Surprise! California does something stupid - again.
Ohioguy
California just passed another anti-consumer law. The focus is TV
energy efficiency. Under the new regulations, 75% of new digitial tv's
sold today will NOT meet the energy efficiency requirement for 2013.
This is just another example of CA trying to force their ridiculous
standards on everyone else. Of course, they are hoping that by passing
these restrictions, all TV's sold in the US will have to meet their
requirements, which will add significantly to the cost of each new TV
set sold.
Environmental groups pushed for passage of the regulation, citing
that more and more homes have multiple TV sets, and the sets are turned
on longer and longer, taking more power.
It's a noble thought - and a very misguided one, in this specific
instance. Here are some excerpts from the article:
"The average plasma TV uses more than three times as much energy as an
old cathode-ray tube set. Liquid-crystal display, or LCD, TVs guzzle
less � about 43 percent more energy than tube sets, according to a study
by Pacific Gas & Electric Co., the state's largest utility. LCDs now
account for about 90 percent of the 4 million TVs sold in California
each year."
- so in other words, the market is already switching to LCD's for the
most part, and they save 43% off of the tube TV's most of us were using
just a few years ago. Great! A 43% difference in just a decade is
fantastic, but people making good choices on their own is still not good
enough for some special interests.
"Some manufacturers said implementing a power standard will limit
consumer choice and harm California retailers because consumers could
simply buy TVs out of state or order them online. Industry
representatives also have said the standards would force manufacturers
to make televisions with poorer picture quality and fewer features than
those sold elsewhere in the U.S."
- yes, people will just buy TV's mailorder, if people try to force more
expensive sets on them, especially if they are perceived as poorer
quality sets.
Here's an idea - instead of the government forcing everybody to do
what they want, or what a special interest group wants, how about
letting the consumers decide what to buy? From the looks of things,
that approach is already working, with the shift to LCD sets.
Cindy Hamilton
> http://tech.yahoo.com/news/ap/20091118/ap_on_hi_te/us_california_tv_e...
>
> California just passed another anti-consumer law. The focus is TV
> energy efficiency. Under the new regulations, 75% of new digitial tv's
> sold today will NOT meet the energy efficiency requirement for 2013.
>
> This is just another example of CA trying to force their ridiculous
> standards on everyone else. Of course, they are hoping that by passing
> these restrictions, all TV's sold in the US will have to meet their
> requirements, which will add significantly to the cost of each new TV
> set sold.
Who cares? Nobody is compelled to buy a TV of any kind.
Cindy Hamilton
Rick Merrill
Apparently the lawmakers were swayed by a statistic that 10% (yes, ten
percent) of home electric use is from televisions! I found that
stretches credulity - what about you?
Chilly8
"Ohioguy" <no...@none.net> wrote in message
news:qFeNm.6320$cX4...@newsfe10.iad...
> http://tech.yahoo.com/news/ap/20091118/ap_on_hi_te/us_california_tv_energy
>
>
> "Some manufacturers said implementing a power standard will limit
> consumer choice and harm California retailers because consumers could
> simply buy TVs out of state or order them online. Industry
That is very true. All one would have to do is draw out enough
cash from the bank, then go across the state line and buy one.
By using cash, no credit cards or checks, there is no paper
trail the state could use to find people using such sets, if they
were to go the next step and outlaw posession.
Rod Speed
> Ohioguy wrote:
>> http://tech.yahoo.com/news/ap/20091118/ap_on_hi_te/us_california_tv_energy
>>
>> California just passed another anti-consumer law. The focus is TV
>> energy efficiency. Under the new regulations, 75% of new digitial
>> tv's sold today will NOT meet the energy efficiency requirement for
>> 2013. This is just another example of CA trying to force their ridiculous
>> standards on everyone else. Of course, they are hoping that by
>> passing these restrictions, all TV's sold in the US will have to
>> meet their requirements, which will add significantly to the cost of
>> each new TV set sold.
>>
>> Environmental groups pushed for passage of the regulation, citing
>> that more and more homes have multiple TV sets, and the sets are
>> turned on longer and longer, taking more power.
