|
 uring
the tragedies of September 11th, our new technologies delivered
extraordinary value. E-mails sent to handheld devices carried by
people in the World Trade Center helped some to escape. Cell-phone
calls alerted passengers on the fourth hijacked plane that the other
three had been crashed into major buildings, and led to the heroic
takeover of an aircraft likely headed towards the U.S. Capitol or
White House. Fiber-optic cable and satellites conveyed a stream
of information that saved lives and prevented panic in ways that
would have been impossible even a decade ago.
Given this bravura performance by technology, it would be folly
to allow the political aftermath of the attacks to impede continued
improvement. But this just may happen if a host of proposed federal
energy-conservation measures are enacted.
Even before September 11th, an effort was underway to regulate the
energy used by high-tech electronic devices. On that very day, a
Department of Energy (DOE) hearing on the future of energy-conservation
standards — abruptly ended after an hour when news of the disasters
arrived — lasted long enough for the agency to pass around
a list of potential new regulatory targets. It included desktop
personal computers, monitors, servers, laser and inkjet printers,
and other consumer and office electronics.
In addition, the House version of the energy bill, passed last August,
restricts "standby power," the energy used by electronic
devices when not in actual use. If enacted, these measures would
adversely affect products that use standby power for such functions
as storing programmed information for later use, providing instant-on
capability, or maintaining access to the Internet.
Now, in the aftermath of the attacks, the mantra of "energy
security" has triggered even stronger calls for conservation
standards. It is possible that a host of consumer electronics will
soon join more than a dozen lower tech items — refrigerators,
clothes washers and dryers, air conditioners, water heaters, fluorescent
lighting, and others — that are subject to DOE energy regulations.
The track record of these existing measures is mediocre. Appliance
standards have slightly raised energy efficiency levels beyond what
would have likely prevailed in their absence. But these regulations
have increased the cost of affected appliances, and in some cases
have adversely impacted product choice, features, performance, and
reliability.
Extending this scheme to high-tech electronics would pose similar
risks to affordability and quality, and because these products use
little energy in the first place the potential energy savings would
be picayune.
Energy conservation standards are particularly problematic for the
fast-changing tech sector. In contrast to refrigerators and clothes
washers and the like — appliances that had decades to develop
and mature before being constrained by federal energy-use restrictions
— computers, peripherals, and other electronic products are
relatively new and are still undergoing rapid innovation. Thus,
the resultant changes in energy use requirements cannot be easily
determined in advance. Energy standards imposed at this time and
based on the limits of current knowledge are sure to invoke the
iron law of unintended consequences, jeopardizing future innovation.
The terrorist attacks will have a profound effect on policy for
a long time. Nonetheless, a bad idea before September 11th is still
a bad idea, and wrapping the tech sector in the red tape of federal
energy-conservation standards remains so.
|
