Size Matters
[Column for 10-28]
This week, we must put off discussions of Afghanistan, Iran, the growing deficit, and the general ruckus emanating from Washington to discuss something far more vital to our way of life. Our television sets.
On November 4th, the California Energy Commission will vote on a measure aimed at capping the allowable power consumption levels of new televisions purchased in our State. The measure will mandate a 30% reduction in the power needs of all televisions sold in California by 2011, and a 50% reduction by 2013.
PG&E estimates that our televisions account for 10% of our collective power bill, and with our newfound taste for all things wide-screen, televisions are the fastest growing segment of energy usage Statewide. This number may rise even further as fiscally-challenged Californians spend more leisure time in recline.
Naturally, the right-wing blogosphere is ablaze with melodramatic wrist-to-forehead accusations that the killjoys in Sacramento want to steal our flat-screened fun factories.
Max Shulz from Newsmax.com warns that “the sale of televisions with screens 40 inches or bigger would be banned,” and derides the measure as “nanny-state micro-regulation.”
Jon Fleischman, of Flashreport.org, takes it a step further. He claims that this mandate will “chip away at the liberties and freedoms that were won during the Revolutionary War.”
I know better than to stand in front of anyone’s television – such a precarious position makes one a tempting target for a salvo of edible missiles fired from the fingers of complaining couch potatoes. But, on this issue, I think the rank-and-file Right have it wrong.
Power-slim televisions reduce the average monthly power bill by roughly $25. If a television lasts ten years, then the savings have paid the entire cost of the appliance. Who wouldn’t want that? Further, a reduction in power demand negates the need for additional power plants, meaning our taxes and PG&E bills won’t climb quite so fast.
If your concern is that manufacturers will be forced to incorporate expensive technology that will inflate the price of new televisions, think again.
Vizio and 3M both wholeheartedly support the measure – no surprise, since they are industry pioneers in energy-saving technology. Right behind them are Sony, Samsung, Sharp, and a host of off-brand manufacturers. Presently, over 300 models of uber-televisions of all sizes that meet the proposed 2013 power cap are already in stores, with more on the way.
This regulation only causes hardship to manufacturers who insist on using older, energy-intensive technology that is more expensive for the consumer. Why should we pay more to support manufacturers who supply inferior products? Isn’t that the opposite of a free market?
If there were a benefit to the older technology, I could understand insisting that we keep it around. But the new technology is both power smart and less expensive – where is the argument?
Truly, I cannot imagine a scenario in which the needs of the people and of the government are so perfectly aligned.
Some on the right may accuse me of being too Pollyanna, and closing my eyes to the chipping away of our freedoms by the ever-extending awl of government. I reply that since we live by the rule of law, praising the good is every bit as crucial as denouncing the bad.
This is the first green regulation I’ve seen that simultaneously reduces energy output and provides consumers with a net savings. Conservatives should be hoisting this regulation onto their shoulders and carrying it across the field, not kicking it in the ribs with patently false accusations.
If legislation of this caliber were the norm rather than the exception, perhaps our great State wouldn’t be flat broke.
This week, we must put off discussions of Afghanistan, Iran, the growing deficit, and the general ruckus emanating from Washington to discuss something far more vital to our way of life. Our television sets.
On November 4th, the California Energy Commission will vote on a measure aimed at capping the allowable power consumption levels of new televisions purchased in our State. The measure will mandate a 30% reduction in the power needs of all televisions sold in California by 2011, and a 50% reduction by 2013.
PG&E estimates that our televisions account for 10% of our collective power bill, and with our newfound taste for all things wide-screen, televisions are the fastest growing segment of energy usage Statewide. This number may rise even further as fiscally-challenged Californians spend more leisure time in recline.
Naturally, the right-wing blogosphere is ablaze with melodramatic wrist-to-forehead accusations that the killjoys in Sacramento want to steal our flat-screened fun factories.
Max Shulz from Newsmax.com warns that “the sale of televisions with screens 40 inches or bigger would be banned,” and derides the measure as “nanny-state micro-regulation.”
Jon Fleischman, of Flashreport.org, takes it a step further. He claims that this mandate will “chip away at the liberties and freedoms that were won during the Revolutionary War.”
I know better than to stand in front of anyone’s television – such a precarious position makes one a tempting target for a salvo of edible missiles fired from the fingers of complaining couch potatoes. But, on this issue, I think the rank-and-file Right have it wrong.
Power-slim televisions reduce the average monthly power bill by roughly $25. If a television lasts ten years, then the savings have paid the entire cost of the appliance. Who wouldn’t want that? Further, a reduction in power demand negates the need for additional power plants, meaning our taxes and PG&E bills won’t climb quite so fast.
If your concern is that manufacturers will be forced to incorporate expensive technology that will inflate the price of new televisions, think again.
Vizio and 3M both wholeheartedly support the measure – no surprise, since they are industry pioneers in energy-saving technology. Right behind them are Sony, Samsung, Sharp, and a host of off-brand manufacturers. Presently, over 300 models of uber-televisions of all sizes that meet the proposed 2013 power cap are already in stores, with more on the way.
This regulation only causes hardship to manufacturers who insist on using older, energy-intensive technology that is more expensive for the consumer. Why should we pay more to support manufacturers who supply inferior products? Isn’t that the opposite of a free market?
If there were a benefit to the older technology, I could understand insisting that we keep it around. But the new technology is both power smart and less expensive – where is the argument?
Truly, I cannot imagine a scenario in which the needs of the people and of the government are so perfectly aligned.
Some on the right may accuse me of being too Pollyanna, and closing my eyes to the chipping away of our freedoms by the ever-extending awl of government. I reply that since we live by the rule of law, praising the good is every bit as crucial as denouncing the bad.
This is the first green regulation I’ve seen that simultaneously reduces energy output and provides consumers with a net savings. Conservatives should be hoisting this regulation onto their shoulders and carrying it across the field, not kicking it in the ribs with patently false accusations.
If legislation of this caliber were the norm rather than the exception, perhaps our great State wouldn’t be flat broke.