Last week in this space, I outlined the difference of opinion between the California Energy Commision (CEC) and Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) concerning the wisdom of adopting the CEC’s proposed rules that would restrict the power consumption of TV sets sold in California. I described how the LCD TV Association supports the proposed rules and mentioned in passing that the Plasma Display Coalition (PDC) does not support them.

Ken Werner
Senior Analyst and Editor

Subsequently, I had an extensive telephone conversation with PDC President Jim Palumbo, who described the PDC’s position in detail. As I interpret it (and Palumbo might well disagree), the PDC’s opposition to the draft standards has its roots in the fact that PDP-TV power consumption, despite genuinely amazing improvements over the last two years - 50% from 2008 to 2009 alone - is still significantly greater than that of equivalent LCD-TVs, so stringent rules that LCD-TV manufacturers might be able to live with would be more painful to PDP-TV manufacturers. However, current high-end LCD-TVs could also be eliminated from the market, which is one of the points the CEA has made.

The elimination of high-end, fully featured sets, says Palumbo (and the CEA), would be particularly harmful to independent dealers, and would force high-end sales to on-line retailers and independent retailers in neighboring states, both of which would harm California businesses and reduce California tax revenues.

Palumbo proposes a DTV acceleration program, which he calls a more strategic and more beneficial approach. Palumbo starts by noting that a representative 2008 42-inch 720p PDP-TV consumes 155W (as measured by IEC 62087 Ed. 2.0). That’s a considerable improvement over a typical Sony 30-inch standard-definition CRT set, which consumes between 195 and 245W. The Sony 30 is one of the once-popular CRT sets that could be replaced by a 42-inch flat screen.

The PDC recommends a CRT replacement program that would encourage the ecologically responsible disposal and recycling of energy-guzzling CRT TVs and replacing them with flat screens. This would encourage TV sales, provide an economic stimulus, and save energy, whether the old set was replaced with a PDP-TV or an LCD-TV. It would also energize the creation of a consumer electronics recycling program.

"An acceleration program is a win for energy conversation, a win for retailers, a win for manufacturers, and a win for the State of California," Palumbo told Insight Media. "The CEC approach, which is the PG&E [Pacific Gas & Electric] approach, is a damaging proposal."

Although certainly fueled by self-interest, a "DTV acceleration program" could produce a more immediate reduction of TV energy use because it would encourage the early replacement of existing high-energy-use sets (reminiscent of the "Cash for Clunkers" program being discussed in Washington for gas-guzzling old cars).

That’s the case the PDC and CEA made to the office of California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger last week. "The impact of the CEC draft proposal on independent dealers and tax collections should matter to the Governor," Palumbo said. And, in last week’s meeting, "the Governor’s office seemed open to learning more about our position."

But be careful here. My guess is that are not that many 35" CRT energy guzzlers out there that would be replaced. So if the program allowed 19-26" sets in second and third bedrooms to be replaced by perhaps 32-42" TVs, would this actually result in a net increase in energy use? Someone needs to do the math before this train leaves the station.