I appreciate the work, Kevin.

To Hmmm…if the consumer doesn’t notice any changes in quality or price it’s probably because the manufacturer is eating the cost of the tax. That’s going to lower their profit and disincentive R&D spending. In the long run that will likely slow improvements in TVs’ energy efficiency, which of course is the very problem the tax is trying to solve.

I also don’t think the (US) auto industry should be used as an example. My guess is they haven’t earned their cost of capital in our lifetime and should probably be left for dead. If they were actually creating value (e.g. Honda and Toyota) they would have the resources to produce more efficient cars. Even German luxury cars with much better performance specs can beat a Chevy or GM vehicle on mileage because they can oftentimes throw a diesel engine in it.

I appreciate the work, Kevin.

To Hmmm…if the consumer doesn’t notice any changes in quality or price it’s probably because the manufacturer is eating the cost of the tax. That’s going to lower their profit and disincentive R&D spending. In the long run that will likely slow improvements in TVs’ energy efficiency, which of course is the very problem the tax is trying to solve.

I also don’t think the (US) auto industry should be used as an example. My guess is they haven’t earned their cost of capital in our lifetime and should probably be left for dead. If they were actually creating value (e.g. Honda and Toyota) they would have the resources to produce more efficient cars. Even German luxury cars with much better performance specs can beat a Chevy or GM vehicle on mileage because they can oftentimes throw a diesel engine in it.

A few points:

-There is no such thing as a free lunch. If TV producers could cut their energy emissions without sacrificing on either price or quality, they definitely would. Forcing a company to meet environmental standards comes with tradeoffs, usually in a product’s price or its quality.

- The creeping influence of government. All in all, this specific legislation probably won’t have that big of an effect. What does have a big effect is the mindset that our day-to-day lives require regulation. Government should follow the do-no-harm principle.
The fact that Panasonic has been able to improve by thirty percent per year without the presence of government regulation is testament to the power of market incentives. And if TV makers are increasing energy efficiency so much that all of their TV’s will pass the standards, then why are we regulating them? I don’t see a problem here that the market isn’t solving.

- Most government environmental regulation forces producers to make goods that are either more expensive, lower quality, or ones that consumers don’t want. High-efficiency washers use less water, but they are not very good at getting your clothes clean. Inhalers that use CFC were recently banned because they contain a harmful environmental chemical. The new inhalers are more expensive, and don’t work. Furthermore, government regulation gives producers a bunch of perverse incentives – rather than focus on helping the environment, producers work on finding loopholes in the legislation. What if TV makers switch from using one harmful energy component to another, which is less regulated?

- I do not support CAFE standards. To repeat the last line of my post, if big cars are using too much gas, the problem isn’t that the cars are too inefficient, it’s that gas is too cheap. A handful of studies have shown that consumers value cost, power steering, air conditioning, horsepower, and size more than they value a car’s gas mileage. Other studies have shown, for example, that for a Prius to be “worth it” gas would have to rise to $8 a gallon. Most people that buy Priuses are more concerned with looking like they care about the environment than actually caring, and most politicians that support CAFE feel the same way.

Attempts to solve the global warming problem through a hodgepodge of legislation like CAFE and these TV regulations will just leave the economy with a bunch of distorted incentives. Any solution that will help solve the problem will probably require the consumer to suffer. The worst case is when we get this harmful legislation that doesn’t do anything to solve the problem and makes consumers worse off, to boot.

A few points:

-There is no such thing as a free lunch. If TV producers could cut their energy emissions without sacrificing on either price or quality, they definitely would. Forcing a company to meet environmental standards comes with tradeoffs, usually in a product’s price or its quality.

- The creeping influence of government. All in all, this specific legislation probably won’t have that big of an effect. What does have a big effect is the mindset that our day-to-day lives require regulation. Government should follow the do-no-harm principle.
The fact that Panasonic has been able to improve by thirty percent per year without the presence of government regulation is testament to the power of market incentives. And if TV makers are increasing energy efficiency so much that all of their TV’s will pass the standards, then why are we regulating them? I don’t see a problem here that the market isn’t solving.

- Most government environmental regulation forces producers to make goods that are either more expensive, lower quality, or ones that consumers don’t want. High-efficiency washers use less water, but they are not very good at getting your clothes clean. Inhalers that use CFC were recently banned because they contain a harmful environmental chemical. The new inhalers are more expensive, and don’t work. Furthermore, government regulation gives producers a bunch of perverse incentives – rather than focus on helping the environment, producers work on finding loopholes in the legislation. What if TV makers switch from using one harmful energy component to another, which is less regulated?

