In a sea of energy-guzzling consumer products, the government’s EnergyStar sticker is a beacon of light for many energy-conscious consumers. But that little blue square with a star on it might not be so bright after all, according to Consumer Reports. The organization says EnergyStar, started in 1992 by the Environmental Protection Agency, has some quality issues that raise questions about the program’s integrity.
For one, EnergyStar’s test procedures for appliances are pretty outdated and haven’t kept pace with new technology, says Mark Connelly, deputy technical director for Consumer Reports.
A good example is EnergyStar’s test procedures for refrigerators, which were developed 20 years ago before consumers had ever heard of features like meat-thawing compartments, water filters and automatic defrost.
As a result, EnergyStar test procedures call for a refrigerator’s icemaker to be turned off during testing. But since extra features mean extra energy consumption, it’s no surprise that some LG refrigerator models were found to use significantly more energy during Consumer Reports’ tests where the icemaker was kept on, as compared to energy consumption rates determined under the EnergyStar tests.
“We need to have tests that are more representative of real-life scenarios because the products are using much more energy than what the consumer would be led to believe,” Connelly says.
But being behind the times isn’t EnergyStar’s only problem. Critics charge that EnergyStar has set the bar for energy-efficiency requirements so low that just about any product can get a star.
For example, almost half of all dishwashers currently on the market qualify for the EnergyStar label, according to Connelly.
“Certainly, when that many products qualify for an EnergyStar, the value of the Star decreases,” he says.
Maria Vargas, press contact for EnergyStar, disagrees, arguing that increasing the number of qualifying products is a goal of the program, not a flaw. “We think it’s great that more efficient products are available on the marketplace,” she says.
But by far the most troubling aspect of the government’s energy-efficiency program is that because most EnergyStar products aren’t independently tested, companies are relied on to regulate themselves — essentially allowing the fox to police the henhouse.
“Manufacturers basically self-certify, and there’s nobody out there policing what the government’s being told,” Connelly says. “There needs to be some kind of auditing in place because otherwise you’re either relying on the manufacturers to snitch on each other or someone like Consumer Reports to just happen upon a problem.”
Of course, the EPA and Consumer Reports disagree on whether competitors are actually testing each other’s product-efficiency claims. One thing that is certain is that as companies continue to gobble up their competitors, the number of companies available to check up on one another’s products keeps dwindling, which further decreases accountability.
With all of EnergyStar’s problems, it’s easy to get cynical about paying extra for that little blue label. But keep in mind that even Consumer Reports feels that overall the program is reliable.
“The cases where we’ve found discrepancies are small and far between,” Connelly says.
And overall, EnergyStar has been pretty successful in its goals. In 2008, with the help of the program, Americans cut greenhouse gas emissions equal to those from 29 million cars and saved consumers billions on utility bills.
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.