HDTV Magazine
Welcome, Guest  •  Sign In  •  Register  •  Help
Receive instant notification of new columns: Register Now to receive notification of new HDTV Magazine Columns via email as soon as they are published.
HDTV Almanac - California Choose Stick Over Carrot
by Alfred Poor on November 19, 2009 Category: General Interest

Yesterday, the California Energy Commission (CEC) made it official, and unanimously adopted new energy requirements for televisions sold in the state. It sets electricity consumption limits for sets up to 58″ diagonal. The first level takes effect January 2011, at which time one source indicates a 42″ must not consumer more than 183 watts. In January 2013, more stringent requirements will take effect; that 42″ set will have to consume 115 watts or less.

Unlike the federal Energy Star logo program which is optional, California’s limits will be required. This prompted an outcry from many television manufacturers as well as the Consumer Electronics Association. One of the major concerns is that these limits could stifle advancement of new features. For example, incorporating non-television features such as Internet access or digital video recording (DVR) functions in the same housing as the TV might push a model over the limit. The alternative would be to build these functions into a separate box, and the two devices in sum might consume more energy than the single integrated device.

My take on this is that it is a typical, ham-handed California approach to environmental issues. (Does anyone remember when San Francisco briefly banned pregnant women from working at CRT monitors?) All this effort and money spent on establishing limits is puzzling, since at least 1,000 current television models already meet the 2011 requirements. I expect that the energy consumption will drop even further in the next year, and won’t be at all surprised if most sets meet the 2013 limits well in advance of that date. The market is going to do a good job of rewarding energy-efficient TVs on its own, as manufacturers are making this a significant part of their sales pitch these days.

On the other hand, I also wonder about the industry’s strong objections to the CEC’s action. Yes, I see the danger of a Balkanization of rules and regulations among different states, but California has had separate car emissions requirements and that doesn’t seem to have ruined the auto industry’s creativity and development of new features. And I don’t think any other state has followed suit by developing their own emissions requirements for new cars. I think that the industry objections are a bit over the top, especially since so many models already meet the requirements.

On balance, I expect that it would probably have been better if California had not taken this action, but I don’t think it will cause any great harm to the industry or cost consumers a lot of extra money in any case.

Posted by Alfred Poor, November 19, 2009 5:00 AM

Reader Commentary

Reply
BobDiaz • Nov 19, 9:09am
I am so angry with the California Energy Commission (CEC); California has the LOWEST energy usage per household of any of the states in the Union, BUT the retards at the CEC still want to impost more restrictive standards on us.

http://www.energyalmanac.ca.gov/electricity/us_per_capita_electricity_2005.html

Then they have the gall to tell us that this is going to save us money and offer better products. No way, this is going to cost us more and give us TVs with lower brightness levels that won't look as good. This is what we get for voting for stupid liberals who put bone head environments on the CEC.

Try this, do a search on the term, "Global Cooling" and you'll see that the news media is feeding us lies about Global Warming. If "Global Warming" is real, then why has the Earth not gotten warmer for the past 11 years? Why has 2007, 2008, and 2009 shown a drop in the temperature? Why is it that 1/2 the scientific papers published in the Scientific Journals say th...
Reply
alfredpoor • Nov 19, 1:23pm
UPDATE: Paul Semenza and Paul Gagnon of DisplaySearch have also written about this decision, and provide an excellent graph showing how many existing models are already below the 2011 limits, and a significant number already meet the 2013 requirements....
Reply
ccclvib • Nov 20, 8:16am
This is for BobDiaz:

From today's news: "Floods devastate UK Lake District; much of Ireland"

The word "Unprecedented" is used more than once in the article I read. You don't get extremely heavy rain from "Global Cooling."

...and, if so many current sets are already within limits, why the fuss in the first place?...
Reply
dadden • Nov 20, 12:39pm
Sorry, but this is a politically oriented stand on global warming.
I know a scientist who is anything but a radical liberal and has been tracking temperatures since well before my time. During the second world war they were monitoring temperature in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. I has been noted that the temperatures have been increasing over decades.
I didn't believe it until I was shown the tables containing the data that had been recorded over the decades before and since my birth.

