The California Energy Commission voted unanimously Wednesday to place energy efficiency restrictions on televisions being sold in the state. The restrictions, which will go into effect Jan. 1, 2011, will apply to televisions 58 inches and smaller. Although many televisions being sold in California stores already meet the energy efficiency guidelines, some will be banned under this new ruling.
The ruling applies only to the sales of television sets, so California residents will be able to keep their current sets regardless of energy efficiency. For more on the CEC restrictions, you can read it's FAQ page. Note, however, that those who opposed the regulations do not agree with all of the points this page makes.
I have mentioned in the past that I'm torn on this legislation. I am a strong supporter of energy efficient and green technoloy, and I don't buy the argument that corporations will continue to make more energy-efficient sets simply because it's the right thing to do. It is possible, however, that consumer demand will force manufacturers to make more energy efficient products with or without legislation. And a ban on a handful of televisions doesn't make a strong environmental statement, particularly coming from a state where countless people drive gas-guzzling SUVs to and from work everyday. Still, I suppose some energy savings is better than none.
Two of my About.com colleagues have much stronger feelings on the subject than I do, so I encourage you to read About Home Theater Guide Ronert Silva's thoughts and About Stereos Guide Gary Altunian's thoughts.
As always, I'm interested in hearing what you have to say, so post your comments below.
Comments
Another reason I decided to not retire in CA. However, as you eluded to, the “Terminator” governor and his wife have no qualms about driving their gas guzzling cars.
Forrest,
re I am a strong supporter of energy efficient and green technology
– that does not necessitate having a ban…
1.
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.
Notice: If there was an energy shortage, its price rise would limit
people using it anyway.
No need to legislate for it!
It might sound great to
“Let everyone save by only allowing the manufacture of 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):
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
ceolas.net/#cc214x
Either way, supposed energy – or money – savings aren’t there.
2.
Taxation, while still wrong, is better than bans for all concerned.
This is not like a ban on dangerous lead paint!
It’s simply a ban to (supposedly) reduce electricity consumption.
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, 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.
———————-
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 and other
electrical products
Forrest,
re I am a strong supporter of energy efficient and green technology
– that does not necessitate having a ban…
1.
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.
Notice: If there was an energy shortage, its price rise would limit
people using it anyway.
No need to legislate for it!
It might sound great to
“Let everyone save by only allowing the manufacture of 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
ceolas.net/#cc214x
Either way, supposed energy – or money – savings aren’t there.
2.
Taxation, while still wrong, is better than bans for all concerned.
This is not like a ban on dangerous lead paint!
It’s simply a ban to (supposedly) reduce electricity consumption.
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, 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.
excuse double posting
- got no message with first one so assumed it was too long!
Peter thanks for your excellent, well-presented thoughts. You make some very compelling arguments and I appreciate you taking the time to give me some food for thought.