California Adopts First U.S. Energy-Saving Rules For Computers

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
California has adopted the country's first mandatory energy efficiency rules for computers and monitors. The new rules take effect in January 2019 for desktop, laptop and notebook computers.

California regulators on Wednesday adopted the nation's first mandatory energy efficiency rules for computers and monitors - devices that account for 3 percent of home electric bills and 7 percent of commercial power costs in the state. The state Energy Commission said that when fully implemented the industry-backed plan will save consumers $373 million a year and conserve at least as much electricity annually as it takes to power all of San Francisco's households.
 
Maybe it would be better if CA just fixed all the power generation problems they've created in order to "save people money". We pay 30 to 40 cents a kw/h out here while places such as Texas pay 8 cents. In CA if you use more power you get penalized, in TX if you use more power you get a discount. Basically everything in the world, if you buy in volume or bulk you get a discount. CA somehow managed to go the other way. Great job California!!!
 
The idle power usage of computers is already really, really low as long as you have something built in the last 4-5 years.. and even then, you can go back a few more years and stuff was even pretty efficient as far as power usage goes.

The kicker:
The standards will add about $14 to average retail costs of desktops, which are far less energy efficient than laptops, but will save consumers more than $40 in electric bills over five years, according to commission estimates.
Click to expand...

Ohhhhh.. an estimated $8 savings per year on a power bill in CA?????

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
 
cyclone3d said:
The idle power usage of computers is already really, really low as long as you have something built in the last 4-5 years.. and even then, you can go back a few more years and stuff was even pretty efficient as far as power usage goes.

The kicker:


Ohhhhh.. an estimated $8 savings per year on a power bill in CA?????

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Click to expand...

This seems like a way to get those old Pentium Duals, Pentium D's, and Athlon 64 x2's out of circulation. Even Core 2 Duos are power hungry compared to today's chips.
 
What a lot of these energy savings initiatives tend to forget is TCO. As in switching things on and off can lead to early failure which requires a several hundred dollar replacement all for a savings of maybe $8/yr. This has been my experience with compact florescent light bulbs. Sure they use less power, but they cost 10 times as much and can't withstand even one year outside.
 
For every watt this saves I'm going to overclock my 290Xs further. Also the article didn't mention any actual requirements just a vague mention of idle states.
 
<sarcasm>

Can't wait for the "approved" list of computers and monitors (and whether you can have 2 SSDs or only 1).

</sarcasm>
 
JosiahBradley said:
Also the article didn't mention any actual requirements just a vague mention of idle states.
Click to expand...
Yeah, the article neglects to include any verifiable sources, but makes claims like "In California, computers and monitors draw an estimated 5,610 gigawatt-hours of energy per year - representing roughly 3 percent of residential electric bills and 7 percent of power costs for commercial users - much of that while the devices sit idle."
Even my nearly 10 year old Dell 3007wfp-hc monitor only uses 3w at idle. Good luck improving that by any significant amount.
 
I think this regulation is totally ridiculous. Everyone is extremely conscious of computer power usage. We all want computers that use less power, the batteries can go for longer, need less cooling, etc. I like being able to use the same power supply year after year with much improved computing by replacing parts.

Even in a server farm, you want best performance per watt.

Really unneeded.
 
ruffbytes said:
I think this regulation is totally ridiculous. Everyone is extremely conscious of computer power usage. We all want computers that use less power, the batteries can go for longer, need less cooling, etc. I like being able to use the same power supply year after year with much improved computing by replacing parts.

Even in a server farm, you want best performance per watt.

Really unneeded.
Click to expand...

Do you read the [H] forum at all ?
There is plenty of people here that don't care about the utility bill.

I for once thinks its a good initiative/idea, however execution can still be horrible.
Considering the statets are some of the most energy wasting countries in the west i would applaud more focus on energy consumption reduction.
 
I am betting that is whole idea is being driven by money and NOT by CA actually caring about people saving $8 a year on their power bill.

1. Increase cost of each computer - check
2. Increase amount of profit for computer mfgs - check
3. Increase amount of TAXES being paid per computer - check

If anybody has any solid evidence to suggest otherwise, I am all ears.
 
cyclone3d said:
The idle power usage of computers is already really, really low as long as you have something built in the last 4-5 years.. and even then, you can go back a few more years and stuff was even pretty efficient as far as power usage goes.

The kicker:


Ohhhhh.. an estimated $8 savings per year on a power bill in CA?????

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Click to expand...

