California Restricts Television Power Consumption

Samsung LED Backlit TV

In an effort to reduce greenhouse gases, lower power consumption, and maintain the state’s reputation as the hippiest in America, the California Energy Commission has set strict guidelines that would require televisions to use less power. According to SF Gate:

The new rules, adopted unanimously by the California Energy Commission, will require manufacturers to cut the power televisions use by one-third in two years and in half by 2013 by setting wattage ceilings.

Consumers are expected to save $8.1 billion in energy costs over a 10-year period as a result of the restrictions, without sacrificing high-definition pictures, the commission said. The panel also cited a study that showed the energy savings could help reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 3 million metric tons a year — the equivalent of taking 500,000 cars off the road — in part by eliminating the need for a new power plant.

While environmental groups are applauding the effort, consumer electronics advocates are not. Doug Johnson, senior director of technology for the Consumer Electronics Association said, “This is a constraint on innovation and on consumer choice. It’s unnecessary and unjustified.”

Personally, I’m all for the limits. I’m not a hippie, but I try to live a fairly green lifestyle. While some people will surely bitch and moan about the new rules, I’d bet that most California consumers won’t notice them and buy televisions that use less power without noticing a difference. Johnson’s point about consumer choice is totally valid, but I care more about the Earth than having more television sets to choose from.

How about you? As a gamer, televisions have a big impact on your life. Do you dig California’s smackdown on energy-consuming sets? Or would you rather have the choice to buy a power sucker?


Author: RPadTV

32 thoughts on “California Restricts Television Power Consumption”

  1. Not ripping on California, I live in Louisiana, but why? Build a powerplant. That will create jobs. Your state needs jobs.

  2. without sacrificing anything we've come to know from televisions I wouldn't mind this. I wouldn't ever sacrifice picture quality for a greener lifestyle. But if it were green and looked just as good that's cool with me

  3. I understand what you are saying, Mr. Padilla, but still, I've never been able to wrap my head around a state government coercing manufacturers to adhere to a certain guidelines in order to "make the world a better place." You know what I think would make the world a better place? Getting rid of 95% of all politicians and repealing outdated taxes. That would instantly "make the world a better place" overnight, unfortunately no one has that bill on the table.

    A governing body can not force people to "go green". I understand a government telling TV manufacturers that they can't build TVs that explodes or randomly kill people if they don't surf through the cannels in an orderly fashion, but the government really has no right to tell a company (or group of companies) of how to make their product as long as it does not reasonably harm consumers. Going Green should be a choice of the people. If everyone buys "green TVs", then manufacturers will primarily make those units and phase out the ones that people don’t buy. The minute you have the government stepping in and saying; “No. You’re not going to make that type of TV anymore, you’re now going to make that one,” you open up a can of worms.

    If the CA government really wants to promote going green, then it should do so with positive reinforcement, not penalties, fines, and outright restrictions. All you would have to do is offer a nice, big tax credit for companies that manufacture, promote, and sell green TVs. That will ensure that a company puts the product out on the market. Then, it’s the consumer’s turn to go out and buy these TVs and vote which units they like better with their dollars. If people buy the green TVs, then great, but if not, then the market has spoken as to what product(s) they want. Government interference in free markets only serves to raise prices, punish people, re-allocate resources that are contrary to the demand of the market, and ultimately distorting that market in a negative manner. Coercion and force are not the way to convince people that something is for the good of all. Only by education and setting a positive examples will people come around to finally going green on their own.


  4. The only problem is that the only reasons they do thing like this is to force competition out for their buddies. Like how Bush put a limit on light bulbs. The only reason he did that was to help his friends out by forcing incandescent bulbs out of the market, even though florescent bulbs are full of greenhouse gasses and will only pollute the ozone more that it already is.

  5. @ Sandrock;

    Agreed. Corporatism (companies, groups of companies, or whole industries giving money to key politicians in exchange for beneficial laws for the company(ies)/industry) is a cancer that is slowly killing America.

    I find that people usually get confused when the word "regulation" is thrown around. What most people don't realize is that there are two forms of regulation: the kind of regulation that benefits the consumer or society as a whole, and regulation that benefits an individual company or small group of companies.

    Guess which one we have the most of today?


  6. definitely some good points were brought up. I propose an idea that benefits a company for making a green TV. not punishing those that don't. It's not like California is asking all cars to get 30MPG by 2015 that would be crap. (but I can see those jerks trying it)

    This is why I don't get in to politics. politicians blow if you ask me

  7. it's also counterproductive since it limits choice and competition. Whenever a manufacturer has to make a product adhere to a code, that cost is passed on to the consumer.

