CA Energy Commission Seeks to Regulate Television Use

[admin]

Two weeks ago, the California Energy Commission released regulatory language aimed at reducing electricity usage of television sets in the state. This news was greeted by modest media coverage, much of it hailing the commission for targeting Californians’ energy consumption. Soon thereafter, it was announced that California’s unemployment rate jumped three-tenths of a percentage point to 12.2 percent in August. What the media – and California’s regulators – fail to realize is that these are not two distinct stories, one involving environmental regulation and the other relating to California’s sputtering economy. Instead, they are two pieces of the same overarching narrative: Government overregulation of California’s businesses is hurting an economy that is already suffering.

Discuss "CA Energy Commission Seeks to Regulate Television Use " here. Read the article.

 

[MapleSyrup]

Precisely!!!

Instead, they are two pieces of the same overarching narrative: Government overregulation of California’s businesses is hurting an economy that is already suffering.

Bravo, bravo Clint, bravo. I'd send you 5 (count them, FIVE) clapping smilies if there were any available to the right.

 

[yettitheman]

What are they going to do? Put a timer box on your TV and when it's done, your off for 24 hours?

Just claim your TV for medicinal use. It works for weed

 

[hodedofome]

I would just move to another state. Yes Clint I know that's impossible for you to just up and move your business, however if I wasn't tied to a business in California I'd just move someplace better economy-wise. However you do have some nice weather along the coast

 

[highfigh]

Why not put up some solar panels, get a good set of batteries and an inverter? That way, they can't say a fargin' thing. If only the A/V equipment is on the solar setup and they can't prove it's connected to the grid,....

If I was in that part of the country, I'd be on solar power so fast it would make peoples' heads spin. I'm so sick of WE Energies (Wisconsin) I'd do almost anything to not pay a utility. They raised our residential rates close to 45% in the last 7 years, sold a nuclear power plant for $985 Million, told us to use less power and now that they aren't selling as much energy, they want to raise our rates 7% because they said they have to offset the fixed costs and that commercial and industrial customers aren't buying as much. They also said their pension fund payments have increased and need to provide a better return for their shareholders.

 

[NicolasKL]

They aren't talking about regulating how much you use your television, rather setting a minimum efficiency for new televisions being sold.

 

[MapleSyrup]

Mandate on homes

Here's one for Clint et al:

Looking to prevent your home from becoming a tagger's canvas? The city of LA has a plan that asks homeowners to pitch in or pay -- whether they want to or not.

All new buildings in Los Angeles -- including homes -- must have anti-graffiti coating under an ordinance approved unanimously by the City Council on Tuesday. Homes in the tagThere is an exception if the owners promise to remove any graffiti on their property soon after it appears.

The ordinance will take effect 30 days after being signed by the mayor.

The anti-graffiti coating must cover the walls and doors from the ground to a height of at least nine feet. The coating is mandated on all buildings, unless owners sign a "Covenant and Agreement Regarding Maintenance of Building (Graffiti Removal)" with the Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety.

That contract would require owners to remove any graffiti on their buildings within seven days of the graffiti being applied, or within 72 hours of being notified by the department.

Failure to abide by the contract could result in a $550 fine.

Simple question: What will this do to the price of homes?

LINK

 

[MapleSyrup]

Highfigh

Perfect example of reducing our energy production (probably due to utopian iealists, there will NOT be another nuclear plant built) driving up energy prices artificially. I lived near Zion, IL for several years including the year they dismaltled their nuclear plant. There were many signs opposing reopening it. As a result, not only has energy production reduced but so have dollars to the community. No more federal dollars as well as a reduction of high paying jobs. There's plenty of energy in the world. It's utter stupidity that we restrict ourselves from developing it.

I support you getting solar panels but that costs a pretty penny to do so.

 

[MapleSyrup]

yetti

Just claim your TV for medicinal use. It works for weed

LOL, too funny.

 

[rancarl]

Sky's Falling?

Clint, I'm sure that business is not as good as you'd like it to be, but I bet that Walmart and Amazon are closer to the root of your problems than are the proposed television energy standards. California has a long history of leading the way in the field of energy efficiency, and there's no sign that mom-n-pop businesses have suffered as a result. There's no conspiracy here to stop Americans from watching plasma televisions all day. But the next time they buy a new one, it will be a more energy-efficient model than those presently available. The market is moving in this direction anyway, but a nudge by government would be helpful. I own a 1970 Jaguar E-type, but I support government regulations to make new automobiles more efficient. I fail to see the problem. Please get back to us in 2011 to report if telebision standards have put you out of business.

