Looks like our flat panel TVs are using too much energy according to California facists. I though TVs now days were already energy efficient? (Hell, my Sammy LCD TV only uses about $2.36 worth of power per month if I had it on 8 hours a day. I average about 2 hours a day just to watch a DVD or two, if that. Some days I never turn it on. I don't have broadcast TV hooked up to it). So now we will be limited in choice and probably not receive any HD channels, not that we receive any now...maybe two or three.
I know Plasmas use more energy than LCDs (I have an LCD myself), but I think this applies to both plasma and LCD. I'm keeping my LCD TV and refuse to pay any fines which I am sure are coming next.
Is there no end?

http://http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20091111/sc_livescience/californiadecisioncouldlimithdtvchoicesnationwide

There are already "fines" if you use more energy than your baseline. Read the article.

PG&E, the major California utility, already imposes premiums on electricity use in excess of a household's established baseline each month: at usage that exceeds the baseline by 31 percent, consumers pay a 43 percent premium, and when they reach double the allotted baseline, the premium nearly doubles to 83 percent.

This news is like 3 months old. But good one about the over-usage. Maybe time to move back to Texas.

Sounds like more change you can believe in. I'm sure it will be everywhere if the cap and trade bill makes it through the Senate.

Yes, I knew about the "overage" fines (more BS). I'm thinking they will probably come up with some stupid new tax/fine on people who own flat panel TVs over 32 inches or something and retrodate it back 3 years too.

I'd complain loudly, but because of California energy regulations, our power consumption has actually remained the same in the last 30 years while the rest of the nation's power consumption has increased 50%.

This isn't the first time regulations have required greater efficiency in energy consuming devices (refrigerators). Considering the advent of LED LCD TVs, and OLED TVs on the horizon, I don't see this having much of an effect on the industry.

http://www.energy.ca.gov/appliances/TV_Standards_Facts.pdf

Oh, I own a 46" Plasma, by the way... :)

Hi all,
I just bought the Sharp LED LCD 46" television. Our old Samsung 27" TV used 64 watts of power according to my Kila Watt Meter. The new Sharp panel (and I took the measurement twice) after the initial turn on peak of ~110 watts settled down to ~47 watts. I think this will turn out to be a non issue except for those with a political axe to grind against progressive policies.
The bonus with the Sharp is far less toxic materials and the entire set, with stand weighs less than 50 lbs.

california is just looking for a way to get more of anyones money. and, for a way to NOT build a new power plant.

I'd complain loudly, but because of California energy regulations, our power consumption has actually remained the same in the last 30 years while the rest of the nation's power consumption has increased 50%.

This isn't the first time regulations have required greater efficiency in energy consuming devices (refrigerators). Considering the advent of LED LCD TVs, and OLED TVs on the horizon, I don't see this having much of an effect on the industry.

http://www.energy.ca.gov/appliances/TV_Standards_Facts.pdf

Oh, I own a 46" Plasma, by the way... :)

If that is accurate then why is it that CA routinely has brownouts and you consistently have to purchase your power from out of state?

If that is accurate then why is it that CA routinely has brownouts and you consistently have to purchase your power from out of state?
It's not surprising that the people who complain about CA being "facist" seem to be against regulation; but what's funny is that if you're against regulation, then how can you be upset about deregulation's consequence, that being "constant brown-outs" (although, in fairness, I can't remember the last brown-out in the Bay Area-oh yeah! back when we were buying from Enron, the TEXAS energy company! yes, please move back to Texas!)
Now in France, where energy is regulated, though less than before, they don't have brown-outs, and people complain if they don't fix a downed line in less than 3 hours.
Yes, France. That country some people in Texas like to call...umm...Facist.

Good day :rolleyes:

It's not surprising that the people who complain about CA being "facist" seem to be against regulation; but what's funny is that if you're against regulation, then how can you be upset about deregulation's consequence, that being "constant brown-outs" (although, in fairness, I can't remember the last brown-out in the Bay Area-oh yeah! back when we were buying from Enron, the TEXAS energy company! yes, please move back to Texas!)
Now in France, where energy is regulated, though less than before, they don't have brown-outs, and people complain if they don't fix a downed line in less than 3 hours.
Yes, France. That country some people in Texas like to call...umm...Facist.

Good day :rolleyes:

France has nuclear power, that's why they don't have brown outs.

And the US doesn't have nuclear power? I used to drive by a nuclear power plant everyday to work when I lived in CA.

And the US doesn't have nuclear power? I used to drive by a nuclear power plant everyday to work when I lived in CA.

I never said that. But the eco nuts don't want to build Nuke power, which is clean efficient energy. CA needs more power but won't build plants.

I never said that. But the eco nuts don't want to build Nuke power, which is clean efficient energy. CA needs more power but won't build plants.
That's right; you said: France has nuclear power, that's why they don't have brown outs.
Which implies that CA has brownouts because....?

edit: totally aside, I stumbled upon this thread by searching for "Energy Take..." speakers :p

The "eco nuts" may have a different objective, which is not nutty at all, to limit our burn rate. We comprise 5% of the world's population and consume 25% of the resources. That is not nice.

