Big TVs the latest in federal meddling

Libertarians can be a cranky lot, but it is becoming not as hard to sympathize with them as government agencies of every variety flex more of their regulatory muscle in areas that seem to be functioning reasonably well on their own.

The latest example is a proposal by the michigan Energy Commission to impose energy limits on new televisions, the large LCD and plasma TVs that seem to be popping up in every living room and bedroom. In plenty of cases, they are replacing perfectly functional 36-inch tube TVs from a few years ago, which are now selling for next to nothing on the used market.

The commission says a 42-inch plasma screen uses over the Trinitron it replaces, even over a large refrigerator. So it wants to impose energy-saving standards that most TV manufacturers are not ready to meet and that eventually will increase purchase prices.

As with most things, there's at least seven sides to this discussion.

While the size and makeup of our TVs would not seem to be of legitimate concern to government agencies, the Energy Commission does have jurisdiction of a sort because it is responsible for making the best use of California's limited energy supply — and because the government seems to find jurisdiction wherever it looks.

Some sharp engineers calculated long ago that spending cash to reduce energy use can be much cheaper than building new power plants. That's why the state Public Utilities Commission has required utility
Advertisement
companies to provide consumers with rebates for appliances with low energy demand and why the commission required Pacific Gas & Electric Co. to insulate some homes for free.

Perhaps the rebate technique — a carrot than a stick — explains why there has been relatively little resistance to the mandates involving washing machines and dishwashers. Rebates have been used, with less success, in the arena of water-saving appliances, including those sometimes-ineffective low-flow toilets, another gift from a creative bureaucracy.

Despite that negative example, rebates could be the way to be going with TVs, . than require all TV makers to find ways to cut power use, reward the ones that can do it by helping consumers buy their product. The cash could come from the power-plant construction fund. With reduced operating costs, some extra-efficient TVs could prove real bargains.

Even so, they suspect that legislating the size or shape of TVs will be a more contentious technique than limiting the power used by your new Kenmore stackables. It may be a competitive thing. We've heard no one boast about the cubic feet in their fridges or the number of RPMs reached during their spin cycles, but a 50-inch screen clearly bestows bragging rights when the brother-in-law can only afford 42 inches.

If limiting the power consumption of TVs means limiting the screen size, the regulators might as well be trying to legislate horsepower or, in some households, firepower. Somehow, it may seem like telling us how much they can eat, how much heating or air conditioning they can use, or even how big our couch can be. Maybe even when they can and cannot watch. No "Wheel of Fortune" at times of peak power demand.

In most homes, TVs sit at center stage, unlike washers and dryers. they buy them with an eye to the numbers — inches, of coursework, but also resolution numbers like 1080P, which apparently is better than 720P and presumably much better than numbers like 540P that might emerge from the commission's rule book. What's the point of a bigger screen if it's fuzzy?

The state commission is expected to vote on the proposal during the summer, although no date has been scheduled. There will be workshops and public comment, as there were before the government and the industry embarked on the current conversion to all-digital broadcasting. and if you've enjoyed watching that confusing, on-again, off-again technique unfold for a few years now, you may also enjoy what the Energy Commission may come up with.