I do agree that it would be useful to look at the industry figures and they seem to show that the devices are going to be within easy reach of the requirements.

As to claims regarding the lack of brightness... I have been working in theatre for years and we have been making brighter and brighter light sources that use less and less power. I don't know about the rest of you but I don't find that I need the full power of my display. In fact, I use the low power setting and never have my brigh...
Reply
portkins • Nov 20, 6:47pm
A hacker got in to a global warming science database. E-mails within that community confirm numbers were doctored to make global warming look real. If you have an open mind read it. If not, keep thinking global warming is here.

check out the link

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/scientific_scandal_appears_to.html...
Reply
ccclvib • Nov 20, 8:55pm
Also doctored thousands of pictures that show how much glaciers have shrunk everywhere over the past 50 years? ...and doctored the water levels on Pacific atolls - many of which are now under water? Try that one....
Reply
portkins • Nov 21, 2:41am
Always an answer.
Never an admission there has been bad or fraudulent science.

All I can hope for is when things get so bad economically for this country that you help out if you are one of the rich exploiters (banksters)
or if you say "Hey those "alarmists" were right. I effed up in dismissing them. If you are a normal middle class person.

Constitution 3 pages. Health bill 2,000 pages.

We made hundreds of years with one. We will be in big trouble with the other

How and why did the native americans get here wasn't it migration?
Can't people move from those sinking atolls?...
Reply
stevekaden • Nov 21, 9:00am
portkins, "can't people migrate?" Yes they can, did well for the Israelis didn't it. How many people do you want in your back yard - or is shoving them out into the desert acceptable for you? Despite my mentioning downsides, that is not the issue - given long term dire predictions, approximately 2 billion people are living in future sub-oceanic turf.

Where are they going to go? And of course other dire predictions are more worrysome, ask the Kenyans whose glacial melt is ending, and they are beggining to worry about water, hydro-electric power, and indeed, a spiritual system that is now failing them. The reality is there. It can not be said enough - and again, the permafrost is now melting releasing the really scary stuff, methane and it's implications.

Yes I will have answers, as long as there are deniers of the blatantly obvious. Kinda like arguing with those who still feel we had a reason to invade Iraq, and ignoring Afganistan for the most part....
Reply
portkins • Nov 21, 1:13pm
I like how you meld from one subject to the next

Iraq and Afganistan have both been a disaster.
You don't seem to push too hard that we need to add troops or get out.

Israel with a democracy has turned a wasteland into a pretty fertile area. It's oppresive governemnts that keep people down and keeps them from migrating.

I wouldn't mind some more people to migrate to this country as long as they were productive and work hard.

We welcome everybody just don't want to pay for them to live here. Despite someone at the top always bowing and apologizing for this country, I know immigrants from all parts off the world. They all say the biggest dream is to get to America.
PS Ya think India and China will be curbing emissions anytime soon. They put lead in toys. Antifreeze in food products. Slave labor in China. But we can trust them to curb emissions?

Wait till they are driving 400 million cars. Even when we are forced into the dark ages and are forced to use lights...
Reply
dadden • Nov 21, 3:36pm
Will you give Glen Beck a try? 2 nights. I will suffer through Olberman and Matthews if you agree to do that.

Let me know what you think.

I tried to watch GB and his screed was staggeringly offensive. I was stunned and alarmed by the level of hatred and racism I heard from him in his monologue.

I do find Matthews a bit all over the road and don't really get his "journalism".

I like Olberman's take on things most of the time but I am a Lefty and consider the previous political regime a bit of a wash (on a good day). Nonetheless, I don't always think he is completely accurate. Of course he is a Pundit as well as a Newsman. But at least I know when he is leaving things out and he will admit fault if he makes a big error.

BTW, the science data that I was referring to is in bound note books and isn't on the net and couldn't be hacked. I've seen them in the office of an actual scientist that I know who helped to do the mea...

More from Alfred Poor

» - Currently Reading

More in Category: General Interest

About Alfred Poor

Alfred Poor is a well-known display industry expert, who writes the daily HDTV Almanac. He wrote for PC Magazine for more than 20 years, and now is focusing on the home entertainment and home networking markets.