The relationship of electricity and water is particularly intertwined – it takes electricity to move and treat water, and water is quite often used to make electricity.  For instance, the state of California moves a great deal of water from the northern part of the state to the south.  Transporting one acre-foot of water – the typical amount consumed by two families of four in a year – requires 3000 kWh per year.  One acre-foot of water (the amount of water covering 1 acre to a depth of 1 foot) equals 326,000 gallons and weighs 2.7 million pounds.  The California Energy Commission (CEC) figures that 20% of the state’s electricity and 30% of its natural gas consumption are dedicated to water transport or treatment.  A five minute faucet flow uses approximately the same energy as letting an incandescent 60-watt light bulb burn for 14 hours. 

There is a great deal of attention given to the aging electrical grid infrastructure, and with good reason.  The current electrical grid has reduced reliability and transmission losses that cost the economy dearly.  We need to fund massive investment in the water infrastructure for similar reasons.  The water systems in many cities and municipalities in the USA are characterized by aging water pipes that leak and are at risk for full collapse.  The waste of potable water through this unreliable infrastructure cannot be sustained for much longer – especially in high growth regions where current water resources are not sufficient for continued consumption rates. 

The water infrastructure needs basic upgrading to stop the leaks, but it also needs sophisticated sensors to track and measure water use.  Just like we use smart meters to provide much more detailed and instantaneous information about electricity use, we need better feedback mechanisms that communicate and analyze water use.  Information leads to awareness and knowledge, and efficient use And that’s the crux of another problem.  We can add clean renewable sources of electricity to the grid in the form of solar, wind, and geothermal production to accommodate growing populations.  We can’t make more water – we can only use and reuse the water that is on the planet.

According to the Environmental Protection Agency’s WaterSense site, reducing water use has definite positive impacts on the environment and economy.  Intelligent use of water lets us reduce the need for investments in new infrastructure and reduces the strain on the current, aging infrastructure.  We talk about energy efficiency as the low hanging fruit in Smart Grid discussions, and we need to view water efficiency in the same light, and add intelligent devices and more communications capabilities to optimize this infrastructure as we are already doing for the electrical Smart Grid.

What’s wrong with this picture? If you are a utility that gets revenues based on the volume of sales of electricity, then energy efficiency programs that reduce volume translate into reduced revenues. Imagine if a fast food restaurant encouraged you to NOT supersize your meal – although it would be good for American waistlines, it would be bad for the restaurant and its investors.

Utilities that operate in this model face a real dilemma therefore in offering and aggressively promoting effective energy efficiency programs. Here’s where a regulatory concept called “decoupling” helps. It is a ratemaking mechanism that removes the barriers to energy efficiency programs. It eliminates the link between electricity sales and utility profits. The regulatory body guarantees a revenue return through rates that are typically calculated on a per-customer basis, and periodically reviewed to see if the pre-determined revenue requirement is met.

What does decoupling and support of energy efficiency programs mean for utilities and investors? Decoupling provides stability in revenue expectations, reducing risks for investors. According to a recent report released by Ceres, utilities that engage in energy efficiency programs also reduce their risk exposure to fluctuating energy prices.  Utilities that support diversification and distribution of generation assets take risk reduction a step further.  Utilities that engage in energy efficiency and diversification and distribution of generation are more likely to attract low-cost capital, enabling better returns for investors.

What does decoupling and participation in energy efficiency programs mean for consumers?  It means increased and improved opportunities to reduce utility bills.  Depending on the state, the programs can cover replacement of selected appliances with energy-efficient models or rebates on certain building remodeling projects.   Federal tax credits may also come into play and add even more financial benefits for consumers. 

What does decoupling and energy efficiency mean for the environment?  It means reduced carbon emissions reflecting reduced electricity consumption.  And because decoupling also removes a barrier to localized generation – the prosumer model – decoupling facilitates broad integration of renewable energy sources into the grid.

What does this have to do with the Smart Grid?  The Smart Grid is more than an overlay of ground-breaking technologies, it is based on smart policies that provide incentives to consumers and utilities to optimize generation, transmission, distribution, and consumption of electricity.   

For more information, the Regulatory Assistance Project has good presentations that explain decoupling and its benefits to consumers, utilities, and our environment.  

