California
The consumer electronics industry has long demonstrated a commitment to socially and environmentally responsible business practices. This emphasis on sustainability is evident in everything from green design and manufacturing of new products to electronics recycling.
-
A 2011 study found that despite their popularity in American homes, consumer electronics (CE) account for a relatively small share – roughly 13 percent – of the average U.S. home’s electricity consumption.
-
TV energy efficiency gains are staggering; the amount of power needed per unit of screen size fell 63 percent for LCD TVs from 2003 to 2010 and fell 41 percent for plasma TVs from 2008 to 2010. In the future, LEDs and OLEDs promise ever better energy efficiency savings.
-
CEA has launched GreenerGadgets.org, an online resource that educates consumers about purchasing, using, and recycling energy efficient devices.
-
CE industry leaders have launched a recycling initiative with the goal of recycling one billion pounds of electronics annually by 2016 – enough electronic equipment to fill an entire 71,000-seat NFL stadium.
-
CEA, Environmental Defense Fund and InnoCentive sponsored an open crowdsourcing Eco-Challenge to find environmentally and economically sound ways to recycle old cathode ray tube (CRT) televisions and monitors. More than 350 solvers from around the world participated in the competition, and prizes of $1,000 to $5,000 were awarded to the best solutions.
The Consumer Electronics Industry is an Important Part of California’s Economy.
In a state struggling with unemployment, budget deficits and dwindling revenues, our industry remains a bright spot in the Golden State’s economy.
Not only does California have the largest amount of
CE sector activity ($450 billion and 11.8 percent in overall workforce compensation), but it also has the most
high-tech industry metrics including employment, wages, payroll, and establishments.
CA High-Tech Industry
(TechAmerica, 09) |
Employment |
Average Wage |
Payroll |
|
Los Angeles |
170,000 |
$91,200 |
$15.5 billion |
|
Oakland |
82,100 |
$98,400 |
$8.1 billion |
|
Orange County |
95,000 |
$86,400 |
$8.2 billion |
|
Sacramento |
39,700 |
$86,000 |
$3.4 billion |
|
San Diego |
111,000 |
$93,300 |
$10.3 billion |
|
San Francisco |
86,600 |
$123,500 |
$10.7 billion |
|
San Jose/Silicon Valley |
225,600 |
$132,100 |
$29.8 billion |
|
Statewide (2010) |
931,000 |
$110,600 |
$102.9 billion |
Yet the California Energy Commission (CEC) is Once Again Pushing Unnecessary and Harmful Regulations – Despite Market-based Efficiency Gains.
On March 14
th, the CEC
announced plans for a new round of regulatory standards for high tech products including computers, displays, game consoles, imaging equipment, servers and set-top boxes.
Electronic manufacturers are already
leading the way to energy efficiency through innovation, competition and market-oriented programs such as ENERGY STAR. Complying with unnecessary and unwarranted energy regulations does nothing to push forward energy and environmental innovation in our products. Onerous and unnecessary regulations and related compliance burdens hurt consumers and local businesses, waste taxpayer money, and will only shift manufacturer’s attention and resources away from creating innovative products.
CEC Regulations = Flawed Analyses, Exaggerated “Problems” and Overestimated Energy Savings.
Since 2006, we have witnessed a troubling pattern regarding the CEC’s regulatory approach to consumer electronics. Three independent analyses discovered the use of old data, math errors and exaggerated energy savings, all of which collectively tipped the scales in favor of regulation. Despite repeated meetings, testimony and public comments; the CEC has refused to acknowledge these flaws or correct the public record.
2011 – CEC Issues Regulations for Battery Chargers
2009 – CEC Issues Regulations for Televisions
-
Independent Analysis: A Review of the 2011 and 2013 Digital Television Energy Efficiency Regulations Developed and Adopted by the California Energy Commission
-
Public comments to the CEC
2006 – CEC Issues Regulations for Audio and Video Products
-
Independent Analysis: Assessment of Analyses Performed for the California Energy Efficiency Regulations for Consumer Electronics Products
AB 1850 Would Have Helped to Improve California’s Regulatory Framework.
We strongly supported Assembly Majority Leader Charles Calderon’s
legislation (AB 1850) that would have updated and reformed the Warren-Alquist Act to improve the regulatory framework supporting energy efficiency. The CEC’s authority regarding appliance efficiency standards has not changed significantly in more than 30 years, but the energy-using product and equipment landscape certainly has.
As introduced, AB 1850 would have helped to ensure that regulatory standards did not harm employment, competition or product innovation. According to the bill’s sponsor (opinion-editorial
published in
Capitol Weekly):
“If we expect industry to demonstrate good environmental stewardship, government must demonstrate a sound and reasonable regulatory approach. California must also be a good partner by not adding an unnecessary layer of regulation to hamper California businesses in a challenging economy.”
AB 1850 was defeated in August 2012. Opposition was led by the CEC, National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E). As the bill moved through the legislative process in California, key provisions in the original bill were struck. The remaining regulatory reform provisions in the final version of AB 1850 – requiring the state to use current data and eliminating outdated and ineffective regulations – were ultimately eliminated by State Senator Christine Kehoe (D-San Diego).
Other states, meanwhile, are not following California and have rejected similar energy mandates.
State
|
Bill No. (Year)
|
Mandatory standards and regulations for consumer audio and/or video products
|
|
AZ |
HB 2390 (2005) |
Rejected |
|
CT |
HB 5523 (2006) |
Rejected |
|
HI |
HB 3050 (2006) |
Rejected |
|
MD |
SB 674 (2007) |
Rejected |
|
RI |
SB 2844 (2006) &
HB 7610 (2006) |
Rejected |
|
TN |
HB 46 (2007) & SB 827 (2007) |
Rejected |
|
TX |
SB 16 (2009) & SB 12 (2007) |
Rejected |
|
VT |
HB 253 (2006) |
Rejected |
|
WA |
HB 2758 (2008) |
Rejected |