The controversial regulations by the California Energy Commission (CEC), requiring all TVs sold in the state to meet new energy-efficiency standards, have mostly drawn the expected reactions, with energy-conservation advocates generally lining up behind the proposal and manufacturers opposing it. But the measure has also drawn some reactions that aren't necessarily predictable, and may point to an interesting and nuanced debate to come as the impact of the regulations, for California and the country, are assessed.
The CEC estimates the new energy-consumption threshold, set to go in effect in 2011, will save $8.1 million over 10 years.“The real winners of these new TV energy efficiencies are California consumers who will be saving billions of dollars and conserving energy while preserving their choice to buy any size or type of TV. Californians buy four million televisions each year and they deserve the most energy efficient models available," said Energy Commission Chairman Karen Douglas.”
On the whole, as expected, the Consumer Electronics Association, one of several industry groups which opposed the regulatory proposals, criticized the CEC’s actions:
CEA is extremely disappointed in the CEC’s decision to regulate TV energy use. Simply put, this is bad policy—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.
But at least one manufacturer, Vizio, based in California, supports the measure–and proudly posts a news article on its Web site saying so.
On the other side, the California legislation has received flak from the editorial page of the Los Angeles Times, hardly known as a conservative voice. In an editorial last month, the paper wrote that "[w]e're strong supporters of energy conservation, but we don't see why the state should impose performance standards on an industry that is making so much progress on its own. The risk is that it will block new technologies that gain efficiency over time, deterring innovation and undermining its own goals." The paper also knocks the legislation for overlooking the total economic burden to consumers of owning a TV set: "The commission cites such power-saving innovations as LED backlighting, laser-lit screens and organic LED without mentioning that these technologies raise the price of a set significantly."
Previous
Post a comment
Comments: