Good grief California

johnboyjjb

Active member
http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/154936/california-outlaws-large-power-hungry-tvs/

In a move that could spell the end of the plasma TV industry as we know it, the state of California agreed today to enact strict regulations on the amount of power televisions can consume, effectively outlawing most large plasma TVs as of January 1, 2011, with many more televisions set to be banned beginning January 1, 2013. The state had been concerned that 10 percent of a home's energy use is typically devoted to the TV and its related equipment, and that percentage has been increasing as consumers gain access to larger and larger (and cheaper and cheaper) televisions, which command an ever-increasing hunger for power.

The new rules go into effect a little more than a year from now: On January 1, 2011, televisions will be required to reduce energy consumption by an average of 33 percent. In 2013, a second tier of restrictions will go into effect, with average energy consumption required to be reduced by 49 percent vs. today's levels.

Rest assured, this doesn't mean the end of the television as we know it. As the California Energy Commission notes, as of now, over 1,000 televisions already meet the 2011 standards, so many manufacturers won't have to panic in order to comply with the regulations, at least for now.

Those who will be heavily affected are manufacturers who make televisions that draw more than their fair share of juice. A formula related to the size of the TV's screen in square inches will be used to determine the maximum power draw allowed by a TV. For example, Panasonic's 54-inch VIERA plasma TV would be allowed to draw 281 watts of power in "on mode." Today that set is rated to draw 293 watts of power. Smaller plasmas are generally OK under the 2011 specs, but virtually all of them fall short when put up against the 2013 rules. That same 54-inch plasma will be required to draw only 175 watts once 2013 arrives, a power reduction that just might not be possible.

Bottom line: Most LCD televisions will be safe under the 2011 law, and many plasmas will as well, but come 2013, everyone's going to have to do some serious belt-tightening.

All told, the new rules are expected to save 6,515 Gigawatt-hours annually in the state, save the state $8.7 billion in costs for additional power plants, and save consumers $8.1 billion a year in lower energy bills.
One additional point of note: The new rules currently don't apply to very large TVs, those of 1,400 square inches or larger (roughly a 58" set), although rules are likely to be enacted against these ultra-large sets in the second phase of this legislation.
 

philologus

Subgenius
Dire indeed. With Californians unable to watch TV, they'll be forced to pay attention to how their elected officials are ruining everything. I thought that politicians were smart enough not to tamper with the soma of the proletariat.
 

evil tendencies

Cake or Death?
I love how they say this will encourage innovation. What it'll encourage is a drop in television sales for years to come; a clever move, considering that one of our biggest industries here is the film/television business.

I don't understand this. Our state is set to become the first failed state in the union, and our officials are getting all hot and bothered about televisions. If they put half the effort into solving our financial problems as they did bickering and finding new things to take away from us, we'd be doing just fine.

This state is run by lunatics.
 

Hinton

New member
Wow; that's a bit...interfering. Glad I don't live there.

Of course, if it wasn't for my daughter, I wouldn't even own a TV.
 

philologus

Subgenius
I love how they say this will encourage innovation. What it'll encourage is a drop in television sales for years to come; a clever move, considering that one of our biggest industries here is the film/television business.

I don't understand this. Our state is set to become the first failed state in the union, and our officials are getting all hot and bothered about televisions. If they put half the effort into solving our financial problems as they did bickering and finding new things to take away from us, we'd be doing just fine.

This state is run by lunatics.

Well said, I think Cali is a great example of how govt. is incapable of solving anything. The best we can hope for is that they will leave well enough alone and let the people solve the problems. I think we should have drug and hooker allowances for politicians and require that they only show up to the office 2 non-consecutive days out of the calendar year. This limits the amount of damage they can do and keeps them occupied.
 

airhead

Coffin Dodger / Keymaster
All this means is that new shops will open up in Nevada and a few other places where the Cali sheep will go to buy their 'illegal' televisions and take them home, brag to their neighbors and have parties celebrating 'going against the man.'

Adjacent states will sell tv's and see an increase in revenues and taxes while Komifornia will see lost sales, stores closing and lost tax base.

Why anyone would choose to live there is beyond me.
 

skeeve

Member
IWhat it'll encourage is a drop in television sales for years to come; a clever move, considering that one of our biggest industries here is the film/television business.