>>
>> It's a noble thought - and a very misguided one, in this specific
>> instance. Here are some excerpts from the article:
>>
>> "The average plasma TV uses more than three times as much energy as
>> an old cathode-ray tube set. Liquid-crystal display, or LCD, TVs
>> to a study by Pacific Gas & Electric Co., the state's largest
>> utility. LCDs now account for about 90 percent of the 4 million TVs
>> sold in California each year."
>>
>> - so in other words, the market is already switching to LCD's for
>> the most part, and they save 43% off of the tube TV's most of us
>> were using just a few years ago. Great! A 43% difference in just a
>> decade is fantastic, but people making good choices on their own is
>> still not good enough for some special interests.
>>
>>
>> "Some manufacturers said implementing a power standard will limit
>> consumer choice and harm California retailers because consumers could
>> simply buy TVs out of state or order them online. Industry
>> representatives also have said the standards would force
>> manufacturers to make televisions with poorer picture quality and
>> fewer features than those sold elsewhere in the U.S."
>>
>> - yes, people will just buy TV's mailorder, if people try to force
>> more expensive sets on them, especially if they are perceived as
>> poorer quality sets.
>>
>> Here's an idea - instead of the government forcing everybody to do
>> what they want, or what a special interest group wants, how about
>> letting the consumers decide what to buy? From the looks of things,
>> that approach is already working, with the shift to LCD sets.
>
>
> Apparently the lawmakers were swayed by a statistic that 10% (yes,
> ten percent) of home electric use is from televisions! I found that
> stretches credulity - what about you?
Yeah, its a lie.
Artys
> http://tech.yahoo.com/news/ap/20091118/ap_on_hi_te/us_california_tv_e...
>
> energy efficiency. Under the new regulations, 75% of new digitial tv's
> sold today will NOT meet the energy efficiency requirement for 2013.
>
> This is just another example of CA trying to force their ridiculous
> standards on everyone else. Of course, they are hoping that by passing
> these restrictions, all TV's sold in the US will have to meet their
> requirements, which will add significantly to the cost of each new TV
> set sold.
>
> Environmental groups pushed for passage of the regulation, citing
> that more and more homes have multiple TV sets, and the sets are turned
> on longer and longer, taking more power.
>
> It's a noble thought - and a very misguided one, in this specific
> instance. Here are some excerpts from the article:
>
> "The average plasma TV uses more than three times as much energy as an
> old cathode-ray tube set. Liquid-crystal display, or LCD, TVs guzzle
> by Pacific Gas & Electric Co., the state's largest utility. LCDs now
> account for about 90 percent of the 4 million TVs sold in California
> each year."
>
> - so in other words, the market is already switching to LCD's for the
> most part, and they save 43% off of the tube TV's most of us were using
> just a few years ago. Great! A 43% difference in just a decade is
> fantastic, but people making good choices on their own is still not good
> enough for some special interests.
>
> "Some manufacturers said implementing a power standard will limit
> consumer choice and harm California retailers because consumers could
> simply buy TVs out of state or order them online. Industry
> representatives also have said the standards would force manufacturers
> to make televisions with poorer picture quality and fewer features than
> those sold elsewhere in the U.S."
>
> - yes, people will just buy TV's mailorder, if people try to force more
> expensive sets on them, especially if they are perceived as poorer
> quality sets.
>
> Here's an idea - instead of the government forcing everybody to do
> what they want, or what a special interest group wants, how about
> letting the consumers decide what to buy? From the looks of things,
> that approach is already working, with the shift to LCD sets.
By the way, I still get analog programs on my TV. The reception is
better than digital.
Paul_E_Wog
> "The average plasma TV uses more than three times as much energy as an
> old cathode-ray tube set. Liquid-crystal display, or LCD, TVs guzzle
> less � about 43 percent more energy than tube sets, according to a study
> by Pacific Gas & Electric Co., the state's largest utility. LCDs now
> account for about 90 percent of the 4 million TVs sold in California
> each year."
>
> - so in other words, the market is already switching to LCD's for the
> most part, and they save 43% off of the tube TV's most of us were using
> just a few years ago. Great! A 43% difference in just a decade is
> fantastic, but people making good choices on their own is still not good
> enough for some special interests.