Take a look at where Smart Grid investment funds are based.  Of course, the Federal government’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) stimulus fund kickstart of $3.4B beat all other sources of money.  But from a venture capital perspective, the top 3 US geographic sources of funding in 2009 were

• Silicon Valley (Northern California) – $1.2B
• Southern California  - $329.5M
• New England – $283.7M

Much of this investment is going to a category called energy efficiency (EE) rather than alternative energy technology.  There are several reasons for this, and the primary reasons are that EE plays have lower funding requirements than alternative energy investments which are capital-intensive, can be brought to market faster than many other Smart Grid technologies, and have a comfort level with many venture capitalists who can relate EE research, development, and deployment (RD&D) to familiar ICT (Information and Communications Technology) RD&D. 

 Silicon Valley has tremendous intellectual expertise in a number of areas that can and should make significant contributions to advancing Smart Grid solutions.  The centers of expertise include

• Software for any application
• Security and encryption
• Semiconductors, processors, and chipsets
• Game design
• Communications and networks

There are more Smart Grid-related conferences, seminars, and webinars here that expose workers from all backgrounds to the challenges and opportunities in this business sector. What I call the region’s innovation infrastructure encourages interesting fusions of different areas of expertise.  Workforce mobility and mindset supports innovation with a near constant circulation of resources in companies that expose employees to new technologies, business models, and problem-solving approaches.   There is an expectation of sharing knowledge and synthesizing data into new insights.  Silicon Valley also has a number of incubators – organizations and business plan competitions that encourage and support the growth of great ideas into viable companies.  The concentration of world-class colleges and universities in this region further enhances this concentration of intellectual capital.   

The big challenge is how to engage Silicon Valley and utilities together into a full-throttled drive to create the optimal Smart Grid solutions that will reduce energy costs for consumers and utilities, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and build national energy security.  I recently read an article that examined the reasons for Ford Motor Company’s success in revamping its business operations.  Mark Fields, EVP and Americas President was quoted as saying, “These high-tech companies work at a very different clock speed than us, a much faster clock speed.  We had to jump in.  We had to learn.  We started thinking like a software company.”   

Can utilities learn to move at faster speeds?  Can Silicon Valley cultures learn to work with utilities and respect their regulatory and operational environments?  For example, utilities need to test all new solutions to ensure that they won’t “break the grid”.  Telecom companies have been doing this for years, too, and the lengthy and repetitive investigations not only test the solution, but the patience and financial resources of the solution vendors.  Here’s one area where a little process and model innovation should be welcomed by both utilities and Smart Grid vendors to drive down costs of doing business and accelerate introduction of solutions. 

The stakes are high, and it’s not a given that the Smart Grid will be built in the most intelligent and cost-effective ways, but the good news is that the great innovation engine called  Silicon Valley is going to be a real player in this game.

Exceptional Mission.  Employees in the land-line phone company had an obligation to deliver dial tone – even when the lights went out, and they had their own banks of batteries for back-up power so people could call to report electricity outages.  Failure was not an option.  And telecom resources were ignored and taken for granted– until you picked up a phone and didn’t have dial tone.  This same sense of mission is expressed by utility resources too – no one thinks about electricity until an outage, and electric utilities have an obligation to deliver power regardless of circumstances.  Utility resources have done an excellent job managing today’s electrical grid.   I sometimes see and hear bewilderment, frustration, and defensiveness in utility resources when talking about the traditional grid and the changes the Smart Grid will bring.  Lesson #1 – Change is not a criticism of past performance.  Be excited that electricity is something that will no longer be taken for granted.     

Monopoly Skills.  In 1980 you had no choice for local phone service except Ma Bell.  Phone company practices, policies, and processes were heavily influenced by state Public Utility Commissions and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).  The price of monopoly is regulation, and utilities are very good at interacting with regulators.  Another price of monopoly is the lack of utility skills in working in any other type of market.  Phone company resources had a steep learning curve to build knowledge about how to effectively communicate with customers and how to successfully introduce and manage a growing deluge of new technologies and services to customers while satisfying regulatory requirements.  It will be a painful climb for some utilities, but it can be accomplished faster and at less cost to ratepayers by learning from telecom industry experiences.  Lesson #2 – Hire outside talent to build corporate readiness for a transitioning marketplace.  Develop and deploy corporate-wide change management plans that address concerns of existing employees.

I’ll continue my observations about similarities next week after attending the ITExpo East Smart Grid Summit.

