CEDIA Bashes CA Ruling on Big TVs... So Do We

A

admin

Audioholics Robot
Staff member
CEDIA (The Custom Electronic Design & Installation Association) is outraged by the adoption of the unnecessary and harmful regulation regarding the California TV energy efficiency standard the CEC chose to adopt yesterday. Us? We're just amused. Despite continued efforts and data outlining the negative ramifications of the ruling provided by CEDIA and the Californians for Smart Energy coalition, the CEC chose to adopt regulations on the energy consumption of televisions sold in California. This regulation will have a significant negative impact on the sale and installation of flat-panel displays and the businesses in the residential electronic systems industry.


Discuss "CEDIA Bashes CA Ruling on Big TVs... So Do We" here. Read the article.
 
J

Josuah

Senior Audioholic
California has effectively caused the entire demographic of large screen TV purchasers to buy online or transfer products from nearby states.
I don't see how this can be true. The major television manufacturers (e.g. Samsung, LG, Vizio, Panasonic, etc.) will all still want their displays sold in Best Buy. And Best Buy will have stores in California. As a result, said manufacturers will do what they need to to meet the regulations in California, and sell the same displays across the entire U.S.

Unless you are arguing the manufacturers will no longer sell their products in California's Best Buys. And I seriously doubt they will create a special sub-line of California-only TVs.

The PC World article is more balanced, and includes numbers to explain why the new regulation levels are considered feasible by some.
 
gene

gene

Audioholics Master Chief
Administrator
I have a solution which I proposed in Clint's editorial.

The Audioholics Solution - Implement SCAM


Manufacturers need not stress this issue as we at Audioholics have a solution. Going forward all large displays should ship in what we call “SCAM” mode which stands for Stupid CA Legislation Mode. In this mode, the display brightness/contrast settings would be set a few clicks to the right of zero, audio would be disabled and backlighting would be set to minimum. The power consumption should be measured in this mode much like an A/V receiver power consumption is measured with one channel driven at full rated power and the other channels at 1/8th power. Who cares if you can’t see or hear the picture out of the box? You now have a “Green” friendly Display that has a 90% chance of getting returned to the store by unwary consumers not being able to figure out how to get it out of this mode. This will in turn increase the consumers carbon footprint via unnecessary traveling back to the store but it will satisfy the CA ruling and further line the pockets of middle eastern oil companies in the process.
 
Jed M

Jed M

Full Audioholic
California is a mess right now. Florida should send them a thank you letter.
 
Clint DeBoer

Clint DeBoer

Banned
Unless you are arguing the manufacturers will no longer sell their products in California's Best Buys. And I seriously doubt they will create a special sub-line of California-only TVs
From the PC World article (which was well-written):
Because the regulation will affect any retailer--physical or electronic--that sells TVs in California, the CEC's decision to impose these standards should have far-reaching impact on the HDTV market. It's conceivable that, for regulatory compliance and supply-chain efficiencies, chain and online stores will want to limit stock to models that comply with the California regulations.​
I think the key is that CA is stepping in, legislatively, and attempting to fix a problem that is already on its way out, not a real issue, and based on a complete lack of study of the consequences. In the case of selling to CA, manufacturers can either come up with a workaround to change how the sets are measured, decide not to sell the offending sets in CA, or there may be an entirely new method of getting the sets into CA and bypassing the laws... Who knows, but it's a major pain for very little real gain.

As was pointed out, it's just as likely that a person with a compliant, smaller TV leaves it on all day, and the guy with the 58" power hog only uses it for 6 hours a week...
 
A

Alittlemonster

Guest
Well, not really....

What a lot of people don't know about this particularly stupid legislation is that California is dumb like a fox. Oh, yeah....!!! Sure, if it really does stop the sale of certain big screens, then California retailers will be out the business and California will lose the taxes that they could have received from the sale. Right? WRONG-OH, transistor breath, not so fast. (Sorry about the caps back there, but I had to do a little emphasis.) California has an obscure tax law dating back to 1937, it states that any similar item that could have been bought within California, but is bought outside the state is subject to a 10% tax upon importation, unless the item will not remain within the state or is merely passing through for trans-shipping to someplace else. How do I know this? Becuz, I ran afoul of this tax law many years ago and California even threatened to haul me into court for non-payment of the tax and additional fines plus court costs. It would have been expensive if I had lost. It never got to court, but it took me two years to convince the stupid state that the items they were concerned about had been sent to my fiancé living in Spain immediately after they arrived within California which met the letter of the law. So, I begged them to take me to court--they never did and the matter was quietly dropped. They would have lost, and it would have served them right!

