The Energy Star® program was designed to provide consumers with a way to choose the most energy-efficient products, notably appliances. Since appliances typically consume 20% of the energy in a North American home, it's a worthy goal for reducing energy use in the home, saving money, and protecting the environment. But there are flaws in the system that may make the rating not worth the paper it's printed on.
Lengthy Testing Slows Energy Star Implementation
Government agencies tend to move at a snail's pace, and the Environmental Protection Agency (US) and Natural Resources Canada are no different. It usually takes three years to formulate, review, and publish new standards, and another three years for the standards to take final effect. The pace of industrial development far exceeds this crawl, with new products coming onto the market annually.
Watered Down Energy Efficiency Standards
Manufacturers have input into the development of standards. While this is only fair, it may contribute pressure towards easier-to-meet standards. Such was the case when California's Title 20 standards were applied to hot tubs. The Association of Pool and Spa Professionals protested that "enforcement of these provisions will potentially eliminate a substantial majority of existing hot tubs." As a result, the standards were "clarified and refined".
Questionable Energy Star Measurement Practices
The Energy Star® protocol for refrigerators, to give one example, allows a refrigerator ice maker to be turned off during testing. This obviously reduces the amount of energy used in the test, but does not reflect the appliance's energy consumption during normal operation. Likewise, proposed standards for hot tubs are for the resting state, when only a small circulation pump may be running rather than the main pumps. Such standards do not reflect normal usage and may result in misleadingly low energy ratings.
Lack of Independent Energy Efficiency Testing
Consumer Reports tested a number of Energy Star® labeled appliances, with interesting results. They found one Samsung refrigerator that used 890kWh annually, compared to the 540kWh reported by the company on its Energy Star® tag. Another, noted above, used more than double its claimed amount with its ice maker turned on (the EPA later withdrew the Energy Star® from this product).
The problem here is that companies test their own products and report their own results. The DOE has a program to examine manufacturer's testing facilities on an occasional basis to ensure that they comply with requirements. Kathleen Hogan, Director of the Climate Protection Partnerships Division of the US Environmental Protection Agency wrote a letter to the editor of Consumer Reports rebutting that magazine's article. Hogan stated that the EPA's activities include " testing of the performance of products where warranted, spot checking products pulled from the marketplace and coordination with a number of product testing certification programs."
Even so, the Consumers Union considers it debatable whether sufficient verification tests and spot checks are done. While no one is accusing manufacturers of wholesale deception or fudging of test results, the lack of independent review places the system under suspicion of unreliability.
Is Energy Star Tarnished?
- The lengthy development and implementation process means that the program is always half a decade behind current manufacturing.
- The lack of independent testing and failure to verify reported results leaves too much room for potential unreliability.
- Heavy industry involvement can lead to weak and watered-down standards.
- Self-testing and self-reporting opens the program to questions about measurement methods and procedures.
The Energy Star® program has noble goals, but in its present form may not be offering consumers a reliable and accurate measure of the energy consumption of the goods they purchase.
The ENERGY STAR name and the ENERGY STAR symbol are registered trademarks of the United States Environmental Protection Agency.
 |