As the rest of the world is trying to catch up with our standard of living they will also consume at our rate. Are the non-eco nuts beginning to see a problem?

The "eco nuts" may have a different objective, which is not nutty at all, to limit our burn rate. We comprise 5% of the world's population and consume 25% of the resources. That is not nice.



"That is not nice"???

:confused::rolleyes:

"That is not nice"???

:confused::rolleyes:

Are you questioning the grammar or the meaning?

Are you questioning the grammar or the meaning?The meaning I think.

The fixation on regulating FPDs because of power consumption is just one more sign that people in Sacramento don't understand the issue. Conservation will only go so far and the new FPDs are less power hungry and more eco friendly than CRTs of the past. You would think they would encourage the replacement of CRTs, but again politicians aren't the smartest people nowdays.

Are you questioning the grammar or the meaning?

You don't see my point? How do you label something like power consumption, "not nice"?

Stating our population and consumption doesn't tell the entire story, nor does it constitute labeling it "not nice"

You don't see my point? How do you label something like power consumption, "not nice"?

Stating our population and consumption doesn't tell the entire story, nor does it constitute labeling it "not nice"
Well, I think he's talking about the proportion of population to consumption, which by his accounts is 1:5, and I think for him that's a proportion that could be improved, ie less consumption per capita, so the number as it stands, according to him, of 1:5, is "not nice [could be less]"

This thread obviously contains differing opinions; opinions are often expressed by terms like "bad" "good" "evil" or the one in the title of the thread, "BS" and.....drum roll please...."nice" :eek:
To deny someone the "right" to express an opinion contrary to one you favor smells vaguely like certain commentators on a well known news network. "You decide" which one ;)

It's not surprising that the people who complain about CA being "facist" seem to be against regulation; but what's funny is that if you're against regulation, then how can you be upset about deregulation's consequence, that being "constant brown-outs" (although, in fairness, I can't remember the last brown-out in the Bay Area-oh yeah! back when we were buying from Enron, the TEXAS energy company! yes, please move back to Texas!)
Now in France, where energy is regulated, though less than before, they don't have brown-outs, and people complain if they don't fix a downed line in less than 3 hours.
Yes, France. That country some people in Texas like to call...umm...Facist.

Good day :rolleyes:

It is very true - only utterly ignorant people would complain about "facist" (sic!) and brownouts. Brownouts haven't happened since the crazy de-regulated, Enron-manipulated market world ended and their market-destroying sh!theads from Texas went to jail or died.

If someone would be at least marginally familiar with the subject he decides to comment on then it should be obvious that BROWNOUTS WERE THE RESULTS OF DEREGULATION ie artifical creations: watch the movie "Smartest Guys in the Room" and you will hear the tape as one of these PoS whining teeneger-voiced lowlife nobodies of Enron tells a CA power plant to "shut down for a few days, do a maintenance or anything that puts them offline" so they can squeeze the State of CA even more with brownouts.

If I were the Gov of CA back then I would've deployed the NG and took control of the power plants in my state, wouldn't have left the deal to Dubya '****** in Chief' Chimp, 'that's for sure- this crooked PoS Bush didn't do anything, his biggest donor was Enron, the CEO was his friend.
It was all lined up to break CA, it's quite obvious.

You don't see my point? How do you label something like power consumption, "not nice"?



obviously you don't understand, a 60" plasma consumes about 3 times more then a 65" LED lit LCD or about twice as high compared to a CCFL lcd.

so if a consumer is upgrading from a 27" CRT to a 42" plasma ,the plasma is going to consume about 2 to 3 times more power.
on the other hand if the consumer goes for a 42" lcd the power consumption will be the same,if its a 42" LED lit lcd,the power consumption would be about 40% lower.
the power consumption is at their best tv settings for picture quality.

obviously you don't understand, a 60" plasma consumes about 3 times more then a 65" LED lit LCD or about twice as high compared to a CCFL lcd.

so if a consumer is upgrading from a 27" CRT to a 42" plasma ,the plasma is going to consume about 2 to 3 times more power.
on the other hand if the consumer goes for a 42" lcd the power consumption will be the same,if its a 42" LED lit lcd,the power consumption would be about 40% lower.
the power consumption is at their best tv settings for picture quality.

even if your numbers are accurate. I don't want a 65" LCD panel. The PQ is horrible. And I don't want a 42" LCD, because the PQ is subpar and the display is not large enough. So because, by your terms, I am using 3 times as much power to watch my 60" plasma; that makes me "not nice"? I didn't buy my displays because of power consumption, I bought them based on PQ, size, and price. The couple extra bucks my displays might cost me to run, is peanuts in the overall big picture. Arguing power consumption of flat panels is humorous

To all of you who just love that so-called "free economy": What would you say if a private and, of course, unregulated power company decided to sell all the electricity to, say, Mexico or Canada because they offered more money?