Let’s give a standing ovation to the Department of Energy.   The DOE’s new energy efficiency enforcement is producing positive results.  The DOE entered into a Consent Decree with Haier America, about a parts defect that caused certain freezers to consume more energy than reported to consumers.  The Consent Decree obligates Haier to notify affected consumers, repair defective units, add one year to warranties, and contribute $150,000 to the U.S. Treasury.  The manufacturer cooperated with the DOE investigation, and I hope that other manufacturers will do likewise, just like I hope that the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) takes some notes in case it contemplates fighting California Energy Commission energy efficiency standards again.  

The DOE had a huge response to its call for efficiency certification documentation – 600,000 residential appliances in 15 different product categories from 160 manufacturers submitted their data so far. The DOE will review compliance with minimum energy efficiency standards, and those products found lacking will be required to deliver the energy and cost savings required by law. 

I study HEMS solutions and always ask the HEMS manufacturers about the support model.  There is remarkable unanimity in their assertions that the utilities will take the first support calls – for HEMS web portal software and for IHDs.  The HEMS providers are confident that their solutions are so easy to use that support is quantified as a nominal increase in support calls.  Some of them go to great pains to develop friendly user interfaces.  But I have marketed, sold, and deployed many software applications in my career, and what is “a nominal increase in support calls” to a vendor may be dramatic increases in call volumes to utility customer contact centers.    

Regardless of the success of the introduction of a HEMS solution and associated IHDs, if the support model is inadequate, the end result will be frustrated ratepayers, lagging participation in crucial Demand Response and other energy conservation and energy efficiency programs, and more utility time and expense to fix these problems. 

Utilities that offer HEMS solutions to their customers need to include software and hardware support of the HEMS solution and IHDs into their Consumer Enlightenment Model.  Bring in consulting professionals with experience in contact centers, software support, and emerging technology introductions who are knowledgeable about Demand Response and Energy Efficiency programs.  Work with them to develop a fully integrated Consumer Enlightenment Model that aligns with utility objectives to reduce overall energy use during peak and non-peak times and manages not only the introduction, but the ongoing support of visible, disruptive, and extremely important HEMS solutions and their IHDs. 

Feds Step Up Enforcement of Appliance Reporting Standards

Energy efficiency was proclaimed to be “sexy” by President Obama just last week, and the days of lax enforcement of energy efficiency standards are thankfully at an end.  The Department of Energy (DOE) recently announced that January 8, 2010, is the deadline for manufacturers of certain residential products to submit accurate certification reports and compliance statements regarding energy efficiency.  A 30 day grace period lets the slackers correct their non-compliance without penalty. 

After January 8th, the DOE will begin enforcing these reporting requirements, including leveling civil penalties or fines for non-compliance. This covers reporting and certification requirements – not the actual energy efficiency standards, which are already subject to scrutiny by DOE.  The requirements include a certification report for each basic appliance model covered by the energy standards, along with a signed compliance statement.  You can access the DOE press release and fact sheet, and for even more info, here is the Web site for DOE’s Appliances and Commercial Equipment Standards Program.   To all the appliance manufacturers that have been playing by the rules all along, kudos to you.  To those manufacturers who treated the rules cavalierly, the playing field just got leveled.

HEMS solutions usually include some sort of In-Home Display (IHD) that communicates information that ranges from current electricity rates, home electricity consumption rates, and what I term “home operations metrics” like temperature and security status. These IHDs can be wall-mounted displays or standalone, battery-operated wireless displays, or even visual devices that simply glow a different color to indicate home consumption or real-time tariff rates.

In the current electrical grid, the utility’s relationship with a residential ratepayer ends at the meter, affixed to the outside of a home. Bills arrive after the fact – at a minimum a month after your electricity use. HEMS and IHDs completely disrupt this consumer engagement model, and offer the opportunity for utilities to extend their relationship inside the home with much richer content and real-time data. True, utilities have websites that consumers can visit, but this information is relatively static.

Smart Grid-enabled HEMS solutions can deliver information that residential users would find compelling – such as real-time billing information mentioned above, tailored suggestions about how to trim their electricity bills, offers for participation in demand response programs to reduce rates, and more. This information empowers consumers to make educated decisions in real-time about how to manage their electricity consumption. That’s the good news.

The bad news is that, operationally and culturally, utilities are not accustomed to selling to residential end users. They don’t inhabit a competitive world where they must fight for mindshare and market share. If you look at the take rate for utilities’ consumers to sign up for electronic billing as an indicator of their selling capabilities, it is abysmal. Only 17% of all residential utility customers have enrolled in electronic billing. In comparison, 40% of telecom customers have electronic billing. Clearly, there’s a problem in utility outreach and education to sell consumers on a program that has solid environmental and convenience benefits.