It will not. California is the 8th world economy and as such too big a market to loose. For ages Nevada tried to convince world's business community how it is much better then California; and yet, California remains 10th world's economy while Nevada remains a picturesque piece of desert with the largest nuclear test site in the world
 

Avelorn

Sven Jonsson
I'm not sure how some of you can derive such dire prophecies out of something like this. It's not likely to become a problem for anyone of you at all as most people buying a TV in 4-5 years are likely to go with a OLED TV anyway. They will have the same dramatic price drop as plasmas and LCD's. Don't worry, be happy!
 

evil tendencies

Cake or Death?
It will not. California is the 8th world economy and as such too big a market to loose. For ages Nevada tried to convince world's business community how it is much better then California; and yet, California remains 10th world's economy while Nevada remains a picturesque piece of desert with the largest nuclear test site in the world

It very easily could have the effect I spoke of. By banning the least expensive televisions, the government is effectively raising prices on this item until the market can cope with the change and provide legally acceptable televisions at current prices. Whenever the price on an item is raised, fewer people buy it.

This lowers sales tax revenue, which our politicians have unwisely used to support most of our state budget. This new law will also require television makers to spend more money on R&D, which will lead to less taxable income if they are in Cali. Or, if they decide that the loss of revenue here is less than the extra they would have to spend to amp up technology development, we will be left with higher price televisions for longer, still lowering income tax revenue.

You're right that we are a big economy. I'm not saying this alone is a disaster, but it's just one more burden we have to bear. Coming the same day as the announcement that our UC college system is raising tuition by 32%, however, it does raise questions as to how many of these little hits we can take. Our politicians seem to have no idea that their overmanagement is running this state into the ground little by little, and it's particularly galling when it seems that they are doing small things like this just to score political points with an outspoken minority of their constituents.
 

Farin

New member
I´m very pro evormental protection and laws that press for energie saving / sustainable energie forms, but this IS a stupid step, that will likely achieve nothing. There are better ways to solve this problem:

they want the people to save energy ? - Then pass legislation that makes energy effiecient hardware cheaper, or change the codes for buildings, so new houses/ buildings are more energysufficient

you need more energy ? - Come on if there´s something that Cali has in excess, it´s sun, plus the prices for solarpanel have plummeted over the last years.

Also i´ve heart time after time over the passed years , in what a bad shape the energy grid in california is - i wonder how much power they could save, just by using theyr tax revenue on a new grid ?


@Evil tendency: i guess it boils down on how fast the industry adapts to that legislation - if R&D is fast enoug ,it is likely that there is no effect


Dire indeed. With Californians unable to watch TV, they'll be forced to pay attention to how their elected officials are ruining everything. I thought that politicians were smart enough not to tamper with the soma of the proletariat.
or it is a secret attack of the Obama administration to weaken FOX News by making it impossible for Glenn Beck´s Fans to watch his show...

..just kidding , honestly:bashful:


btw, a question to those of you who live in Cali: Just how bad is the financial situation ? I´ve heart that the Governator was forced to declare an financial emrgency, but thats all that reached my side of the pond
 

PegaZus

Stealth Freak
btw, a question to those of you who live in Cali: Just how bad is the financial situation ? I´ve heart that the Governator was forced to declare an financial emrgency, but thats all that reached my side of the pond
Here's a fun little article: $21 billion budget gap. That's after they "solved" another $24 billion gap (I'm fuzzy on the details) and only around 25% of the state budget! :sweat:

Grab some popcorn and watch. This'll be interesting!
 

Farin

New member
Ok @ PegaZus: thanks, read the first half, then the migraine set in. I donßt
know whats whorse: The deficit or this:

They also should could go back to voters with a straightforward request to untie legislators' hands when it comes to cutting currently protected mental health and early childhood development programs.

right, less medical care for kids , screw early diagnosis and vaccinations,
treating the disseases will be much cheaper:silly!:

Grab some popcorn and watch. This'll be interesting!

thanks, i guess i would choke on the popcorn, but what
does your constititution say when a state is bankrupt? Does
the federal goeverment take over/grant money or are they on theyre own?

kind of curious here
 

generulpoleaxe

New member
Decisions such as the "green" regulation change come about with corperate lobbying of goverments and political parties.
Want to bet that their was a big LCD manufacturer funding a lot of the lobbying direct and indirect.
 

evil tendencies

Cake or Death?
btw, a question to those of you who live in Cali: Just how bad is the financial situation ? I´ve heart that the Governator was forced to declare an financial emrgency, but thats all that reached my side of the pond

Bad.

Unemployment in my county is about 13% right now, which has translated into hundreds of millions of dollars in lost state revenues. The lack of state funds has caused my city's school district to cut $10 million from their budget, $3.1 mil. of which is staff positions. That's a 20% budget decrease, and about 5% of all staff positions in the district. Combined with the No Child Left Behind nonsense about failing schools, this is disastrous - and I live in a small county that relies on fairly constant industries like agriculture (people always need to eat). In tech-based city economies, its much worse.

The ballot initiative system here is a disaster. It might appeal to our sense of democracy, but there is a reason why we have people whose full-time job is crafting legislation. We The People might be intelligent, but we don't necessarily have the skill to craft effective legislation. We have voted to fix funding for certain programs at certain levels - not allowing the state congress to decrease funding for them - so often that even if we got a competent group of lawmakers, they would have their hands seriously tied.

