The California Energy Commission has decided to regulate the sale of energy hogging big-screen tv’s in the state. Starting in 2011, the new mandate will prevent the sale of televisions that don’t meet energy requirements. 
Stricter controls, that could phase-in in 2013, may include restrictions on the sale of sets larger than 58 inches.
The Consumer Electronics Association has taken issue with the new regulations saying that they’re bad policy, based on faulty data. Jason Oxman of CEA states the energy regs are, “dangerous for the California economy, dangerous for technology innovation and dangerous for consumer freedom. 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. It will result in higher prices for consumers, job losses for Californians, and lost tax revenue for the state” and cites that “the last two years alone energy efficiency of televisions has improved by 41 percent.”
The CEC estimates that its new mandate will save California residents an average of $30.24 per TV unit in the first year and a total of $912.1 million per year in avoided electric expense. After 10 years, the commission estimates the regulations will save $8.1 billion in energy costs and enough electricity to power 864,000 single-family homes.
Should government agencies mandate product choice and innovation in an effort to save their piece of the planet or should the marketplace and consumer demand dictate change?
graphic: CEPro
RSS
My answer to that question,
is that regulations are wrong whether or not one is for energy/emission savings or not
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, then, that this also applies generally,
to CARS, BUILDINGS, DISHWASHERS, LIGHT BULBS etc where politicians 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.
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:
RE big plasma TV screens they have – for example – contrast advantages
(dark and light differentiation) along with the bigger image sizes.
Energy inefficient products also usually cost less, or else they’d be more energy efficient already.
Examples (using cars, buildings, dishwashers, TV sets, light bulbs etc):
http://ceolas.net/#cc211x
There might therefore not even be running cost savings either, 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
The market simply doesn’t take into account its impact on the environment. SOMEONE has to take a stand for environmental degradation, and if the market won’t do it, the government should. http://www.newsy.com/videos/california_makes_tv_energy_standards_more_stringent