If utilities have low success rates in getting people to enroll in simple programs like electronic billing, then there are real challenges in communicating complex and layered messages about the benefits of HEMS solutions and associated IHDs. As I noted in last week’s blog about PG&E’s rollout of smart meters, residential end users will have the opportunity to have a very visible and very disruptive technology introduced in their homes. If it’s done well, not only do the utility rate payers benefit, but overall we all benefit from fast adoption of Smart Grid solutions. However, technology rollouts that result in confusion, opposition, and lawsuits have negative impacts on everyone.

Utilities are depending on HEMS solutions to enable widespread participation in demand response and energy reduction programs. The stakes couldn’t be higher to plan and conduct effective rollouts of these HEMS applications, starting with clear messaging about the benefits of HEMS solutions to average residential customers. Not every consumer embraces change – especially when we have all been conditioned to regard electricity as a cheap and plentiful commodity that doesn’t require much attention on our part. However, we can be educated to welcome changes such as smart meters and HEMS solutions, as some utilities have successfully demonstrated.
HEMS rollouts must clearly articulate the benefits to end users – what’s in it for them, what’s required of them, how to get more information, how to get support when things break, and examples of what the solution looks like and options for IHDs. A successful HEMS rollout requires a sophisticated sales and marketing strategy. Next week’s blog will explore some of the key tactics in a successful strategy.

Flat Panel TVs Get Energy Efficiency Standards in California
Break out the Champagne for the bold decision by the California Energy Commission (CEC) in approving new energy efficiency standards for TV sets sold in California!
Recent blogs (see archives: October 12th and 26th, November 2nd and 9th) covered the brouhaha that the CEA and some TV manufacturers created with the usual scare tactics about job loss, economic disaster to businesses, and all the other assorted ills that have been projected with every previous CEC energy efficiency standard. Fortunately, the CEC knows from actual experience that these standards improve economic conditions – for California consumers who will enjoy reduced operating costs (i.e. electricity bills). In energy efficiency matters, other states often adopt the CEC rules, so here’s hoping that this positive trend to reduce energy consumption continues across the nation.

This forum, and others like it that encourage collaboration between universities, utilities, vendors, and governmental agencies, have the opportunity to get outside of traditional mindsets and to think differently about solutions that deliver on the vision of the Smart Grid – a fully bi-directional electric and communications network, as defined in the Smart Grid Dictionary.  The challenges are complex.  The existing grid in the USA was designed to meet the following expectations:

• deliver a one-way flow of electricity from centralized, utility-scale generation to a meter
• design processes and tools to manage electricity production from steady-state sources

The Smart Grid will include significant amounts of energy production from sources like wind and solar, which are clean and renewable, but stochastic sources.  (Stochastic means random variability, and that’s why the charts you see showing wind or solar production usually look like most stock market charts – which drives the agencies responsible for reliable electricity production crazy.)   It will also integrate distributed generation sources to the grid, which can range from neighborhood or campus-based sites to every residence with excess solar capacity.  Everything from modeling software and standards to the actual transmission and distribution equipment that handles bi-directional electricity flows has to be created and deployed.  In addition to these technology challenges, utilities also face questions from regulatory agencies with missions to protect rate-payers.  Even traditional processes will have to change to accommodate the changes coming with the Smart Grid. 

The UCLA WINSmartGrid Connection promises to be an interesting day –long session that explores promising technologies, the DOE and National Lab Smart Grid visions, and stimulus funding.   Their focus on wireless communications technologies, including RFID and RF sensors, is particularly intriguing, as well as their discussion on cap and trade impacts on the future Smart Grid.  The telemetry information that RFID can deliver has real possibilities in solutions that help manage the overall reliability of transmission and distribution in the Smart Grid.   It’s a good step in the direction of developing game-changing technologies. 

Game-changing Thinking

If you want some cheese with that “whine”, plan to attend the November 4 California Energy Commission public hearing to consider adoption of TV energy efficiency standards.   Will we hear more from the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) about how these standards will hurt the California economy?  Probably.  Will we also get a reprise of the opinion that the government should really bail out electricity guzzling TV manufacturers with a cash for TV clunkers program?   No kidding – that was proposed by Panasonic.   

As previously blogged, there are currently 21 categories of appliances covered by California’s energy efficiency standards.  TVs are a worthy inclusion to that list – the average household has 4 of them!  Click here for more information about the hearing. 