Now, logic says that a big screen TV that isn't energy efficient and isn't available in California and so ordering it from an online retailer isn't a problem, right? Nope, the law reads "similar to" and that, as I found out, was how they got me.

Would California do this? You better believe it--doggone computers give them access to all kinds of info and reporting a sale to California from an online retailer is pretty darn easy to do--aren't they already collecting taxes from online retailers via 3rd party states?
 
A

aarond

Full Audioholic
it's only for 58" and smaller starting in 2011 I would bet that most manufacturers will drop the 58" model and change to a 59" starting with the 2011 model line, an easy work around for one size.
 
cym_city

cym_city

Junior Audioholic
There are still a couple of things that I don't understand with this so maybe some of you could clear them up.

Does this apply for all types of TV's regardless of if it is a LCD, rear projection, front projection, plasma etc. etc? If so what about movie theaters or any business that uses projectors for power point presentations? Does this apply only to TV's or any kind of electronic display or monitors?
 
highfigh

highfigh

Audioholic Slumlord
There are far things that are more wasteful than the newest large screen TVs- people who leave their lights on all day/night, swimming pools, low-income renters whose heat and cooling are included in their rent (so they leave it on longer than they need to and to moderate the temperature, they open some windows) and old appliances. With the amount of sunlight California has all year, I'm completely surprised they haven't mandated some solar power use, at least for easier retro-fits and new construction. lighting, small appliances that don't have heating elements and other items could easily be run on batteries with an inverter and as long as the original circuits are intelligently installed and run to the panel, it wouldn't be terribly hard to implement. They'd come up with some interesting ways to get their piece of the pie but it could work.

One company in the San Fran area installs solar electric systems with little up-front cost to the homeowner, leasing the system to them and guaranteeing that it will perform to certain standards when compared to the power company. They're well-funded and looking for more installers now, and it seems like a good way to advance Photo-Voltaic use. If/when I move to the Southwest, I sure as he!! won't be dependent on the grid fro power.

Also, I wouldn't be surprised to read that Darryl Issa becomes involved in this- he was owner of Directed Electronics and heavily involved in the autosound/security industry before being elected to Congress.
 
cwall99

cwall99

Full Audioholic
Open up shop in Reno! Havasu City! Yuma! Vegas! I'm sure there are enough loopholes in the law that Oregon, Nevada, and Arizona retailers could (and probably will) happily figure out ways to sell displays without recording the addresses of people buying them. Electronics retailers will pop up all along the California border like fireworks vendors in Indiana, just south of the Michigan border.
 
G

gorman

Audioholic Intern
Posting from Italy so... quite removed from the problem, a problem currently non directly affecting me (I have a Kuro 9G 60"... I'm an outlaw!).

Still, I can't fail to notice how in the whole article not a word is spent on the very simple possibility that no, it's not true that companies can't produce more energy efficient products.

Want to bet that if the legislation holds and considering California's impact on world economy (ie. large impact) we will sooner or later see faster energy savings development? Before taking the bet, lay down clearly the terms and place real money on the table.

I think there are far worse offenders than big TV sets when it comes to global warming, carbon footprint, etc. But let's not blind ourselves with the idea of "companies would do better if only it was possible". Want to remember the golden age of cigarette manufacturers and what they tried hiding from the general public?

Come on... :rolleyes:
 
XEagleDriver

XEagleDriver

Senior Audioholic
Not that big of a deal, basically makes Energy Star mandatory

. . .
I think the key is that CA is stepping in, legislatively, and attempting to fix a problem that is already on its way out, not a real issue, . . .
Agree with Clint's statement, the table below paints a clearer picture (pun intended) :D of how CA will be lagging industry's voluntary standards.

Energy Star vs CEC Tier Comparisons

--------------------Energy Star 3.0-----Energy Star 4.0-----CEC Tier 1-----Energy Star 5.0-----CEC Tier 2
Date Implemented In effect now-----------May 2010------------2011----------May 2012------------2013
32" Screen (watts)---120-------------------78-------------------116-------------55------------------75
50" Screen (watts)---353-------------------153------------------245------------108------------------153

Source: http://www.pcworld.com/article/182653/california_energy_commission_rule_to_impact_hdtv_industry.html

NOTES:
Energy Star is a voluntary standard, while CEC is a mandatory CA only requirement.