Under your system this should be OK. Or would you then run to Sacramento screaming that they, the politicians, "do something"? Or would you just stay in your dark apartment or a house saying: Oh, well, I am cold and without light but that is how the system based on the free market principle - that the highest bidder takes it home - works.

If you want to pretend that the resources, including the energy, are unlimited than go ahead and say so to make any further discussion pointless. But if there are limits the question is who will get to "consume" first and most?

My comment about not being nice is an extention of a concept we were raised to observe: when you come to a party earlier don't be a pig and leave some of the goodies already on the table for others. Not observing this "is not nice".

I never said that. But the eco nuts don't want to build Nuke power, which is clean efficient energy. CA needs more power but won't build plants.

It's fine by me as long as we keep these "clean efficient energy" plans in your county, not mine: http://www.1010wins.com/Report---Cancer-Epidemic--in-Counties-Near-Indian-/5686412

obviously you don't understand, a 60" plasma consumes about 3 times more then a 65" LED lit LCD or about twice as high compared to a CCFL lcd.

so if a consumer is upgrading from a 27" CRT to a 42" plasma ,the plasma is going to consume about 2 to 3 times more power.
on the other hand if the consumer goes for a 42" lcd the power consumption will be the same,if its a 42" LED lit lcd,the power consumption would be about 40% lower.
the power consumption is at their best tv settings for picture quality.

How did you come up with these complete BS numbers?

Plasma isn't even consuming energy the same way LCD does (=always runs at maximum), this is clearly pulled out of your bottom part.

So what if my Plasma uses more energy. I switched to more energy efficient appliances and light bulbs so I will not sacrifice PQ for the so called tree huggers......:D

So what if my Plasma uses more energy. I switched to more energy efficient appliances and light bulbs so I will not sacrifice PQ for the so called tree huggers......:D

I actually did it: when I got my plasma I calculated an approx difference between old CRT + old LCD equally used and new plasma + old LCD barely used and after we replaced all the bulbs (not only energy savers but also less powerful ones to places where I don't need more eg my office desk lamp etc), the microwave etc and indeed, my bill didn't go up more than electricity price hikes justified.

It's fine by me as long as we keep these "clean efficient energy" plants in your county, not mine: http://www.1010wins.com/Report---Cancer-Epidemic--in-Counties-Near-Indian-/5686412

My sentiment exactly. And let's not forget that "clean" storage facility where the nuclear junk will sit forever or a 1000 years, whichever comes first.

How did you come up with these complete BS numbers?

Plasma isn't even consuming energy the same way LCD does (=always runs at maximum), this is clearly pulled out of your bottom part.

well it may be BS for plasma fanboys .
well i got the info from lots of credible reviews,plasmas even if they display black they still consume quite a bit,LED lit lcd like the one from sharp even at torch mode consumes only about 70watts.if their is a completly blank screen most CCFL lcds todays dim the backlight,also ever heard of local dimming LED lcds.:D

It's fine by me as long as we keep these "clean efficient energy" plans in your county, not mine: http://www.1010wins.com/Report---Cancer-Epidemic--in-Counties-Near-Indian-/5686412


One of my clients here in Paris France is a spokesperson for the Atomic Energy Commission.

I asked her, completely innocently, how people who live close to plants feel about that, and she told me, "they're very happy, because after a plant opens, within a 50 km radius of the plant the infrastructure is improved, there are more jobs, schools are better, so quality of life is better..."
Spin baby, spin! :p

california is just looking for a way to get more of anyones money. and, for a way to NOT build a new power plant.That's it, in a nutshell. And it's true everywhere, not just California.

The City of Los Angeles is equally desperate for revenue. I'm now paying the City almost as much in trash collection fees each year (which are not regulated, and so have tripled in five years) than property taxes (which are regulated by Prop 13).

Television power consumption is a red herring in this discussion. The power squeeze comes with peak air conditioning loads in the afternoon when most TVs are off. We had a mild summer this year, but will have brownouts in the future unless more plants and/or transmission lines are built. Everyone knows why: air conditioning everywhere. The increased revenue from off-peak-hours TV power could actually be justified as a way to finance the peak demand capacity required in the summer afternoons.

I just read the whole article on Yahoo and was struck by one thing that was mentioned again and again, we can save this much energy by mandating this. We will not have to build a new 500MW plant because of this, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH.

Do you get the idea that when they get to regulating TVs they are pretty far down the list of things that they can regulate? I wonder if they will start telling us how many hours a day we can watch next, after all it will stop global warming.

The ever growing energy demand aside, let's face it: the flat panels with all the colors and resolution are a gift from hell. The number of hours we spend browsing the internet or watching TV is just plain crazy.