It would be so refreshing and yes, game-changing, to see an industry association like the CEA thinking long term about the future of the planet instead of short-term about certain members’ bottom lines.  However, that doesn’t appear to be in their game plan.  My game plan is to put Panasonic and the other manufacturers that oppose the CEC proposal on my “Do not buy” list.  If sufficient numbers of consumers make energy efficiency part of their game plan, that will be game-changing thinking too. 

This concept is summed up as the Negawatt – defined in the Smart Grid Dictionary as the “watts of energy saved through a reduction in energy use or increase in energy efficiency.  It is the greenest form of energy.” 

California is a leader in Negawatts.  As previously noted in my October 12 blog, the California Energy Commission (CEC) has defined energy efficiency standards for appliances sold and used in California since 1976.  The results of those actions are that per person, annual electricity consumption in California has remained steady at 7,000 kWh while electricity consumption has risen to 12,000 kWh in the rest of the USA. 

What this means is that Californians are not wasting money on electricity-guzzling appliances.  However, 35 million devices are omitted from that appliance list – California TVs.  The CEC wants to remedy this gap in the standards with regulations for TVs sold and used in California.  Docket # 09-AAER-1C Appliance Efficiency Regulations Pertaining to Television Efficiency contains the information about the regulation under consideration.

This standards proposal is facing fierce opposition from the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA).  In keeping with Halloween, they are filling editorial pages with fear and gloom – this regulation will kill retail jobs. 

Could an EnergyGuide label, which would identify annual operating  costs (electricity consumption) for a TV and also rank that TV’s overall energy efficiency on a scale of best to least efficient force Californians to drive across state borders to buy “bootleg” TVs from Nevada, Oregon, or Arizona?  According to this logic, Californians must be doing this already for all of the other appliances covered by CEC EnergyGuide standards since 1976. 

Today I counted 26 appliance stores within a 10 mile radius of my Bay Area zip code, ranging from small businesses to large national chains.  Californians are still buying appliances locally, and perhaps they appreciate that their annual operating costs for these appliances are lower as a result of the energy efficiency standards.

The CEA opposition does raise a couple of questions.  Why oppose it?  Over 1000 TV sets already qualify for the standards that would be imposed in 2011.  Some manufacturers, like Vizio, support the standards.  The CEA claims that an energy efficiency standard would “stifle innovation”.   Wouldn’t it also promote innovation in designs that reduced energy consumption, innovations that could probably be extended to other uses too?

May the most energy-efficient manufacturers win – because it’s a triple win.   It means more Negawatts out there, it means reduced need for more power plants and it means reduced TV operating costs for every consumer.

The Smart Grid takes energy efficiency to new levels of savings, as noted in an October 20 press release.  Manufacturers like GE and Whirlpool are participating in the recently launched Smart Green Grid Initiative (SGGI), a collaborative industry association that demonstrates the role of smart grid technologies and practices in the achievement of climate change goals.  One of the ways to do that is through energy efficiency and smart appliances that can communicate with the electrical grid.  I didn’t see the CEA on that list of enlightened manufacturers and industry associations.

And with Halloween in mind – like many other appliances, TVs are energy vampires.  Even when you turn them off, they are still drawing power.  The only way to cut the power completely is to unplug them, or put them on power strips that have “kill” switches for complete cessation of power draws.  You can buy dumb power strips for as little as $6 and see an ROI in as little as a month.  If you do have some devices that MUST be drawing electricity 24X7, there are intelligent power strips available that accommodate those needs too.  The bottom line is that these are simple steps for residential electricity customers to save some money, generate Negawatts, and reduce carbon footprints.

Here’s a list of products that are not independently tested and certified for energy consumption: 

• TVs
• Computers
• Refrigerators
• Washing machines
• Water heaters
• Dishwashers
• Room air conditioners
• Doors
• Skylights

 At this time, the Department of Energy (DOE) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have only required a few products to be independently tested, including windows, LED, and fluorescent lighting devices.   However, when almost all of the devices tested qualify for an Energy Star rating, a common occurrence for compact fluorescent lights, then there is something wrong with the evaluation standards too. 

 The Energy Star program is also behind the times in terms of categories of products.  Currently, game consoles are not evaluated.  A 2008 study by NRDC reports that one PlayStation or Xbox powered 24X7 consumes as much energy as two new refrigerators each year.   (Side note:  legislation – the Green Gaming Act of 2009 – was introduced in September with the support of the video gaming industry and environmental groups to require the DOE to study energy usage and determine if energy efficiency standards should be set.)