  8. nice smartguy – Here's the new energy efficient $4000 tv that will save you $100 per year on your energy bill.

    or here's the power hungry version for $1700 lol

  9. @shockwave

    why thankyou, I will wait til the energy hog goes on sale and buy it. Also since I am at work or school everyday of the week and some nights, the energy hog won't be on that much.

  10. @Shockwave;

    I think the same way about cars… specifically, fuel-efficient cars vs. hybrids. If you do the math, it's just not worth it.


  11. @RPAD

    What about the heinous waste and environmentally dangerous production of the batteries for hybrids?

    Would you spend the money on just a 4 cylinder Corolla or a 4 cylinder Camry Hybrid? Quite a difference in price for no difference in mileage.

    Half of this green stuff is a scam anyway.

  12. @Sandrock323 I actually almost leased an electric Toyota RAV4, but the company stopped leasing them.

    @Smartguy I agree with you that a lot of this is a scam. I actually choose not to drive and rely on public transportation.

  13. @Smartguy It's not always easy. In Manhattan it's easier not to have a car. San Francisco was pretty decent. Irvine was difficult. Los Angeles is actually going well for me, but I live a very un-LA lifestyle. Certainly there are a lot of instances when a car would be more convenient, but I'm doing this by choice and am happy with the choice.

  14. @Mr. Padilla;

    I was simply talking about money-wise. Obviously, if someone wants to pay a premium for helping out the environment, more power to them. I know a few people that would gladly spend a few more bucks to go green. As for the rest of us, we need to be more frugal and we don't need a government entity to punish us (the consumer always pays for industry regulation it in the end in the form of higher prices) by way of coercion. I do not think that there are people out there who purposely try to create MORE waste, it is just that they cannot afford to spend the money to upgrade to products that produce less waste. Forcing those more expensive products on us is not the role of the government, but the market. That is my point.

    Oh, yeah, and uh, lord help you if you try to use the practical joke of a system we call "mass transit" down here in Miami. If you don't have a car, you are royally screwed. Everything is literally miles away from everything else you need; work, major shopping centers, beaches, supermarkets, bars, you name it. The only way you could possibly get around it is if you live in downtown Miami. If you can afford $550,000 for a one-room, one bath efficiency, then more power to you.

    Invite me over for the room-warming party. I'll bring a case of Pabst since that will be the only thing you can afford after the mortgage sends your bank account beyond the planes of Oblivion, never to return.


  15. You should move to NOLA Ray. Housing is cheap, unless you want to live by Drew Brees or the Manning family. You could buy a damn cadillac hybrid, a nice house, and still not work if you think 550k is doable.

  16. @Smartguy I'm secretly waiting for my parents to retire in 2010. They plan on moving to Hawaii. I plan on living in the guest room. Ha!

    Seriously though, I'd love to live somewhere cheaper, but so many publishers are based in Los Angeles and San Francisco. It's a lot easier to work local events from here. Besides, if I moved anywhere to reduce costs, it would be Thailand.

  17. NOLA is fun though. Lots of food (the best food), Mardi Gras, Saints, LSU, festivals, the fun never stops.

    I've never had the urge to go to Hawaii. I don't know why. My next big trip will be when I graduate again next year…Japan here I come.

  18. @Smartguy;

    You have to go to Hawai'i before you die. Me and my wife went there for our honeymoon and it was the greatest trip EVER! I highly recommend it. It is worth every penny. In fact, we have decided that Hawai'i is going to be our "fallback" place if things ever go bad down here in south Florida… well, worse, anyway.


  19. @Smartguy: New Orleans is one of my favorite cities I've been to. Went for Mardi Gras a few years back (before the storm). The experience was truly outstanding. And I'm not just saying that because of all the breasts I saw (although I'm not complaining about that either)…..

  20. @nightshade

    haha, I haven't done Mardi Gras in downtown NOLA since the storm. I do enjoy going to the casino and other attractions though.

  21. @iceman I'd sugged Krabi, Phuket, or Ko Phi Phi as an alternative to Hawaii. Airfare is more, but everything else is much cheaper and the beaches are even more beautiful.

  22. @Mr. Padilla;

    Where is Krabi, Phuket and Ko Phi Phi? Forgive my geographical ignorance, but I am afraid that I am not the most well-traveled (or educated) person that I would like to be.


Comments are closed.