Add to this so-called "gaming" - the single most addictive activity that does not rely on ingesting chemicals - and we have a problem of biblical proportions in terms of the unsustainable cost curve of health care. When two-thirds are overweight and one-third are obese the last thing a nation like this needs is better TVs and more channels. Our TV-based life styles are as if were bed-ridden. How do you think an otherwise healthy boy gets to be 100 pounds at the age of 7? To paraphrase Clinton's famous line from 1992: It's the TV, stupid.

I know this will never pass but a better policy to conserve energy would be to install timers limiting the usage to, say, four hours a day. When the time is up, a message suggesting a walk would be displayed, followed by a shutdown until next morning. We might even find out who our next door neighbors are.

I know this will never pass but a better policy to conserve energy would be to install timers limiting the usage to, say, four hours a day. When the time is up, a message suggesting a walk would be displayed, followed by a shutdown until next morning. We might even find out who our next door neighboors are.If you really believe that is a good idea to mandate such a rule, then that is scary. I am sure that everybody in any Stalinist society knows their neighbors very well and will rat them out as well.

On the other hand I know my neighbors very well and I do understand what you are saying about gaming. How did I kick my smoking habit? Gaming, pure and simple, when I wanted one, I would kill something on the 52" screen. Yes that was just as hard to stop doing as smoking.

If the government(state or federal) was truly serious about the 'energy crisis', and being 'green', they would insist on something like installing solar power systems on all new houses being built in the US.

They also could have converted to electric cars only, or at least set a date for phasing out combustion engine vehicles.

That's not going to happen, since a large sum of tax revenue is generated for the federal and state government with the use of fossil fuels.

I'm surprised that California has not already pulled all incandescent lighting out of the stores as well. Though the replacement CCFL bulbs contain enough mercury to make cleaning up a broken one a health hazard.

As far as the power companies go, the more power savings you generate does not erase the fact that the power companies still have costs for labor, and maintaining the current, aging infrastructure. Not to mention the need for additional power runs to the still growing communities. (Their currently trying to ram a chain of very high voltage lines through my area in Madera)

Therefore, the less you pay, the more they will have to raise the rates to make up for your 'savings'.

Nothing wrong with using less energy, as long as it won't cost you more in the long run.

Larger than 58" TVs will be exempt from the new power requirements.

If the government(state or federal) was truly serious about the 'energy crisis', and being 'green', they would insist on something like installing solar power systems on all new houses being built in the US.

That's not going to happen, since a large sum of tax revenue is generated for the federal and state government with the use of fossil fuels.



Just like with smoking. They tell us how bad smoking is hoping that we will ignore the message. Or: one deprtment wants to find cure for cancer - or so they claim - while the Social Security trust fund administrator prays daily that they won't.

ramazur, you had me till, "....it's the TV, stupid."
Then you became either a rabid conspiracy nut, or a spook for the Right Wing wingnuts.
Remember what they said of Californians back in the '80s?
Nothing but a bunch of fruits and nuts?

The idea of asking the gov't to "help" us with our "TV addiction" by putting timers?!
Who could think of feeding the anti-gov't trolls? And why?

It's one thing to regulate power companies, the auto-industry, etc, but the [valid] point you raise about us watching too much TV could better be handled by educating people, somehow.

Or would you then run to Sacramento screaming that they, the politicians, "do something"? .

A politician is the last person I would go to do something. They are the problem.

... could better be handled by educating people, somehow.

Impossible. You have a better chance to "educate" a puppie or a kitten. I can recite for you ten very bad things people do in spite of all the knowledge they already have.

It was the government that banned smoking on the planes and the restaurants over the objections of the smokers claiming a non-existing "right to smoke". Same for the seat belts and the helmets. The latter was challenged because "if we don't wear them we can only hurt ourselves so what's the problem". The answer, like with obesity, is that when we pick you up from a ditch with you barely clinging to life we, the society, at our expense, will have to do everything humanly possible to make you live. This is how we got the right to control your lifestyle. It is called social contract. From Wikipedia:

'Social contract' describes a broad class of theories that try to explain the ways in which people ...maintain social order. The notion of the social contract implies that the people give up some rights to a government or other authority in order to receive or maintain social order through the rule of law.

This is why the state of California can regulate things like your power consumption either directly or by banning the devices they consider frivolous - like 60-inch plasmas - as these guzzlers put a terrible stress on the power network.

Later the owner will need a triple by-pass and I, in part, will have to pay for it. You make me free not to pay that and other of your medical bills and you can watch all you want, eat all the double-cheese pizza you want and leave your helmet at home.

....Later the owner will need a triple by-pass and I, in part, will have to pay for it....
It's too bad, because you seem bright and to get the problems of our social ills, but don't you get that it's not that black and white?
Show me the numbers that prove, beyond a doubt, that obese people have a higher rate of heart disease or seek medical care more than "non obese" people.
And on the flip side, we have anorexia, another "eating disorder." Yet where's the discussion on that? How many anorexic people need medical treatment each year?