Not only that, but the industry has already been pushing hard for power efficiency, it's not like this was a problem the government needed to "fix". They ever state in the story that almost all computers used and all those already sold already meet the new rules...but because of everything will end up adding costs, for a POSSIBLE savings of $40 over 5 YEARS, minus the $18 extra added to the cost, so $22 savings, if you only get a new computer every 5 years....Minus the cost of passing, implementing and enforcing these new rules.

What is funny, they don't say where these savings come from, as computers, as stated, already meet the requirements and these are ones already in use, not new ones being sold now. So how do rules, that match what computers are already capable of save you money, when the new rules will add cost?

This is the kind of stuff they are basing theses rules on:

"Desktop computers use about 45 times as much energy as a laptop because they are not optimized for energy efficiency," said Pierre Delforge, director of high-tech sector energy efficiency at the NRDC. "They're plugged in all the time and have access to virtually unlimited power from the wall and don't have capacity constraints."

Can you get any more FUD than that?

I think this stated it best:

"The Consumer Technology Association says the CEC regulations are not needed, claiming the quickly-evolving computer industry has improved energy efficiency through voluntary agreements.

CTA points to peer-reviewed studies it commissioned showing a 40 percent drop in power consumption in computer monitors and a 15 percent drop for desktops between 2010 and 2013.

"Four years (since the CEC took up the issue) is a long time to try and figure out how to force-fit a regulatory regime on a fast-moving industry," said Doug Johnson, CTA's vice president of technology policy. "When you take that kind of approach to the tech industry, you're essentially regulating through the rear-view mirror."

Another great gem from all of this is they are assuming a static power efficiency of devices, while an ever shrinking requirement, even though new computers already meet these rules and have been getting better and better. In other words, they are taking an industry who has been improving, placing new laws that match those improvements, and claiming the savings from those improvements as a result of the law. Wow....Just WOW.
 
I had to click through because I wanted to see if CA was going to do something stupid like the EU's proposed energy limits for computers. Thankfully, it's not even close. As mentioned by others, many of these things are already in effect in new computers. Crappy low end and mid range models (the bulk of sales) will probably require these changes.

tl;dr for the CEC blog post and FAQ:
There's 3 main parts...
1. idle and sleep/off power consumption on PCs and servers have lower targets. Active use power consumption has no limits. These seem to be things changes to the motherboard and PSU would fix, and many computers already have very low sleep/off power consumption.
2. California is mandating something similar to https://www.energystar.gov/products/spec/displays_specification_version_6_0_pd for monitors, phased in over a few years. Specialty monitors are exempted, although after a few years those also have lower energy targets.
3. ethernet (switches) have to use lower power. Not sure if this includes home models, but it may.

Seventyfive said:
Maybe it would be better if CA just fixed all the power generation problems they've created in order to "save people money". We pay 30 to 40 cents a kw/h out here while places such as Texas pay 8 cents. In CA if you use more power you get penalized, in TX if you use more power you get a discount. Basically everything in the world, if you buy in volume or bulk you get a discount. CA somehow managed to go the other way. Great job California!!!
Click to expand...
I pay 12 cents/KWh in CA because I wasn't stupid enough to support "deregulated" power that only benefited companies that were out to gouge customers. It's not due to that (actually it's because I have a municipal power company which legally can't gouge customers), although my opposition to deregulation would have saved people like you money if more voters also rejected it. The effect of deregulation is that it tripled electricity costs for people like you, and sometimes it can spike even higher. Live and learn, I guess. :D
 
SvenBent said:
Do you read the [H] forum at all ?
There is plenty of people here that don't care about the utility bill.
Click to expand...

I don't think any of us run stock computers. We'll continue building our crazy PCs that use a lot more power than average. For us, this law probably doesn't matter.

It is a fair point though that some people just don't care.
 
I'm reading some of the comments and analysis that went into the rules that were adopted. Most of the power saving tweaks for desktop systems are configuration settings and changes to improve PSU power efficiency at lower loads. The former things are under the user's control if they want to change it. The latter is the biggest change, and isn't a bad idea. The figures in one paper increased the efficiency at lower loads from 60% to 70%. While that seems small, it adds up on the millions of PCs every year. (One statistic showed how the desktop market has collapsed the last several years: laptops outsell desktops about 2:1 now. That's surprising given how many businesses still use desktops... they must be aging.)

Some are common sense, and I think the savings may be overstated. But I do think that lazy designs that make some LCDs more power hungry than they should be is a great change.

drescherjm said:
What about speeds higher than 1GBit / s?
Click to expand...
The reduction of power comes from improvements to efficiency. What speed it runs at isn't the issue. There have been ways to significantly improve switch power efficiency for half a decade that largely haven't been implemented. The CEC is trying to kick start that, it seems.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: dgz
like this
ruffbytes said:
I don't think any of us run stock computers. We'll continue building our crazy PCs that use a lot more power than average. For us, this law probably doesn't matter.

