California Energy Commission Holds Hearing On TV Regulation
The controversy regarding these standards revolves around whether the government should mandate specific regulations governing TV power consumption or whether current voluntary programs, such as Energy Star are providing enough incentive to meet overall energy efficiency goals. According to the CEC, televisions now account for between 8 and 10% of total household energy use in California.
As you can imagine, people were lined up on both sides of the issue. The side supporting implementation of mandated government regulations consisted of environmental groups (National Resource Defense Council and the Environmental Defense Fund), but also included TV manufacturer Vizio, and technology companies involved in research and development, such as 3M. In addition, California's main power providers (Sempra Energy and PG&E) also lent their support to the proposed mandated regulations.
On the other side of the issue were CEDIA (Custom Electronic Design and Installation Association), CEA (Consumer Electronics Association), Panasonic, JVC, and TIVO, all of which expressed concern over any officially mandated state regulations governing television energy consumption.
Here is a summary of the arguments made on both sides of the issue:
Arguments in Favor of Regulation
1. The need to cut down energy use in the State because of global warming (specifically CO2 emissions) and limited electrical generation resources (the result of choices made by the State).
2. Save consumers money on their electric bills. As a result, consumers could spend their "savings" on other products and services that can benefit the economy.
3. State-mandated regulations will insure that the CE industry meets specific energy reduction goals for televisions.
Arguments Opposed to Regulation
1. Voluntary efforts, such as Energy Star and other programs have already made significant progress towards the increase in the number of energy efficient televisions available to consumers. In other words, mandated state regulations are redundant and not really needed.
2. New technology innovations may be stifled by burdensome mandated regulations. The claim here is that sometimes a new product or technology does not demonstrate initial energy efficiency potential when first developed, but further innovation in this area becomes more feasible as the technology matures. Under proposed State regulations such products would not make it to market.
3. Mandated regulations could cause more hardship on the already weak California economy as some retail and installation outlets may not have access to products that consumers want, causing a loss of jobs and tax revenue.
My Take: Attending the hearing via the internet, I listened to about three hours of comments from both sides and my opinion is that the California Energy Commission is misplacing its time and the taxpayers' money on this issue, and is also is being somewhat misleading in their long range intentions.
During the hearing, several companies explained new technologies that are now being, or can be, implemented, that in the near future, could not only make progress towards further energy efficient televisions, but may actually allow many TVs to meet or exceed both the CEC's 2011 and 2013 goals well before those dates.
As a result of these declarations, a CEC representative kept asking the representatives from the CEA why they would oppose state mandated regulations for televisions, if so much progress has already been made that will actually meet them? Unfortunately, the CEA representatives did not respond as directly to this question as they should have, but it was also obvious that the CEC representative was missing the point (or feigning missing the point) that the CEA should have been more explicit in making.
In my opinion, the underlying opposition to state-mandated TV energy regulations expressed at the hearing isn't against the goal to design more efficient televisions. It is not only the fact that progress is already being made voluntarily, without government mandates. It is what CEC-mandated regulations may also lead to in the future; the regulation of all electrical devices used in the home and rationing of electricity by the State for the good of the people and the environment.
What seems good for us and the right thing to do now, may not be so good for us later as the political winds and bureaucrats in charge change. Although many aspects of the proposed regulations may seem fair and not as burdensome to comply with now, there is no limit to how restrictive such regulations may beome in the future. Current manufacturers and related suppliers, such as Vizio, that expressed support for the new proposed regulations at the hearing should take note.
There is also the argument put forth by the CEC that as less electricity is being used, consumers will save money on their electric bills. However, it has been my experience that when electricity consumption drops enough, the electric power providers, with approval of the State, have a habit of raising electricity rates, which negates most, or all, hoped-for savings. In other words, consumers may end up paying more for using less.
Also, the proposed regulations, if approved, may not only affect those living within California's borders. One CEC staffer boldly proclaimed that Massachusetts and several Northeastern and Northwestern Sates are ready to "cut and paste" into their own law, any TV power efficiency regulations approved in California.
For more details and perspective on the October 13, 2009 California Energy Commission hearing, check out the reports from: The Los Angeles Times, CNET, Earth Times, KXJZ - Capital Public Radio, and Associated Press via Google News.
Also, for my more complete perspective on this entire issue, check out my previous article: Battle Rages In California Over TV Power Regulations.
Official Outline of Proposed Television Regulations for California presented at the October 13th 2009 meeting of the California Energy Commission.
Comments
Great article. It shows the backward thinking of many who are in political power today. Making energy scarce and more expensive hinders economic growth; which drives much needed job growth. Efficient, abundant and inexpensive energy would be the greatest boon to the economy. Unfortunatly, ineffiencent and expensive solar panels and wind mills are in political favor. Meanwhile, current nuclear technology has produce a nuclear power plant the size of a bathtub that can power 20 thousand homes at a fraction of the cost solar panels and windmills.