I'm sorry; as I said before, you had me up to a certain point, but your "TV=obesity=more doctor care" argument has too many holes.

I'm sorry; as I said before, you had me up to a certain point, but your "TV=obesity=more doctor care" argument has too many holes.

Especially when some recent studies have seen that if Obese people die earlier, they are not living and needing drawn out end of life care when the government is actually paying fo rit when they are 80.

I love people who feel the need to run other peoples lives based on their beliefs that they know better. To often these people will try to make everybody conform to their viewpoints by rule of law.

The question of how many hours people sit in front of the TV everyday is really irrelevant. The notion that this is the main reason that people are obese is crazy. Think about the number of people who now work for 7 hours a day in front of a computer monitor, and maybe watch 2 hours of TV per day. Would you impose regulations on the workplace next to prevent obesity? If you do that and there are still obese people, where do you place the blame next? Regulate the types of food? Mandatory exercise classes?

I don't think that Stalinist is to harsh a word for this type of thing, although some who agree with this type of thing would call it compassion.

Here in Ontario Canada they are now saying the province is looking at anding the same law here.

All I am trying to claim is that the states have a legal authority to regulate certain things. Secondly, not everything they do is a result of corruption or stupidity. Regulating power consumption may just fit that category.

Does anyone know what the performance implications of this law are? I would be concerned on how the performance of LCD panels would be affected, especially in the later years where the requirements become very strict. Certain trade offs have to be met to make a compliant set. For instance, the CCFLs may have to be driven harder reducing lamp life and causing shifts in color temperature. Use of more energy efficient phosphors in the CCFLs may have a worse spectral distribution causing a drop in color accuracy. They simply could reduce the brightness of the panel. California models may simply have a brightness limiter that can be defeated via an option in the service menu or by removing a jumper on a circuit board.

Lest we get too carried away -- who knows how that could ever happen here? -- the commissioner involved has said that

(1) this regulation is not effective until 2011, and

(2) most current displays already meet the 2011 standards, and that

(3) it's the 2013 enhanced standards that might threaten some of the current units.

Overdue, you almost make it sound like a bad thing to be a "right wing nutjob"...
If not for right wing nutjobs as the media likes to put it, you would have no rights what so ever, and the most incompetent business in the US (our government) would be telling you what to do, when to do it, and making all your decisions for you -since after all, the liberals seem to know what is best of their flock.
You ever notice how they refuse to swallow the same pills that they are telling you is best for you?

Lest we get too carried away -- who knows how that could ever happen here? -- the commissioner involved has said that

(1) this regulation is not effective until 2011, and

(2) most current displays already meet the 2011 standards, and that

(3) it's the 2013 enhanced standards that might threaten some of the current units.

That is another thing that bothered me about this, they have tiered the regulation supposedly to give the manufactures time to adjust and change to meet the new law.

The problem with this approach is that we have gotten used to this type of thing and now we probably wont even blink when 2014 comes along and they make the regulation even more tight. By that point it may not be any problem, but it seems that it gives the government endless room to keep the pressure up.

well it may be BS for plasma fanboys .
well i got the info from lots of credible reviews,plasmas even if they display black they still consume quite a bit,LED lit lcd like the one from sharp even at torch mode consumes only about 70watts.if their is a completly blank screen most CCFL lcds todays dim the backlight,also ever heard of local dimming LED lcds.:D

In other words you have no idea about real numbers.
Thanks for confirming that you have, indeed, pulled these numbers out of your bottom part.

One of my clients here in Paris France is a spokesperson for the Atomic Energy Commission.

I asked her, completely innocently, how people who live close to plants feel about that, and she told me, "they're very happy, because after a plant opens, within a 50 km radius of the plant the infrastructure is improved, there are more jobs, schools are better, so quality of life is better..."
Spin baby, spin! :p

Of course. To be honest I'm not dead set against nuke power when it's done right but unfortunately today's Corporate States of America is the last place I could trust *ANY* corporation to develop and run one properly, let alone *ANY* federal agency to properly oversee and regulate it.

French have a lot of nuke power and they monitor it properly and haven't heard of any Indian Point-size scare... they must be doing it right...


...or is it just their World's #1 healthcare system (cheap yet private provider-based, mind you)? ;)

My sentiment exactly. And let's not forget that "clean" storage facility where the nuclear junk will sit forever or a 1000 years, whichever comes first.

Shoot it into space...?


Just kiddin'. :D

In other words you have no idea about real numbers.
Thanks for confirming that you have, indeed, pulled these numbers out of your bottom part.

well don't you know how to use google search or bing.:p
well again for plasma fan boys it hard to swallow the truth about the crapy power consumption.

do note the new regulation says that 42" tv should consume less then 183watts,the lcd camp met those standars as early as 2007.
plasma still have a tough time meeting even 200watts,the only way they meet is by reducing the brightness of the tv to uncomfortably low levels.
the max power consumption of plasma is even higher when they show bright whites in full screen.

