This morning, October 13, 2009, the California Energy Commission, CEC, held a hearing on proposed California regulations limiting energy consumption of TV sets, for both active and standby modes, that can be sold in California starting in 2011. The workshop started with an overview and formal presentation from the staff, then was opened up to participants present in the meeting room and others joining by telephone.
Of course, there were those from utility companies, such as PG&E and SoCal Edison, plus several representing environmental concern groups, all of whom were supportive of the regulations. What I found interesting was that throughout the session, the Consumer Electronics Association, CEA, was criticized many times for their position, and it was claimed they presented contradictory viewpoints on this topic. So, when the time came for the CEA to talk, I paid extra attention.
What I realized quickly was that the CEC is apparently ignorant to the nuances between mandatory and voluntary regulations. This made a strong suggestion to me that their mind is closed, there is no alternate approach, and one basis for the contradictory statements claim. In fact, it is a misunderstanding on the part of the CEC, not conflicting statements from the CEA. Communication is best when clear statements are made, which was the case from the CEA, but unfiltered and unbiased understanding needs to happen as well on the part of the listener.
Several times the CEC asked if the CEA was suggesting that California should adopt Energy Star limits, which currently represents about 25% of TVs available on the market. This was a bizarre statement, and completely overlooked the point that Energy Star is a voluntary program, and allows a manufacturer to place the Energy Star logo on an approved product to help consumers make a responsible choice regarding their purchase. In fact, the new Energy Star 4.0 standard is more stringent than the California proposals, but once again, the CEC wants to mandate limits for all television sets sold after Jan 1, 2011.
Another confusion is limitations on innovation, especially after several participants had presented breakthroughs on new materials and techniques for reducing energy consumption of LED, LCD, and Plasma TV sets. The CEA's position is that unless there is a good balance between regulation and market forces, innovation will suffer. For instance, consider what would have happened if energy consumption regulations were in effect in 2001 when CRT TVs were prevalent. The answer is that we would probably not have Plasma, LCD, LED, OLED displays as they would not have met the limits, and therefore the manufacturer would not have found an economic reason to introduce these type of products. Looking forward, the case can be logically made that regulations, such as those proposed by the CEC, will deter innovation of new display technologies that have not yet been discovered.
In addition, the CEA made claims that data considered by the CEC is outdated, and that there is a major mathematical error in the PG&E analysis. Also, the extra cost involved in complying and registering for the new regulations, other overestimates on savings, and underestimates on cost increases, possibly completely erode the claimed $8.1B economic savings for California.
Well, what is next? My belief is that after Nov 2, 2009, when public comment period closes, the CEC will make a decision to adopt the new regulations at their next business meeting on Nov 4, 2009. The real concern is that other States will introduce similar regulations, and that is when the real damage to choice and innovation begins.
For those who would like to review the CEC documents, they can be found at: http://www.energy.ca.gov/appliances/2009_tvregs/documents/index.html#101309. If you are interested, and would like to support a coalition to halt these unnecessary regulations, please sign up on-line at: www.CAsmartEnergy.com.
© 2009 Advocates for Responsible Energy Consumption
