazawa]

Originally Posted by jimmy101_again

That triggers some random synapses...

There is a significant reason for a manufacture making things in the states. Even if it costs more there are reasons.

The state of California would not be considering any new regulations on big-screen TVs if any of them were actually made in California.

Until recently, Sony made TVs in California:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniont..._1n20sony.html

[Roadie]

Originally Posted by jimmy101_again

That triggers some random synapses...

There is a significant reason for a manufacture making things in the states. Even if it costs more there are reasons.

The state of California would not be considering any new regulations on big-screen TVs if any of them were actually made in California.

But since they are currently sold here, there will be a loss in tax revenue if they are banned. Realistically, most people aren't going to not buy the TV they want - they're just going to go to another state to get it.

[Jahungo]

I think these sorts of bans are somewhat silly, ineffecient legislation. But here's an idea I just thought of: why not a sliding price for energy based on how much you use? For example, a certain amount of energy (the amount that a highly efficient household would use) would be at a quite low rate, then the price would increase as a household used more energy, ultimately reaching a very high price for exorbitant energy levels. That way you avoid some of the problems with higher energy prices (everyone needs some energy, after all, and so you're not going to shift incentives much at that end, but only put additional hardship on the poor), but still have a strong incentive to conserve energy.

[snopes]

Originally Posted by Troberg

Well, that ban won't last. It's a very efficient way to lose voters to take away the toys they've spent lots of money on.

Wrong. The California Energy Commission is an appointed body, not an elected one.

[Steve]

Originally Posted by Jahungo

I think these sorts of bans are somewhat silly, ineffecient legislation. But here's an idea I just thought of: why not a sliding price for energy based on how much you use? For example, a certain amount of energy (the amount that a highly efficient household would use) would be at a quite low rate, then the price would increase as a household used more energy, ultimately reaching a very high price for exorbitant energy levels. That way you avoid some of the problems with higher energy prices (everyone needs some energy, after all, and so you're not going to shift incentives much at that end, but only put additional hardship on the poor), but still have a strong incentive to conserve energy.

The same thing has been proposed for water: http://www.forbes.com/2008/07/14/cal...ter_print.html

I don't see why it wouldn't work for energy.

[AnglRdr]

Originally Posted by Roadie

But since they are currently sold here, there will be a loss in tax revenue if they are banned. Realistically, most people aren't going to not buy the TV they want - they're just going to go to another state to get it.

How many people in California live close enough to another state, though, to make that kind of trip to buy a television?

[WildaBeast]

Originally Posted by Jahungo

why not a sliding price for energy based on how much you use?

My electric company already does something like that. On my bill I have something like this:

Tier 1: 700 Summer kWh @0.092900
Tier 2: 72 Summer kWh @0.157300

So you can use up to 700 kWh per month at the lower Tier 1 rate, but any additional energy you use beyond that is subject to the higher Tier 2 rate. I typically end up going slightly into Tier 2 territory during the hottest months of the year when my air conditioner is running the most.

This is for SMUD, which serves the greater Sacramento area; I don't know if PG&E has a similar scale for their electrical customers.

[ganzfeld]

Originally Posted by snopes

Wrong. The California Energy Commission is an appointed body, not an elected one.

More importantly, IMO, the limits aren't on anything anyone's spent money on. Also, the ban doesn't even mean people won't be able to buy big TVs. In fact, the formula allows for screen size so, as long as the technology keeps moving in the direction it has, people will still be able to have their big screens. It just might be a while before they can buy something that's as beautiful as those big plasma displays.

[Errata]

Originally Posted by AnglRdr

How many people in California live close enough to another state, though, to make that kind of trip to buy a television?

A small minority live within convenient shopping distances of other states, since it's a large state, and much of the inland area near the border is sparsely populated mountain, desert, and agricultural land. Most people aren't going to make a full day round trip trek just to buy a power hungrier model of TV. There will be plenty of models that do comply. The few really huge ones that don't are so large and fragile that transporting them across the state is going to be very discouraging.

The way the formula factors in screen size clearly isn't attempting to deprive consumers by forcing them to have smaller TVs, it's just forcing manufacturers to keep finding ways to improve efficiency without sacrificing function. Most consumers won't notice the difference, they'll just save a bit on their electricity bill. If this law meant that people couldn't buy large screen TVs, then it would never have been passed, but that's really not what it means.

[Wolf333]

Originally Posted by Troberg

Well, that ban won't last. It's a very efficient way to lose voters to take away the toys they've spent lots of money on.

The headline is misleading. They are not talking about taking away TVs tht are already made, but for future TVs to meet energy use guidelines (much as other appliances do already, as mentioned in the article, and I think that TVs good make good headway if the freakin' off button actually turned it off).