The great state of California, always a leader, always a trend setter. Kudos to California for making this standard.

.....pulled these numbers out of your bottom part.Where I work we call that AE data (Anally Extracted).

The great state of California, always a leader, always a trend setter. Kudos to California for making this standard.

I couldn't help but laugh out loud at this one. California, the state that brought you such characters as "the Governator" and Nancy "stretch" Pelosi is, indeed, a trend-setter in its current financial situation: the state is bankrupt. New York, Florida, Arizona etc. will soon follow suit. Here's another California trend that will soon play out in at a state near you: 32% tuition hike at all UC schools. The state can no longer afford to subsidize these non-profitable institutions. "Sorry little Timmy, mom and dad can no longer afford the exorbitant tuition for your mediocre education, you'll have to get a blue-collar job and actually contribute to the ever-declining GDP instead".

The factor of the matter is, by 2011, we'll be even deeper in the midst of this global economic depression with a further-decimated middle class; worrying about some inane regulation on a luxury item seems rather asinine to me.

The great state of California, always a leader, always a trend setter. Kudos to California for making this standard.

Agreed on all points. To assume that everything the state governments do is just plain stupid is just plain stupid. I only wish the feds had the brains to muzzle the morons who applied and got the no doc loans and the geniuses who made these loans available. It was the lack of proper government oversight aand regulations that got us into the financial meltdown we are in right now.

All I am trying to claim is that the states have a legal authority to regulate certain things. Secondly, not everything they do is a result of corruption or stupidity. Regulating power consumption may just fit that category.We are only talking about a TV set here right?

The problem is that lets say the next law tells you you can only have one FPD per household. Is that to intrusive into your personal life?

Then lets take it to where it could ultimately lead and that is your whole house. You go out house shopping and you and the wife decide that the 2400 square foot with 4 bedrooms and 2.5 baths is perfect, but the state tells you that you are only allowed 600 square feet per person and you can't buy that big of a house, all in the name of energy savings. You supported all of the past efforts to restrict other peoples freedoms in the name of energy savings so at what point do you say stop?

Goverment only has the power that we let them have.

We are only talking about a TV set here right?

The problem is that lets say the next law tells you you can only have one FPD per household. Is that to intrusive into your personal life?

Then lets take it to where it could ultimately lead and that is your whole house. You go out house shopping and you and the wife decide that the 2400 square foot with 4 bedrooms and 2.5 baths is perfect, but the state tells you that you are only allowed 600 square feet per person and you can't buy that big of a house, all in the name of energy savings. You supported all of the past efforts to restrict other peoples freedoms in the name of energy savings so at what point do you say stop?

Goverment only has the power that we let them have.

TNG, you are absolutely correct in your slippery slope logic and I would agree that when left unchecked by the people, the government will eventually swallow us whole. You, I assume, meant the example with the house to be fictitious just to make a point. Well, the scary part is that I came from a country where this was a reality - we were allowed so many square feet by an edict and that's it. It was socialism in its ultimate form. Scary because I am seeing us moving in the same direction here. Each step always seems justified. The problem is that freedom once lost is very hard to regain.

California's attempt to regulate TVs may be defended if taken as an isolated case and I did just that. But it isn't. What it is is just another step to 1984 and some posters here rightfully objected to it.

I know this will never pass but a better policy to conserve energy would be to install timers limiting the usage to, say, four hours a day. When the time is up, a message suggesting a walk would be displayed, followed by a shutdown until next morning. We might even find out who our next door neighbors are.

Ok I have to admit this did make me laugh. I couldn't help but think maybe the way to keep people from getting overweight is if they attach little timers to peoples mouths. That way if they consume more then their alloted 8 grams of fat it could snap shut when they go to eat and speak a little message that says "exercise porky." :D

I couldn't help but laugh out loud at this one. California, the state that brought you such characters as "the Governator" and Nancy "stretch" Pelosi is, indeed, a trend-setter in its current financial situation: the state is bankrupt. New York, Florida, Arizona etc. will soon follow suit. Here's another California trend that will soon play out in at a state near you: 32% tuition hike at all UC schools. The state can no longer afford to subsidize these non-profitable institutions. "Sorry little Timmy, mom and dad can no longer afford the exorbitant tuition for your mediocre education, you'll have to get a blue-collar job and actually contribute to the ever-declining GDP instead".

The factor of the matter is, by 2011, we'll be even deeper in the midst of this global economic depression with a further-decimated middle class; worrying about some inane regulation on a luxury item seems rather asinine to me.

Bingo.

Fine representatives from California are now running our country, with unchecked power to boot. Pelosi, Boxer, and Fidel Castro-lover Waters.

The power consumption of a 58" TV will be the least of your worries in 2011 and beyond.

It really seems to me that the game is all but over but the orchestra is still playing.

We are only talking about a TV set here right?