CONCLUSIONS:
1) CEC Tier 1 will be less restrictive, than the Energy Star 4.0 industry standard which will pre-date Tier 1 implementation.
2) CEC Tier 2 will be less restrictive, than the Energy Star 5.0 industry standard which will pre-date Tier 2 implementation.

Looks like only Energy Star HDTV's will cut the mustard in CA by 2011--no big deal. The rest of the nation will probably already be ahead of these "standards" in the clearly evident move to "green" stuff.

Cheers,
XEagleDriver
 
C

Commando

Audiophyte
The sky is falling!

Has no one bothered to look at the CNET guide to TV power efficiency? reviews.cnet.com/green-tech/tv-consumption-chart/

As I understand it, there is no banning of TV size. It's banning the sale of TVs that pretty much don't meet the Energy Star 3.0 criteria in the first wave, and the Energy Star 4.0 criteria must be met in the second wave.

Plasma TVs won't be banned, but most of the current ones will be banned in the first wave due to their high watts/area rating.

I can say that LG and Samsung aren't going to scramble very much. They already sell TVs that meet the most stringent criteria.
 
L

lighthouse10

Audiophyte
Why ALL energy efficiency regulations are wrong

Agreed

Governor Schwarzenegger is shooting himself in the foot!

1. Taxation, while still wrong, is better than bans for all concerned.
TV set taxation based on energy efficiency - unlike bans - gives
Governor Schwarzenegger's impoverished California Government income on
the reduced sales, while consumers keep choice.
This also applies generally,
to CARS (with emission tax or gas tax), BUILDINGS, DISHWASHERS, LIGHT BULBS etc,
where politicians instead 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.
Energy efficient products can have any sales taxes lowered, making
them cheaper than today.
People are not just hit by taxes, they don't have to buy the higher
taxed products - and at least they CAN still buy them.


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
Examples (using cars, buildings, dishwashers, TV sets, light bulbs etc):
ceolas.net/#cc211x
For example, big plasma TV screens have image contrast and other
advantages along with the bigger image sizes.


Products using more energy usually cost less, or they'd be more energy
efficient already.
Depending on how much they are used, there might therefore not be any
running cost savings either.

Other factors contribute to a lack of savings:

If households use less energy,
then utility companies make less money,
and will just raise electricity prices to cover their costs.
So people don't save as much money as they thought.

Conversely,
energy efficiency in effect 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
ceolas.net/#cc214x

Either way, supposed energy - or money - savings aren't there.


----------------------
Why energy efficiency regulations are wrong,
whether you are for or against energy and emission conservation
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 and other products
 
MapleSyrup

MapleSyrup

Audioholic
highfigh

There are far things that are more wasteful than the newest large screen TVs- people who leave their lights on all day/night, swimming pools, low-income renters whose heat and cooling are included in their rent (so they leave it on longer than they need to and to moderate the temperature, they open some windows) and old appliances.
You forgot to include government in your list of culprits. They're the single biggest wasters of energy. :cool:

Also, by moving southwest you'd be bucking the current trend of fleeing the world's sixth largest economy.
 
Seth=L

Seth=L

Audioholic Overlord
it's only for 58" and smaller starting in 2011 I would bet that most manufacturers will drop the 58" model and change to a 59" starting with the 2011 model line, an easy work around for one size.
You mean 57".;)
 
MapleSyrup

MapleSyrup

Audioholic
Energy

So as UCLA students protest a hike in their tuition, California seeks to reduce their state's income by further burdening their state's business owners and manufactuers who sell within the Sunshine State.

California is a bastion of energy. But by choice too much of it remains as potential enrgy. There's lots of energy in that state to produce which would increase jobs, the state treasury, help make college more affordable, and make energy consumption a non-issue.
 
MapleSyrup

MapleSyrup

Audioholic
Gorman #12

Want to bet that if the legislation holds and considering California's impact on world economy (ie. large impact) we will sooner or later see faster energy savings development? Before taking the bet, lay down clearly the terms and place real money on the table.
I won't bet money cuz I don't believe in such foolish nonsense. But, yeah, my "money" would be on California losing business rather than increasing efficiency in energy consumption.

Besides, can't Best Buy order online from a store in another state and have it simply shipped to their own store? Probably not, just brain storming here.
 
ht_addict

ht_addict

Audioholic
According to CNET my 4681F when calibrated consumes 192w vs 112w. Shoot me know. Come on tv's today consume much less power. Instead maybe allow you to write off an ISF calibration. Torch mode is an issue.
 
Last edited:
newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top