I believe you don't have that quite right. The article states, (and
further research appears to confirm):
"Liquid-crystal display, or LCD, TVs guzzle less � about 43 percent
----> more <---- energy than --> tube <--- sets, according to a study by
Pacific Gas & Electric Co., the state's largest utility."
They don't use 43% less than tube sets, they use 43% less than plasma
sets. If Plasma sets use "more than three times as much energy as an
old cathode-ray tube set" then an LCD would still be about 30% more than
a cathode-ray tube.
Gary Heston
>http://tech.yahoo.com/news/ap/20091118/ap_on_hi_te/us_california_tv_energy
[ ... ]
>"The average plasma TV uses more than three times as much energy as an
>old cathode-ray tube set. Liquid-crystal display, or LCD, TVs guzzle
>less � about 43 percent more energy than tube sets, according to a study
>by Pacific Gas & Electric Co., the state's largest utility. LCDs now
>account for about 90 percent of the 4 million TVs sold in California
>each year."
> - so in other words, the market is already switching to LCD's for the
>most part, and they save 43% off of the tube TV's most of us were using
>just a few years ago. Great! A 43% difference in just a decade is
>fantastic, but people making good choices on their own is still not good
>enough for some special interests.
[ ... ]
I think you have something backwards--your quote from the article says
LCD TVs use 43% _more_ power than CRTs, so there's no savings in power.
However, without knowing what size/model LCDs were being compared with
what size/model CRTs, those numbers are all meaningless. I'm sure the
old 25" console CRT in the other house draws lots more than a 25" LCD,
but probably less than a 52" plasma.
Good old government surveys...
Gary
--
Gary Heston ghe...@hiwaay.net http://www.thebreastcancersite.com/
"Where large, expensive pieces of exotic woods are converted to valueless,
hard to dispose of sawdust, chips and scraps." Charlie B.s' definition of
woodworking.
The Real Bev
> In article <qFeNm.6320$cX4...@newsfe10.iad>, Ohioguy <no...@none.net> wrote:
>>http://tech.yahoo.com/news/ap/20091118/ap_on_hi_te/us_california_tv_energy
> [ ... ]
>
>>"The average plasma TV uses more than three times as much energy as an
>>old cathode-ray tube set. Liquid-crystal display, or LCD, TVs guzzle
>>less � about 43 percent more energy than tube sets, according to a study
>>by Pacific Gas & Electric Co., the state's largest utility. LCDs now
>>account for about 90 percent of the 4 million TVs sold in California
>>each year."
And of course PG&E wants everybody to cut down on the amount of electricity
they use -- it's well known that they charge by the month and not the
kilowatt-hour :-(
>> - so in other words, the market is already switching to LCD's for the
>>most part, and they save 43% off of the tube TV's most of us were using
>>just a few years ago. Great! A 43% difference in just a decade is
>>fantastic, but people making good choices on their own is still not good
>>enough for some special interests.
I'm ashamed of California. I was born here and have lived here all my life,
and I HATE what we're become. Biggest recent disappointment was Ahnold, who
talked a good game before he was elected.
> I think you have something backwards--your quote from the article says
> LCD TVs use 43% _more_ power than CRTs, so there's no savings in power.
>
> However, without knowing what size/model LCDs were being compared with
> what size/model CRTs, those numbers are all meaningless. I'm sure the
> old 25" console CRT in the other house draws lots more than a 25" LCD,
> but probably less than a 52" plasma.
My 23" LCD is nowhere near as warm as my 21" CRT.
> Good old government surveys...
Results first, survey afterward.
--
Cheers, Bev
=========================================================
"Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority."
-- U.S. Supreme Court, McIntyre v Ohio Elections,1995
Annie Woughman
"Chilly8" <Chi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:he43h9$esl$1...@aioe.org...
>
> "Ohioguy" <no...@none.net> wrote in message
> news:qFeNm.6320$cX4...@newsfe10.iad...