 There’s great opportunity for improvement in the Energy Star program, which is suffering from a lack of integrity, low or outdated evaluation criteria, and insufficient coverage of consumer devices.  The Energy Star program needs dramatic changes to deliver on its original mission to identify and promote energy-efficient products that reduce greenhouse gases.  A recent agreement between the DOE and the EPA takes a couple of steps in the right direction – these two agencies that jointly administer the Energy Star program agreed to institute testing by independent labs and expand the categories of products that are tested.  That’s the good news.  The bad news is that no date was identified for these changes to be effected.   

 The DOE and EPA need to seriously consider raising the bar on what constitutes an energy-efficient device.  Should all products qualify?  Probably not, since it makes it difficult for consumers to properly evaluate the pros and cons of devices.  The agreement referenced above talks about creating a super star ranking for the top 5% of energy-efficient products.   Huh?  The EPA already spends a significant amount of time and money educating the public about the Energy Star program.  Is it really wise to make the program more complex and complicate the messaging?  Why not use the current Energy Star logo, readily recognized by consumers in the USA, and make it exclusively apply to only the top 5% of independently-tested and certified energy-efficient products in any category?  That action will go a long way to restoring program integrity, raising the bar to manufacturers to design ever more innovative energy-saving features, and really reducing energy consumption costs for consumers.   

 And finally, the Energy Star program should prioritize on the devices that consume the most energy on the electrical grid.  According to information from EPRI, TVs, lighting, and refrigerators have the greatest potential for energy savings.  Doing this will help us collectively reduce overall energy requirements on the grid, and eliminate the need for additional power plants.

The TV industry opposition seems so drearily familiar to other industries that have complained about other regulations.  Some readers will recall the vehemence that met seat belt regulations and requirements for catalytic converters.  The auto industry made a number of wild claims about them that turned out to not be true.

Here’s a little history lesson:  In 1976 the CEC first set standards for appliances sold and used in California.  The results of those standards are that per person, annual electricity consumption in California has remained steady at 7,000 kWh.  For the rest of America, electricity consumption has risen by 40% to 12,000 kWh.  Reduced consumption of electricity means reduced energy bills.  Reduced consumption of electricity means avoidance of building power plants.

In California, TVs, DVRs, DVDs, and cable/satellite boxes consume 10% of a home’s electricity.  The standards that the CEC proposes would apply to new TVs sold after January 1, 2011, and would reduce energy consumption by 33%.  A second tier of standards proposed for 2013 would bump up the reductions in energy consumption to 49%.  That ka-ching sound you hear is money you can save in operating costs.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) also announced changes for TVs seeking Energy Star compliance in September 2009 – they must be 40% more energy efficient than conventional models starting May 1, 2010.  In May 2012, the rules require that an Energy Star-labeled TV must be 65% more efficient than current models.  The Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) expressed concern about the EPA focus on energy consumption rather than energy efficiency.  Why are they concerned?  Given the propensity for consumers to purchase ever larger TV sets, it is important for us to understand the true impacts of our purchase decisions with regards to electricity use.  Did you know that a 42 inch LCD TV uses less electricity than a 42 inch plasma TV?  Did you know that an old technology like a cathode ray tube (CRT) only uses .23 watts per square inch versus the LCD’s .27 watts per square inch?  Did you know that a new flat panel TV typically consumes more electricity than your refrigerator?  Considering that TVs are operated for an average of 5 hours every day, the use of TVs that are electricity guzzlers will add up – and impact not only your wallet but the overall electricity requirements of your local utility.

Given the success of the current CEC energy efficiency standards, we really need similar standards for TVs.  However, one really important piece of information is missing for consumers mulling over purchase decisions for TVs.  There are no EnergyGuide labels on TVs.  Yes, the ubiquitous label on many other appliances does not exist for TVs.  The EnergyGuide label tells you the yearly electricity requirements for the product in question and also ranks that product’s overall energy efficiency on a scale of best to worst (most energy efficient to least energy efficient).  EnergyGuide labels help consumers calculate annual operating costs and provide invaluable information for consumers who want to buy energy efficient products for their green benefits and to save money.  Why isn’t there an EnergyGuide label for TVs?

That’s a separate battle to be fought, but in the meantime, the CEC is taking a good first step with its hearing on Tuesday, October 13 about electricity use in TVs.