This is the GOOD about California’s Smart Grid plans – it’s a public process that invites an open exchange of views about the roadmap for a successful and cost-effective Smart Grid in this state, which often serves as a template for other states. It included a great deal of discussion about what is in the average residential ratepayer’s best interests – and the aspects of the Smart Grid that benefit consumers.

The BAD is that decisions have to be made quickly, and in advance of cyber security and interoperability standards recommendations coming from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). It’s becoming a common theme – everyone is waiting for these standards recommendations, everyone wants state and Federal regulators to establish policies, but regulators are reluctant to pick winners and losers.

The UGLY is a sad, cynical and manipulative ploy by one of the three California IOUs to squash competition from municipal utilities. That utility is PG&E. It is sponsoring and investing more than $25 million dollars in a misleadingly-named “Taxpayers Right to Vote Act” also known as Proposition 16. This proposition requires that 2/3s of voters must approve any local government’s provisioning of electricity through a municipal utility. Why is this ugly? First, it contravenes the proposed California Smart Grid roadmap’s goals of accommodating all generation and storage options. Second, it directly counters another roadmap objective to enable electricity markets to flourish. PG&E definitely does not want alternative markets organized around Community Choice in California that could compete with them. Third, it is blatantly unenlightened behavior from a utility that had the courage to divorce the Chamber of Commerce for its “extreme position on climate change”. Does PG&E have an evil twin that is currently running the show?

Shout out to the EPA and DOE
The US Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Energy are strengthening the ENERGY STAR program as noted in previous blogs. New testing is underway on six of the major electricity consumers in average American homes, and new ongoing verification testing will ensure continued compliance in addition to the third party testing already put into place. The appliances are freezers, refrigerator-freezers, clothes washers, dishwashers, water heaters and room air conditioners.

In addition, the DOE has been aggressively stepping up enforcement of Energy Star standards, requiring manufacturers to actually comply with these standards, and revoking the ENERGY STAR label from non-compliant products. This is all good news for American consumers, because the ENERGY STAR program is well-known and trusted to guide purchasing decisions. Beefed up enforcement will save consumers money – estimated to be $250 – $300 billion in savings over the next 30 years. Now that’s what I call a good use of taxpayer money. For more information, click here.

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.