It is a fair point though that some people just don't care.
Click to expand...

None of these people care. It states in the document, almost all the power savings comes from idle power draw, if the people REALLY cared about that $20 savings over 5 years, they would just turn off the computer when not using it.
 
SvenBent said:
Do you read the [H] forum at all ?
There is plenty of people here that don't care about the utility bill.

I for once thinks its a good initiative/idea, however execution can still be horrible.
Considering the statets are some of the most energy wasting countries in the west i would applaud more focus on energy consumption reduction.
Click to expand...
The Hard forum represents a very small and niche community. The rest of the world don't care much about performance otherwise no one would be buying Mac then.
 
pxc said:
I'm reading some of the comments and analysis that went into the rules that were adopted. Most of the power saving tweaks for desktop systems are configuration settings and changes to improve PSU power efficiency at lower loads. The former things are under the user's control if they want to change it. The latter is the biggest change, and isn't a bad idea. The figures in one paper increased the efficiency at lower loads from 60% to 70%. While that seems small, it adds up on the millions of PCs every year. (One statistic showed how the desktop market has collapsed the last several years: laptops outsell desktops about 2:1 now. That's surprising given how many businesses still use desktops... they must be aging.)

Some are common sense, and I think the savings may be overstated. But I do think that lazy designs that make some LCDs more power hungry than they should be is a great change.

The reduction of power comes from improvements to efficiency. What speed it runs at isn't the issue. There have been ways to significantly improve switch power efficiency for half a decade that largely haven't been implemented. The CEC is trying to kick start that, it seems.
Click to expand...

And in turn, the switches and computers will communicate with each other to find the lowest power possible to use in order to maintain the correct link speed.

And that will lead to all sorts of issues with them lowering the power too much because that kind of crap happens all the time with regulation mandated specifications.

All for what.. maybe a 1w savings per switch port?

As far as power supplies go, the more efficient they are, generally the higher the cost is. What is the general user going to do when the PSU on their computer costs as much as the rest of the components put together because of dumb mandates like this by people who have no clue about how stuff actually works are the ones who make the rules?

The power saving states for the hardware is already pretty amazing... but sure, let's introduce some even lower clock modes to try to shave off another 1-2w draw for the whole system under low load.

There is such a thing as diminishing returns that you really can't get away from.

And the computer companies are already highly energy savings conscious. These regulations are pretty much pointless for all intents and purposes because of what the companies are already doing.

Other than the sneak to milk more money out of customers and to be able to pat themselves on the back and increase their "bonuses", there is absolutely no reason for this.
 
Steve said:
California has adopted the country's first mandatory energy efficiency rules for computers and monitors. The new rules take effect in January 2019 for desktop, laptop and notebook computers.

California regulators on Wednesday adopted the nation's first mandatory energy efficiency rules for computers and monitors - devices that account for 3 percent of home electric bills and 7 percent of commercial power costs in the state. The state Energy Commission said that when fully implemented the industry-backed plan will save consumers $373 million a year and conserve at least as much electricity annually as it takes to power all of San Francisco's households.
Click to expand...

The entire DoD has had energy saving rules in place regarding lights and automation equipment for over 20 years. California is far far behind the Federal Government in this regard.
 
cyclone3d said:
And in turn, the switches and computers will communicate with each other to find the lowest power possible to use in order to maintain the correct link speed.
Click to expand...
No, not necessarily in turn. You're presuming these rules are meant to limit performance, when it specifically goes out of the way to state that it's not. It's not trying to decrease performance, it's trying to improve efficiency from relatively minor tweaks to those classes of devices, with the largest potential savings coming from desktops: servers/desktops/laptops, monitors, ethernet switches.

You're going on a far tangent not related to what was passed. :p
 
amddragonpc said:
<sarcasm>

Can't wait for the "approved" list of computers and monitors (and whether you can have 2 SSDs or only 1).

</sarcasm>
Click to expand...