The industry is already heading this way. LCD uses less energy than plasma, and LED uses less energy than LCD. Also, the TVs are becoming thinner and lighter, which is good for (most) consumers, as the TV is less obtrusive, but it also uses fewer resources to ship the TVs.

[breshears]

Originally Posted by ganzfeld

More importantly, IMO, the limits aren't on anything anyone's spent money on. Also, the ban doesn't even mean people won't be able to buy big TVs. In fact, the formula allows for screen size so, as long as the technology keeps moving in the direction it has, people will still be able to have their big screens. It just might be a while before they can buy something that's as beautiful as those big plasma displays.

Right. The headline's a little misleading (shockingly) -- the proposed subject of the ban is "energy guzzling," not "big-screen TVs." This is just a tightening of energy-consumption standards on future production of TVs. It's the same sort of regulation that has affected pretty much every household appliance over the years. They even quote Vizio as saying they can meet the regulations without any trouble.

But "California Energy Commission Considers Tightening Energy Consumption Regulations on Televisions" isn't as exciting as the implied "Big Screen TVs Outlawed."

[ganzfeld]

Originally Posted by Wolf333

The headline is misleading.

I don't think so. C'mon, do readers really think they're going to go into homes and take away TVs? (Guns, sure. That happens all the time.) Also, the story comes from the LA Times so you have to accept that the readers are already somewhat familiar with the story. Barring that, the ones in Sweden might want to read the article before commenting.

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.

(My bold.)

[Roadie]

Originally Posted by AnglRdr

How many people in California live close enough to another state, though, to make that kind of trip to buy a television?

Originally Posted by Errata

A small minority live within convenient shopping distances of other states, since it's a large state, and much of the inland area near the border is sparsely populated mountain, desert, and agricultural land. Most people aren't going to make a full day round trip trek just to buy a power hungrier model of TV.

I would never suggest that the only thing people would be doing out of state is getting a TV. But the major market for Las Vegas is SoCal, where much more than a "small minority" of the state lives, so it's not unrealistic to think that people might save their purchase to coordinate with a Vegas run. Or a Reno run. Or a Havasu run. Or a TJ run.

Originally Posted by Jahungo

But here's an idea I just thought of: why not a sliding price for energy based on how much you use? For example, a certain amount of energy (the amount that a highly efficient household would use) would be at a quite low rate, then the price would increase as a household used more energy, ultimately reaching a very high price for exorbitant energy levels. That way you avoid some of the problems with higher energy prices (everyone needs some energy, after all, and so you're not going to shift incentives much at that end, but only put additional hardship on the poor), but still have a strong incentive to conserve energy.

You would still disproportionately shift to those that can only buy used, older, inefficient appliances.

Quite frankly, the whole thing is silly. I'm one of the least environmentally conscientious consumers I know. But I know energy prices. I just purchased a new HDTV, and I eliminated several off my list because of energy consumption. I think this is something that will actually self-regulate.

[Insensible Crier]

I think the marketplace is already pushing it that way. I went to buy a little, cheap TV and I couldn't find one that wasn't a HD flat screen LCD or plasma. I just didn't want to shell out that kind of cash for a little TV for to watch before I go to sleep so right now I'm living without one.

[Sebbenth]

Originally Posted by Insensible Crier

I think the marketplace is already pushing it that way. I went to buy a little, cheap TV and I couldn't find one that wasn't a HD flat screen LCD or plasma. I just didn't want to shell out that kind of cash for a little TV for to watch before I go to sleep so right now I'm living without one.

I'd say it's actually easier now to buy a small TV on a budget. My impression is that there are quite a few PC monitors with HDMI inputs for about 150, and the digital box is something to consider having anyways.

[crocoduck_hunter]

Originally Posted by Roadie

I would never suggest that the only thing people would be doing out of state is getting a TV. But the major market for Las Vegas is SoCal, where much more than a "small minority" of the state lives, so it's not unrealistic to think that people might save their purchase to coordinate with a Vegas run. Or a Reno run. Or a Havasu run. Or a TJ run.

Or hell, even a Medford, OR run.

[Errata]

Originally Posted by crocoduck_hunter

Or hell, even a Medford, OR run.

Unlike those other places he mentioned, there isn't much reason to go to Medford from California, unless you're driving through it. So it would be a case of driving up there specifically to buy a TV, rather than buying it while they happened to be going there anyway. Medford is hundreds of miles from the nearest major city in California, which would make it basically a full day round trip. And you better hope your big, energy inefficient TV is packed well, otherwise it could be damaged on that long trip, and you'd have to go all the way back to deal with it.

With that kind of travel time, you're not going to be saving money on the purchase, and you'll be losing money on electricity. And you can be certain that there will be other equally large and high quality models that do meet the energy standards. So if you can get something just as good without paying more, why would you even consider going so far out of your way to get a non-compliant TV?