Pragmatism and ideology in this state are like two warring nations. The law of unintended consequences has been repealed and forgotten in most Californian's minds, and those who bring it up during a campaign are called heartless, overly-political and far worse things. And, despite what some people think, this is not limited to one party or another. Democrats, Republicans and all the small third parties are all just as bad at this.

I think the federal government is going to have to step in and impose changes, but I can't imagine what they could do to change the basic nature of Californian politics. For this problem to be solved, we are really going to have to culturally embrace the concept of "government only when necessary." Given the tone of national politics right now, that necessity depresses me.

So, yeah, it's pretty bad.
 

evil tendencies

Cake or Death?
Why anyone would choose to live there is beyond me.

Sorry for the double post, but I wanted to keep these two ideas separate.

Simply put, I live here because it's home and I love it. I was born here; my father was born here. The General Store that my great-grandmother ran still stands in Gardena; a few blocks away, my great-grandfather's ice house still stands as one of Los Angeles' first.

I love the mountains that I grew up hiking in; they are some of the tallest and most rugged in North america. I love the beaches, especially the one that I could see from my classrooms in high school. I love the desert with her stark beauty, and the forests for their majestic grace.

I may have to move so that my family can live with some measure of safety and prosperity, but, because this is home, I'm willing to stick it out until I have no other real choice. I'm sure there is somewhere that inspires the same loyalty in you.
 

PegaZus

Stealth Freak
I love the mountains that I grew up hiking in; they are some of the tallest and most rugged in North america. I love the beaches, especially the one that I could see from my classrooms in high school. I love the desert with her stark beauty, and the forests for their majestic grace.

I may have to move so that my family can live with some measure of safety and prosperity, but, because this is home, I'm willing to stick it out until I have no other real choice. I'm sure there is somewhere that inspires the same loyalty in you.
What I found amusing about all that is those are some of the reasons I moved OUT of Cali! I think I spent too much time near the LA Basin (or, the cesspool to the south as one of my old coworkers called it). Lived there 10 years and only managed to get north of Bakersfield once to visit a friend of the wife. Anyway, my point was that it probably depends a lot on what you saw growing up.

To me, the mountains were barren, dry, and too brown. Probably because growing up, I went to the alpine regions of New Mexico (some drier parts look a lot like the LA area mountains). The beaches were cold, trashy, and not that pleasant. I enjoyed the desert, but my skin was nearly destroyed by it. I had to start wearing bandages over the joints to keep them moist and crack-free. I actually started bleeding several times from it.

And completely agree on the safety and schooling. We'd watch the police copters from our house on a weekly basis there. I think I've seen a police helicopter here once in two years, and it was just flying over. I'm amazed at how few sirens we hear here, and we're just blocks from the hospital. And the differences in what the schooling was there and what we have here is the difference between night and day.

So, short of it, figure a lot of my negativity towards CA is because of what I grew up with, and the lack of adventuring that I was able to do while there, and just the shear amount of difference between the two locals. And this topic deserves at least a two beer smiley! :beer: :beer: :beerwave:
 

funnymouth

Active member
california is a great state. i moved away with my wife, to denver, so she could go to school, (and i could get a better job). to be blunt, we both want to go back, despite expense and despite the shit californian economy. you get what you pay for (wall, maybe not in santa rosa & LA :tongue:). as for the TV thing, im all for it. LCDs are better anyhow (no screen burn, run cooler, more efficient, etc). consider the MASSIVE amount of energy that goes in to watching TV on a big screen plasmas - literally billions of dollars of energy annually. electricity is a community resource, and wasting it on a non-essential pastime (on imported machines, produced by foreign companies) is a poor use of or limited supply. i consider a "flat screen TV" to be a LUXURY expense. you might as well bitch about the price of diamonds for all i care. the money saved by watching a more efficient, more expensive T.V more than makes up for the added cost, and saves EVERYONE money (including the state) in the long run. even if people border jump to get a marginally cheeper and much lamer TV, so what? the state must comply, and that alone will save millions in annual expense to taxpayers.

california has A LOT of people, and sometimes we need to make concessions so that we can all go on living in such a beautiful place. i for one dont care for rolling blackouts, do you?
im not saying that california is not mismanaged (what state isnt?), but the plasma TV thing is not a bad idea, and could save californians (private, and businesses, government) a lot of money in the long run (a lot, a lot), with relatively little expense to a broke state government. sure its just a stop gap, and they should spend billions of dollars on a solar grid, and on better statewide mass transit, but that costs piles of money, which the state does not have (because they squandered it). ultimately, efficiency is a better way to manage an "energy crisis" than increased production (which costs more). its not a bad idea.
 
Last edited:
Back To Top
Top