>> http://tech.yahoo.com/news/ap/20091118/ap_on_hi_te/us_california_tv_energy
>>
>>
>> "Some manufacturers said implementing a power standard will limit
>> consumer choice and harm California retailers because consumers could
>> simply buy TVs out of state or order them online. Industry
>
Californians already come up to Oregon in droves to buy everything from flat
screen televisions, computers, and any type of luxury items, but it isn't
because they can't buy them in California--it is because of the 10% sales
tax (Oregon has none.) Any day of the week you can drive to our local
Costco and every other car (as well as U-Haul trucks and trailers) in the
lot is from California. I overheard one guy telling a clerk that it wasn't
only the sales tax, California also charges a luxury tax on items like
big-screen TV's. Groups of people take turns making the trip filling out
lists for their friends and neighbors. The amount they save in sales and
luxury tax makes it worth the amount spent on gas--especially when they
trade off.
Bill
>
Actually I want my TV and appliances to be energy efficient! So this is a
good thing if you ask me. It will lead to the same basic TV looking just as
good, but using less electricity to operate...
Malcom "Mal" Reynolds
<UprNm.32235$Zu5....@newsfe24.iad>,
"Annie Woughman"
<anniew...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Chilly8" <Chi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:he43h9$esl$1...@aioe.org...
> >
> > "Ohioguy" <no...@none.net> wrote in message
> > news:qFeNm.6320$cX4...@newsfe10.iad...
> >> http://tech.yahoo.com/news/ap/20091118/ap_on_hi_te/us_california_tv_energy
> >>
> >>
> >> "Some manufacturers said implementing a power standard will limit
> >> consumer choice and harm California retailers because consumers could
> >> simply buy TVs out of state or order them online. Industry
> >
> Californians already come up to Oregon in droves to buy everything from flat
> screen televisions, computers, and any type of luxury items, but it isn't
> because they can't buy them in California--it is because of the 10% sales
> tax (Oregon has none.) Any day of the week you can drive to our local
> Costco and every other car (as well as U-Haul trucks and trailers) in the
> lot is from California.
> I overheard one guy telling a clerk that it wasn't
> only the sales tax, California also charges a luxury tax on items like
> big-screen TV's.
Can you provide some sort of link about
this "luxury tax"?
Annie Woughman
"Malcom "Mal" Reynolds" <atlas-...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:atlas-bugged-8260...@aries.ka.weretis.net...
> In article
> <UprNm.32235$Zu5....@newsfe24.iad>,
> "Annie Woughman"
> <anniew...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> "Chilly8" <Chi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:he43h9$esl$1...@aioe.org...
>> >
>> > "Ohioguy" <no...@none.net> wrote in message
>> > news:qFeNm.6320$cX4...@newsfe10.iad...
>> >> http://tech.yahoo.com/news/ap/20091118/ap_on_hi_te/us_california_tv_energy
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> "Some manufacturers said implementing a power standard will limit
>> >> consumer choice and harm California retailers because consumers could
>> >> simply buy TVs out of state or order them online. Industry
>> >
>> Californians already come up to Oregon in droves to buy everything from
>> flat
>> screen televisions, computers, and any type of luxury items, but it isn't
>> because they can't buy them in California--it is because of the 10% sales
>> tax (Oregon has none.) Any day of the week you can drive to our local
>> Costco and every other car (as well as U-Haul trucks and trailers) in the
>> lot is from California.
>
>
>
>> I overheard one guy telling a clerk that it wasn't
>> only the sales tax, California also charges a luxury tax on items like
>> big-screen TV's.
>
> Can you provide some sort of link about
> this "luxury tax"
No, I was just sharing what I heard a guy tell the clerk. I was standing
behind him in the check-out line. I'm sorry if I passed on erroneous
information.
Malcom "Mal" Reynolds
<oqCNm.4590$kY2....@newsfe01.iad>,
"Annie Woughman"
<anniew...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I know of no "luxury" tax, but wouldn't
be surprised that one is lurking around.
But there is a "use" tax on goods
purchased out-of-state or on the internet
George
The only "luxury" tax I know of in the US was the 10% Federal excise
luxury tax imposed on boats, higher end cars, furs etc in the early
1990s and repealed a few years later. It was levied using an idea
similar to the much admired way that they do it in Europe. The seller
was taxed so technically the purchaser didn't pay the tax...