 

[Xargos]

Clint, I'm sure that business is not as good as you'd like it to be, but I bet that Walmart and Amazon are closer to the root of your problems than are the proposed television energy standards. California has a long history of leading the way in the field of energy efficiency, and there's no sign that mom-n-pop businesses have suffered as a result. There's no conspiracy here to stop Americans from watching plasma televisions all day. But the next time they buy a new one, it will be a more energy-efficient model than those presently available. The market is moving in this direction anyway, but a nudge by government would be helpful. I own a 1970 Jaguar E-type, but I support government regulations to make new automobiles more efficient. I fail to see the problem. Please get back to us in 2011 to report if telebision standards have put you out of business.

That's a big +1 from me.

I'm getting sick of all the negative spin that's generated each time there is anything done to promote the advancement of energy efficiency. Companies seem to do little to help the problem without being nudged along, so I have no issue with the government making this kind of regulation.

 

[highfigh]

They aren't talking about regulating how much you use your television, rather setting a minimum efficiency for new televisions being sold.

Well, CA is the reason some manufacturers aren't making plasma displays.

 

[highfigh]

Here's one for Clint et al:



Simple question: What will this do to the price of homes?

LINK

Milwaukee used "anti-graffiti" paint on some sound barriers along the freeway and as expected, someone tested it less than a week after installation. The graffiti came off, but some of the original paint did, too. Those barriers look like crap now and apparently, they can't repaint them.

In the words of Bugs Bunny, "Ironic, ain't it?"

This reminds me of the guy who proudly proclaims that he has developed the world's strongest acid and the first question is "What will you keep it in?"

Great- make the victims pay for the crime. Typical.

 

[highfigh]

I support you getting solar panels but that costs a pretty penny to do so.

But state and federal help is available. People just need to look into it and localities need to stop sucking up to HOAs when it comes to this kind of thing.

 

[MapleSyrup]

rancarl

but I bet that Walmart and Amazon are closer to the root of your problems than are the proposed television energy standards.

Clint can sell Vizio just as much as Walmart and Amazon is an online vendor which would greatly benefit from California's energy reduction mandate. Clint pointed this out. Also, I dont recall any complaint from Clint regarding his business being challenging from competition; but from state regulation.

The market is moving in this direction anyway

So, in otherwords, California's sought after result would be achieved without more regulation?

but a nudge by government would be helpful

Please explain how mandating energy reduction in televisions would "help" anything.

 

[MapleSyrup]

highfigh

Milwaukee used "anti-graffiti" paint on some sound barriers along the freeway and as expected, someone tested it less than a week after installation. The graffiti came off, but some of the original paint did, too. Those barriers look like crap now and apparently, they can't repaint them.

Example of government solution making a problem worse. No shocker here.

 

[jamie2112]

How bout uuuuummmmm .....................NO yes we should decrease our energy comsumption in CA but regulating tv's is not the answer.We have sun over 330 days a year here and IMO everyone should be required to have at LEAST 2 solar panels on their roof's.There are many ways to reserve electricity and Californians should be looking into other ways of saving rather than making more people lose their jobs.Ca is one of the most in debt states and this is a losing battle with the TV thing.........

 

[MapleSyrup]

Xargos

I'm getting sick of all the negative spin that's generated each time there is anything done to promote the advancement of energy efficiency.

What of the spin that we can't produce the energy we need?

Companies seem to do little to help the problem without being nudged along, so I have no issue with the government making this kind of regulation.

You could not be more wrong. Oil production's become much more efficient, cars have become more efficient (w/o regulations, simply because people like the idea of economical cars), and the BASH amplifier wasn't a product of regulation; but from what the market offered.

 

[MapleSyrup]

yes we should decrease our energy comsumption in CA

Why?

IMO everyone should be required to have at LEAST 2 solar panels on their roof's.

How much energy would be produced by 2 solar pannels and how much would that cost homeowners and/or tax payers?

How about building 2 new nuclear plants in California?

There are many ways to reserve electricity and Californians should be looking into other ways of saving rather than making more people lose their jobs.

Good point. Building power plants would *increase* jobs, no?

Ca is one of the most in debt states

Which brings into question, why continue to do more of the same in California? Why not uncap the oil wells? Why not build more power plants?

 

[jamie2112]

Why?



How much energy would be produced by 2 solar pannels and how much would that cost homeowners and/or tax payers?

How about building 2 new nuclear plants in California?



Good point. Building power plants would *increase* jobs, no?



Which brings into question, why continue to do more of the same in California? Why not uncap the oil wells? Why not build more power plants?

Why not legalize weed and make 2.1 billion in tax revenue for CA in a year? WHy why why why is the question that never gets answered.Why not build a few power plants? Sure we should but the reason will be different than needing power it will be some billionare who already has a ton o cash to make more money.The rich keep getting richer and the poor are being controlled more easily...its a vicious circle and nobody wins EVER......did anyone see Michael Moore on Real Time? He makes alot of sense to me.....