The problem is that lets say the next law tells you you can only have one FPD per household. Is that to intrusive into your personal life?

Then lets take it to where it could ultimately lead and that is your whole house.I see where you're going....yeah, the next step would be to limit ownership to just one gun apiece. But, as you say, why stop there?

Why not limit everyone to one child per couple? Jeez -- then we'd be just like China: all websites monitored (surely that can't happen here), and only one ruling party (okay here too, as long as it's your party.) But then, think of the China-syndrome upsides: plenty of jobs, GDP growth and Chinese food.

Oh, my head hurts just thinking about it...

I hope someone is buying alot of cheese! (For all the whining there is here). :rolleyes: Any excess can go to the CEA. :p

For once (and probably only once), I will give the nod to California.

Then lets take it to where it could ultimately lead and that is your whole house. You go out house shopping and you and the wife decide that the 2400 square foot with 4 bedrooms and 2.5 baths is perfect, but the state tells you that you are only allowed 600 square feet per person and you can't buy that big of a house, all in the name of energy savings. You supported all of the past efforts to restrict other peoples freedoms in the name of energy savings so at what point do you say stop?


(4 bedrooms = 4 people) x 600sf per person = 2400sf ;)

1.Housing size is already limited by # of bedrooms in any area with septic systems.

2.Limiting house size may/will impact taxes since many/most property taxes are based on square footage never mind the building lobbys profits.

3.slippery slope logic? (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/slipslop.html)

My utility bill came with a pie chart showing home energy usage. The TV, VCR, DVD category was 2%. The same as the dishwasher and the computer/monitor categories. Even clothes washer and dryer was 10%. Heating and cooling was 45%.

I'm not going to sweat reducing the a 2% category when there are lots of much bigger energy hogs.

Another small example of the hope and change bureaucrats/socialists we can believe in believe in.

Just want to put in my brief 2 cents here. I see a lot of people talking about deregulation being the problem that lead to California's energy crisis. Not really, the whole thing was a scheme from beginning to end. Massive amounts of laws were broken. The actual deregulation itself was not the sole source of the problem, it was people afterwards who broke the laws and then used that to utterly manipulate the system. (Not to say that "deregulation" itself would be better or worse even if properly conducted). And BTW, many of the same interests that pushed those changes also support the upcoming cap and trade bill...

What bugs me about this is that they already were making TVs more energy efficient in California to try and keep the government from having to do something like this. Far better IMO to let an industry voluntarily take care of a problem like this than to bring the heavy hammer of government regulations in when it doesn't have to be and mess things up. The less government involvement in things, the better usually.

Far better IMO to let an industry voluntarily take care of a problem like this than to bring the heavy hammer of government regulations in when it doesn't have to be and mess things up. The less government involvement in things, the better usually.

The feds and the states regulate and enforce the following:

1. Food: disclosure of ingredients, purity
2. Drugs: safety, effectiveness
3. Cars: seat belts, air bags, speed limits, truck weight, driver licensing
4. Firearms: availability, registartion, transportation
5. Air travel: bag and personal checks, maintenance, traffic, altitude
6. Radio and TV: frequency allocation, power
7. Clothing: flammability
8. Toys: lead, child safety
9. Roads: lane width, signs
10. Pollution: air, water
11. Hunting and fishing: where, when, how many and what size can be killed or caught
12. Licensing of nurses and doctors
13. Water usage
14. Truth in lending
15. Truth in advertising

I could continue like this for a lot longer. Would you like to point out which of these you would like them to stop regulating?

The feds and the states regulate and enforce the following:

1. Food: disclosure of ingredients, purity
2. Drugs: safety, effectiveness
3. Cars: seat belts, air bags, speed limits, truck weight, driver licensing
4. Firearms: availability, registartion, transportation
5. Air travel: bag and personal checks, maintenance, traffic, altitude
6. Radio and TV: frequency allocation, power
7. Clothing: flammability
8. Toys: lead, child safety
9. Roads: lane width, signs
10. Pollution: air, water
11. Hunting and fishing: where, when, how many and what size can be killed or caught
12. Licensing of nurses and doctors
13. Water usage
14. Truth in lending
15. Truth in advertising

I could continue like this for a lot longer. Would you like to point out which of these you would like them to stop regulating?

honestly... I could do without government in just about everyone of those categories. Your baiting is BS... there are certain things the government needs to have a limited roll in

honestly... I could do without government in just about everyone of those categories. Your baiting is BS... there are certain things the government needs to have a limited roll in

Did you write your legal representative to remove any regs regarding, say, number 7 so that next time a kid's pj catches fire let him burn or is it, as you so eloquently remarked, just a bs? Or how about number 8?

Would you mind making an effort and highlight the specific examples on my list you think the governments should get out of regulating?

Did you write your legal representative to remove any regs regarding, say, number 7 so that next time a kid's pj catches fire let him burn or is it, as you so eloquently remarked, just a bs? Or how about number 8?

