Cal. Rejects Demand for Withdrawal of Energy Limits on DTV Adaptors
The Cal. Energy Commission (CEC) rejected the CE industry’s charge it was engaged in “product development” by getting consultants to put together a digital converter box that meets the Commission’s energy savings and cost requirements. “What we are doing is following through with their [industry] suggestion that we do more economic and engineering analysis of what is feasible and cost effective,” a Commission spokesman said. The industry had called the Commission’s action of hiring people with “taxpayer money” to do product development “alarming and appalling” (CED May 15 p2).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
The Commission won’t withdraw the converter box regulation as demanded by the industry, the spokesman said. The Commission, he said, is doing a “good faith analysis” and the industry seems to “want to put a negative spin on everything we do.” The Commission’s “engineering and economic analysis” will help it understand what the converter boxes’ components are and whether it “performs the functions that are needed” when the components are put together, he said. The Commission at its May 24 meeting will withdraw the one-year delay proposed last month in the effective date for compliance with converter box energy limits. The date for industry compliance will be Jan. 2007, but the rulemaking will continue, he said: “What we intend on doing is to continue to investigate power requirements for digital television adapters and their costs… in the coming months and then we will make a decision about how to change the regulations if needed.”
A “complete” withdrawal of the converter box regulation is the “only justifiable and appropriate” action by the Commission because it’s “premature” and “detrimental” to the digital transition, said CEA Senior Dir.-Technology Policy Douglas Johnson. Referring to the Commission’s “engineering and economic” analysis of converter boxes, he said there’s a “big difference” between the CEC’s development of a prototype converter box and the development by the industry of a “viable product that is tested in the marketplace.” If the Commission is interested in the energy use of the boxes, he said, it should retract its regulation and join national efforts led by the industry and the U.S. EPA, he added.
Meanwhile, energy efficiency advocates are facing increasing resistence from lawmakers to legislative mandates for CE products, including digital converter boxes, they told us. Many of the states want to follow the example of Mass., which removed CE products from the list of appliances targeted for energy consumption limits, said Isaac Elnecave of the Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnership (NEEP), which has focused more on digital converter boxes in recent years. Except for N.Y., which passed legislation covering CE products and DTV boxes, states aren’t “really interested” in CE products, he told us.
“We have recognized the same trend as well,” said CEA’s Johnson. States that considered CE products among other appliances for energy standards later rejected mandates for electronics, he added. Among reasons for that, he said, was increased awareness of the efficacy of U.S. EPA’s voluntary Energy Star program and the industry’s own standard setting efforts. NEEP’s model legislation that was moving this year in Mass., R.I., and Vt. were shorn of DTV converter boxes and other electronics.
But in N.Y., as in Cal., the industry may be hard pressed to stave off limits on energy consumption for audio and video products and converter boxes. Environmental groups contend the state is obliged under the law passed last year to set standards for CE products and the DTV boxes. “At this point, the letter of the law states very specifically that we need to have standards for converter boxes and other CE products,” said Elnecave: “So we need to proceed with that.” In Cal., he said, the enabling legislation merely authorized the CEC to consider setting standards for CE products and converter boxes. “But that’s not the case” in N.Y., he added. Saying he didn’t want to venture an interpretation of the N.Y. law, CEA’s Johnson said from the Cal. experience a “lot of information” has emerged that questions whether state mandated standards make sense for CE products. The environmental groups “can say what they wish,” he said: “I guess we will know [the status] as we move forward.”
NEEP, which is part of the committee advising the N.Y. State Energy Research & Development Authority on standards, believes Cal. is a “good starting place” for N.Y.’s standards, said Elnecave. But N.Y. should craft its own legislation suited to its own conditions, he added. For instance, he said, N.Y. has higher energy prices than Cal. and has “significant bottlenecks” in electricity. That means N.Y. could end up with more stringent limits than Cal., he added. Asked about industry’s argument that standards on converter boxes could drive up costs and disrupt the digital conversion, he said the industry’s cost estimates have always been higher than that of environmental groups and state agencies. For groups like his, Elnacave said, “cost effectiveness” of a product would be a consideration in recommending standards. “The standard should ensure that savings in electricity would be more than the cost increase in the product. That is really the criteria.”