California goes Nanny State and imposes TV energy curbs

Nov 19, 2009 by

nanny-state Saying that they hope they will lead the nation on the environmental issue, California’s Energy Commission recently voted unanimously to force TV manufacturers to meet new lower power usage standards in order to be able to sell their products within the state.

The standards will be placed on sets up to 48 inches and will be phased in starting in 2011.  At that time, sets sold in CA stores will have to use less that 183 watts.  In 2013 that number drops to 116 watts.  Currently sets can use anywhere from 200 to 350 watts depending on size and technology used.

So far, Vizio is the only company that has said they can meet the standards.  Others aren’t so sure.

“Instead of allowing customers to choose the products they want, the commission has decided to impose arbitrary standards that will hamper innovation and limit consumer choice,” said Jason Oxman, a vice president with the Consumer Electronics Association. “It will result in higher prices for consumers, job losses for Californians, and lost tax revenue for the state.”

While I certainly applaud the effort to lower energy usage, that’s what the Energy Star program is for.  It’s a voluntary system that manufacturers can either choose to follow or not.  Many have.  This, however, is one area where I don’t believe that forcing companies or consumers into a corner is good idea.  I can think of much better ways to get lower wattage sets sold.  Make people want to buy them.  E.g.:  0% sales tax on a qualifying purchase.  This is a plan that could get consumers buying higher priced, more efficient TVs and at the same time leave room in the market for people who might not be able to afford the extra cost associated with the green lifestyle.  (Let’s face it.  Manufacturers are going to pass those R&D dollars spent lowing wattage on to consumers.)

via AP

Related Posts

Tags

Share This

  • lighthouse10

    Exactly!
    Nanny state rules
    – and they shoot themselves in the foot by not having taxation instead (not that taxation is necessarily justified either, but better for all than bans)

    So:

    1. Taxation is better for everyone, if energy really needs to be saved.
    TV set taxation based on energy efficiency – unlike bans – gives the impoverished California Government income on the reduced sales, while consumers keep choice.

    Notice that this also applies generally,
    to CARS, BUILDINGS, LIGHT BULBS etc where politicians keep trying to define what people can or can't use.

    Politicians can use the money raised to fund home insulation schemes, renewable projects etc that lower energy use and emissions more than remaining product use raises them.

    More: efficient products can have their sales taxes lowered.

    2. Product regulation, bans or taxation, are however UNWARRANTED:
    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.

    It might sound great to
    “Let everyone save money by only allowing energy efficient products”

    However:

    Inefficient products that use more energy can have performance, appearance and construction advantages – as well as usually costing less, or else they'd be more energy efficient already.
    Examples (using cars, buildings, dishwashers, TV sets, light bulbs etc):
    http://ceolas.net/#cc211x

    In turn that means that there might not even be running cost savings, depending on usage.

    Two more factors contribute to that:

    1. If households use less energy, then utility companies make less money,
    and will just raise electricity prices to cover their costs.

    Conversely,
    2. Energy use might rise.
    Energy efficiency 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
    http://ceolas.net/#cc214x

    Either way supposed energy -or money- savings aren't there.

    More on 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

  • lighthouse10

    Exactly!
    Nanny state rules
    – and they shoot themselves in the foot by not having taxation instead (not that taxation is necessarily justified either, but better for all than bans)

    So:

    1. Taxation is better for everyone, if energy really needs to be saved.
    TV set taxation based on energy efficiency – unlike bans – gives the impoverished California Government income on the reduced sales, while consumers keep choice.

    Notice that this also applies generally,
    to CARS, BUILDINGS, LIGHT BULBS etc where politicians keep trying to define what people can or can't use.

    Politicians can use the money raised to fund home insulation schemes, renewable projects etc that lower energy use and emissions more than remaining product use raises them.

    More: efficient products can have their sales taxes lowered.

    2. Product regulation, bans or taxation, are however UNWARRANTED:
    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.

    It might sound great to
    “Let everyone save money by only allowing energy efficient products”

    However:

    Inefficient products that use more energy can have performance, appearance and construction advantages – as well as usually costing less, or else they'd be more energy efficient already.
    Examples (using cars, buildings, dishwashers, TV sets, light bulbs etc):
    http://ceolas.net/#cc211x

    In turn that means that there might not even be running cost savings, depending on usage.

    Two more factors contribute to that:

    1. If households use less energy, then utility companies make less money,
    and will just raise electricity prices to cover their costs.

    Conversely,
    2. Energy use might rise.
    Energy efficiency 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
    http://ceolas.net/#cc214x

    Either way supposed energy -or money- savings aren't there.

    More on 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