Would you mind making an effort and highlight the specific examples on my list you think the governments should get out of regulating?

sure, do away with #7. The market will weed out them out on its own. Just because the government isn't there to tell them to make clothes that aren't flammable doesn't mean that we will be flooded with easily combustible clothes and that will be our only choice.

In regards to #8, sure there should be regulation to a point, we have to have some sort of consistency in the use of the roads.

What you are saying implies I am stupid and cannot make a decision for myself and I have to have the government looking out for me. You tell me if there is a bigger, more corrupt, dishonest organization than the government. And you want them to regulate things? The market itself, even producers themselves can regulated just about every one of your examples better than our government can

I couldn't help but laugh out loud at this one. California, the state that brought you such characters as "the Governator" and Nancy "stretch" Pelosi is, indeed, a trend-setter in its current financial situation: the state is bankrupt. New York, Florida, Arizona etc. will soon follow suit. Here's another California trend that will soon play out in at a state near you: 32% tuition hike at all UC schools. The state can no longer afford to subsidize these non-profitable institutions. "Sorry little Timmy, mom and dad can no longer afford the exorbitant tuition for your mediocre education, you'll have to get a blue-collar job and actually contribute to the ever-declining GDP instead".

The factor of the matter is, by 2011, we'll be even deeper in the midst of this global economic depression with a further-decimated middle class; worrying about some inane regulation on a luxury item seems rather asinine to me.

You hillbillies need stop bashing our state. If it wasn't for California the rest of America would be in the dark ages. You need California to lead you.

Remember " as California goes so goes the nation". We have the best weather in America and the some of the worlds greatest minds live here.

We have Hollywood, the Silicon Valley and the 8th largest economy. Get off of us.

Leave Nancy Pelosi alone. You're just jealous. What other state where a man can go from Terminator to Governator..

honestly... I could do without government in just about everyone of those categories. Your baiting is BS... there are certain things the government needs to have a limited roll in

How many teabags do you have dangling from your head, as you type your stone age manifestos?

You hillbillies need stop bashing our state. If it wasn't for California the rest of America would be in the dark ages. You need California to lead you.

Remember " as California goes so goes the nation". We have the best weather in America and the some of the worlds greatest minds live here.

We have Hollywood, the Silicon Valley and the 8th largest economy. Get off of us.

Leave Nancy Pelosi alone. You're just jealous. What other state where a man can go from Terminator to Governator..

Often mistakenly referred to as the 'WEST COAST", one thing you do not have-it's called WATER!! Not to worry-Pelosi will seek a Water Commission to oversee water distribution. Over 60, sorry-you have had your allotment! Get used to being thirsty and dirty!!:eek::eek::eek:

2.Limiting house size may/will impact taxes since many/most property taxes are based on square footage never mind the building lobbys profits.

3.slippery slope logic? (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/slipslop.html)
They will get the $ they want. If property values fell, they'd just increase the tax rate. Or increase the sales tax. Or increase "user's fees". etc. (All three have been done here in MD).

As for slippery slope being a fallacy; well that's a quaint notion disproven by the fact that it happens time and time again. Government programs, entitlements, and regulations almost always get bigger, more expensive, and longer lasting than they started.

The feds and the states regulate and enforce the following:

1. Food: disclosure of ingredients, purity
2. Drugs: safety, effectiveness
3. Cars: seat belts, air bags, speed limits, truck weight, driver licensing
4. Firearms: availability, registartion, transportation
5. Air travel: bag and personal checks, maintenance, traffic, altitude
6. Radio and TV: frequency allocation, power
7. Clothing: flammability
8. Toys: lead, child safety
9. Roads: lane width, signs
10. Pollution: air, water
11. Hunting and fishing: where, when, how many and what size can be killed or caught
12. Licensing of nurses and doctors
13. Water usage
14. Truth in lending
15. Truth in advertising

I could continue like this for a lot longer. Would you like to point out which of these you would like them to stop regulating?
You listed a bunch of things that most people would agree need oversight. Things related to safety, transparency, etc. Add "16. television power consumption" and it quickly becomes apparent where reasonable crosses over to silliness.

jeff

How many teabags do you have dangling from your head, as you type your stone age manifestos?

sorry, don't care for tea.

Often mistakenly referred to as the 'WEST COAST", one thing you do not have-it's called WATER!! Not to worry-Pelosi will seek a Water Commission to oversee water distribution. Over 60, sorry-you have had your allotment! Get used to being thirsty and dirty!!:eek::eek::eek:

Leave Nancy Pelosi alone, geez. Why are you so mad at her:rolleyes: The first woman to be speaker of house, you should celebrate that. That's how it goes, California is always first.

Another small example of the hope and change bureaucrats/socialists we can believe in believe in.

Have you ever heard of Erin Brochovich? I might be spelling here name wrong, but if you know who she please answer the question.

She is an example of a true Californian.

Thank you