Energy Star Self-Certification Seen Likely to Stay For CE Gear

The EPA has indicated it will continue allowing Energy Star self-certification and self-reporting for CE and IT products, according to CEA and the Information Technology Industry Council. Under an agreement with the Department of Energy, EPA proposed that qualification testing for Energy Star be done by third-party labs or in-house accredited labs. It also wants “verification” testing, to ensure compliance with Energy Star specifications, to be done by third-party companies. The agency decided to accelerate the changes after the GAO found that Energy Star was prone to fraud and abuse because investigators got certification

for 15 bogus products (GED March 29 p1).

In comments on the EPA’s draft requirements for recognition of accredited labs to test Energy Star products, the two groups said recent remarks from EPA staff have led them to believe the agency will continue the self-certification and self-declaration tack for CE and IT products. But CEA and ITI have concerns over other requirements proposed in the draft, they said. CEA said some of the changes proposed to Energy Star are causing “serious concerns” among European industry representatives about the “future viability of Energy Star abroad -- particularly in the European Union."

Changes such as the requirement for EPA-recognized accreditation bodies are being seen as “completely U.S.-centric,” discouraging Energy Star participation by “international partners,” CEA said. It’s important to have an accreditation system that’s based on “mutual recognition,” rather than one that’s based solely on EPA’s recognition, the group said. There’s potential for expanding the Energy Star program in Europe, now limited to certain IT products, to other consumer electronics, the group said. But if changes to the program are “too burdensome” the “continuation and expansion of the program in overseas markets would be at risk,” it said.

CEA supports the EPA’s requiring product testing in ISO/IEC 17025 accredited labs, it said, but compliance with all the provisions of the standard is unnecessary, it said. “Requirements should be limited to verifying that the laboratory personnel are qualified, laboratory equipment is calibrated and the test facilities are adequate.” Third-party certification is not a “viable option for consumer electronics and should not be considered,” it said.

In-house testing by manufacturers using “regular employees,” has been done for years and has been “very successful” in complying with regulatory and market requirements, including Energy Star, ITI said. So it would be “unusual if not impractical” to use testers from an outside entity, it said, and would “negate many of the benefits associated with the current testing process.” Testers need to be “intimately familiar” with equipment and usage methods, and it takes years for them to develop the expertise, the group said. Such in-house testers also provide valuable feedback that help identify ways to increase product efficiency, ITI said: “This benefit would be lost if EPA in effect mandates that testing be performed by employees or third-party testers who have essentially no stake in the company or in product improvements."

The proposed requirement for labs to report to EPA details of their accreditation would create an “unnecessary burden” for the labs, ITI said. If there are concerns about a lab’s performance, the agency can “simply undertake an accreditation inspection” or request relevant documents, an requirement already in place under ISO/IEC 17025, it said. The industry “strongly opposes” the proposal that lab employees’ compensation or annual bonuses aren’t “tied to the financial performance of the parent company,” it said.