- I do not support CAFE standards. To repeat the last line of my post, if big cars are using too much gas, the problem isn’t that the cars are too inefficient, it’s that gas is too cheap. A handful of studies have shown that consumers value cost, power steering, air conditioning, horsepower, and size more than they value a car’s gas mileage. Other studies have shown, for example, that for a Prius to be “worth it” gas would have to rise to $8 a gallon. Most people that buy Priuses are more concerned with looking like they care about the environment than actually caring, and most politicians that support CAFE feel the same way.

Attempts to solve the global warming problem through a hodgepodge of legislation like CAFE and these TV regulations will just leave the economy with a bunch of distorted incentives. Any solution that will help solve the problem will probably require the consumer to suffer. The worst case is when we get this harmful legislation that doesn’t do anything to solve the problem and makes consumers worse off, to boot.

“Panasonic, which is a large seller of plasma flat-screen televisions, said it has been able to improve efficiency by 30 percent every year. Meeting the EnergyStar 4.0 standard, which goes into effect next May, is more challenging but Panasonic is adopting a number of techniques in an effort to attain the EnergyStar 4.0 and 5.0 certifications, executives said.” – http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-10374133-54.html

If the technology is there, why not use it? Panasonic has been doing this for years, and obviously it has not hurt sales…in fact, they are looking for further improvements. There is no data saying that the price of TVs would go dramatically up. Vizio Inc. even states this in the LATimes article.

Point 2: It will save consumers money because their energy bill will be significantly lower. TV quality will not decline, so a consumer’s valuing of a TV will not decline.

Point 3: The energy from the TV sets is being consumed in California once it is purchased, not in Asia. If the demand for energy is lower in the state, the demand for a coal-fired power plant is lower. Coal plants are cheaper and easier to construct and will meet energy demand faster than renewables. California can then focus on building solar or wind farms.

Point 4: We can still have our beautiful, vibrant, 72-inch screens, just pay significantly less at the end of each month for however many years the TV lasts. No one is coming out and saying that this will affect TV quality or size.

I’d be curious to know if you support CAFE standards. It is clear that government regulation in the auto industry spurs the innovation of electric / more fuel-efficient vehicles. That is what this is all about: technology innovation. General Motors CAN produce fuel-efficient vehicles, but would they if we had lax CAFE standards?

Increasing the price of electricity would affect ALL Californians. These standards would only affect those consumers that go out and buy massive “energy-guzzling” TVs. Plus, hikes in energy prices are very hard to go through with…very political for numerous reasons. This is a much easier fix to address energy efficiency, energy demand, and global warming.

“Panasonic, which is a large seller of plasma flat-screen televisions, said it has been able to improve efficiency by 30 percent every year. Meeting the EnergyStar 4.0 standard, which goes into effect next May, is more challenging but Panasonic is adopting a number of techniques in an effort to attain the EnergyStar 4.0 and 5.0 certifications, executives said.” – http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-10374133-54.html

If the technology is there, why not use it? Panasonic has been doing this for years, and obviously it has not hurt sales…in fact, they are looking for further improvements. There is no data saying that the price of TVs would go dramatically up. Vizio Inc. even states this in the LATimes article.

Point 2: It will save consumers money because their energy bill will be significantly lower. TV quality will not decline, so a consumer’s valuing of a TV will not decline.

Point 3: The energy from the TV sets is being consumed in California once it is purchased, not in Asia. If the demand for energy is lower in the state, the demand for a coal-fired power plant is lower. Coal plants are cheaper and easier to construct and will meet energy demand faster than renewables. California can then focus on building solar or wind farms.

Point 4: We can still have our beautiful, vibrant, 72-inch screens, just pay significantly less at the end of each month for however many years the TV lasts. No one is coming out and saying that this will affect TV quality or size.

I’d be curious to know if you support CAFE standards. It is clear that government regulation in the auto industry spurs the innovation of electric / more fuel-efficient vehicles. That is what this is all about: technology innovation. General Motors CAN produce fuel-efficient vehicles, but would they if we had lax CAFE standards?

Increasing the price of electricity would affect ALL Californians. These standards would only affect those consumers that go out and buy massive “energy-guzzling” TVs. Plus, hikes in energy prices are very hard to go through with…very political for numerous reasons. This is a much easier fix to address energy efficiency, energy demand, and global warming.