They'll have to finalize the list of peripherals that make an Assault Computer;

Non-Integrated Video Card ..... Check
Gaming Mouse ........................ Check
Mechanical Keyboard ............. Check
Monitor with greater than 1080P resolution ...... two Checks for that bitch
 
To everyone bitching about this

1) Do you live in California?
if No, then STFU already
if Yes, do you seriously buy computers from retail establishments and don't buy online?
if No, then STFU already it won't affect you
if Yes, then STFU already and turn in your [H]-card
 
sfsuphysics said:
To everyone bitching about this

1) Do you live in California?
if No, then STFU already
if Yes, do you seriously buy computers from retail establishments and don't buy online?
if No, then STFU already it won't affect you
if Yes, then STFU already and turn in your [H]-card
Click to expand...


xYOmozo.png
 
sfsuphysics said:
To everyone bitching about this

1) Do you live in California?
if No, then STFU already
if Yes, do you seriously buy computers from retail establishments and don't buy online?
if No, then STFU already it won't affect you
if Yes, then STFU already and turn in your [H]-card
Click to expand...

how about you grow up and piss off...
 
sfsuphysics said:
To everyone bitching about this

1) Do you live in California?
if No, then STFU already
if Yes, do you seriously buy computers from retail establishments and don't buy online?
if No, then STFU already it won't affect you
if Yes, then STFU already and turn in your [H]-card
Click to expand...

People from anywhere, even outside the country can debate this, get off your high horse.
Buy online? What does that have to do with anything? Just like parts that are not CARB or the like that can not be sold in cali, some guns, or accessories for guns like mags etc can't even be shipped to a cali address.
Just because people buy a off the shelf computer does not mean they are not into tech/gaming or the like.
 
Give sfsuphysics some room, I was having fun poking at his home State. We can let him flex a little, it's all in fun.

Don't take him so serious, he doesn't (y) :ROFLMAO:

I had too mate, really just playing :notworthy:
 
Seventyfive said:
Maybe it would be better if CA just fixed all the power generation problems they've created in order to "save people money". We pay 30 to 40 cents a kw/h out here while places such as Texas pay 8 cents. In CA if you use more power you get penalized, in TX if you use more power you get a discount. Basically everything in the world, if you buy in volume or bulk you get a discount. CA somehow managed to go the other way. Great job California!!!
Click to expand...

While this thing is completely silly. You want people to use less power and be more efficient. Cheaper electricity is the opposite of that.
 
Shintai said:
While this thing is completely silly. You want people to use less power and be more efficient. Cheaper electricity is the opposite of that.
Click to expand...


Umm, no he is saying to use more power and let volume keep costs down.

If you use less power, you won't be a prime consumer, you won't get discounts for volume, you will pay more per kilowatt hour. That is what he is saying. That is the problem he is highlighting.

That by trying to be frugal in your power usage, you are raising your cost per unit. That doesn't mean you have to actually waste power, but you should use what you need to use and let normal demand speak for your service needs.
 
Gweenz said:
This seems like a way to get those old Pentium Duals, Pentium D's, and Athlon 64 x2's out of circulation. Even Core 2 Duos are power hungry compared to today's chips.
Click to expand...

Only applies to new computers.


DocSavage said:
What a lot of these energy savings initiatives tend to forget is TCO. As in switching things on and off can lead to early failure which requires a several hundred dollar replacement all for a savings of maybe $8/yr. This has been my experience with compact florescent light bulbs. Sure they use less power, but they cost 10 times as much and can't withstand even one year outside.
Click to expand...

I was buying compact florescent for as low as 25 cents a bulb due to electric company subsidies. While some die after less than a year, many are still working 7+ years later. Never bothered trying to collect on the warranty for earlier failures since it would have cost more to ship the bad bulbs back than to just buy new ones.

I still have a shelf full of compact florescent bulbs, even though I've switched our most used lights to LED's, also bought on clearance or subsidized at less than $3/bulb. Doubt I'll ever buy another compact florescent or older incadesent bulb, since I have plenty of spares.
 
pxc said:
I pay 12 cents/KWh in CA because I wasn't stupid enough to support "deregulated" power that only benefited companies that were out to gouge customers. It's not due to that (actually it's because I have a municipal power company which legally can't gouge customers), although my opposition to deregulation would have saved people like you money if more voters also rejected it. The effect of deregulation is that it tripled electricity costs for people like you, and sometimes it can spike even higher. Live and learn, I guess. :D
Click to expand...

Actually they never did deregulate power. All they did was change how it was regulated and allowed some companies (including municipal power companies) to game the system until it collapsed.
 
Fairly in effective regardless, as the world can't cater to CA's specific needs. I suppose they do not understand that computers use parts built by a multitude of companies in various countries. And in a lot of areas there just is not much competition; Intel and AMD for one. The idea of a manufacture making specific CA computer products is laughable. It just isn't practical and manufactures are already trying their hardest to reduce power over anything else.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top