Propping Up the Las Vegas Home Electronics Market

Regulation in California has generally been good for the relocation-related businesses in Nevada in Arizona.  Now, California is looking to prop up the home electronics retailers in neighboring states:

"To reduce the electrical draw from TVs, the commission has proposed the nation's first mandatory energy limits on televisions -- limits that many large LCD and plasma TVs on the market do not meet.

"'We want to get rid of energy-guzzling televisions,' said Adam Gottlieb, spokesman for the state energy commission.

"The proposed rules would take effect from 2011 to 2013, eventually cutting the use of power by 50 percent.

"But only one-fourth of TVs now sold in the state meet the standard

From the San Francisco Chronicle via Al Tompkins via Overlawyered.


  1. rob sama:

    Heard this on the radio yesterday. Get your bright TVs while you can...

  2. aub:

    Makes you wonder who makes the 1/4 of TVs that meet the standard and whether they lobbied to get the bill passed.

  3. Sean:

    Aub, you ask who makes the 1/4 of the TV's that pass. Its probably the same group that makes the 3/4 of the TV's that don't pass, the ones that do are probably smaller, lower margin models. How much lobbying would you do for less profit per unit sold?

    What I'm curious about is how will they measure the "mileage". It is when the TV's on or when the TV's are off (some consume a lot of power in standby mode so they can turn on instantly, my DLP set give me the option of selecting instant on or energy saver). Will size be a factored into the standard? Will the Air Resourced Board set up border checkpoints like the CA Dept of Agriculture to confiscate non-approved TV's the way they confiscate fruit and vegetables?

  4. Douglas2:

    Cnet has an article with a table: "The chart: 139 HDTVs' power consumption compared". In summary, the bigger the TV the more power it takes, and Plasma on average takes more than 1.5x the power of DLP or LCD. They did not summarize where good-old CRT falls in this picture.

    Of course if they were really interested in reducing global carbon output, the restriction/ban/tax would be on the TV's with the shortest life-expectancy, (MTBF) because all of them cause far more carbon output in acquisition of raw materials, manufacture, and transport, than will ever be caused by their electricity consumption during their service life. California does have a looming problem with electrical capacity of its grid and generation, however. They can use "green" as an excuse, but they are really floundering for ways to keep the lights on.

  5. aub:

    If I weren't libertarian, I'd lobby quite a bit to shut out 3/4 of my competition. Then I could make more margin.

    Though I'm not sure if the lower power TVs are lower margin or not - low power could be a nice selling feature in high price California.

  6. tomw:

    Just wait! They will soon have a built-in circuit to monitor your usage of power. If you watch the incorrect shows, your power utilization might be curtaile. They already tried to get remote-control thermostats to "correct" you use of power in heating and cooling your home. Why not do the same for your viewing habits?
    I vote for an export tax on any and all electricity sold across the state line into California. Ten percent because of exported pollution costs. They have exported their pollution, so why not pay for its mitigation?
    Thereby penalizing those who thought them self so pure and enviro-friendly. Smug bastids get it in their wallet, no?

  7. MJ:

    Any way except price to ration energy use. California slouches further toward socialism.