Energy Star’s Third-Party Testing Mandate Good Place to Start Congressional Review, Says CEA

The voluntary Energy Star program has resulted in “optimal public policy benefits” in advancing energy efficiency in the consumer electronics market, the CEA said. But the EPA’s recent “unilateral decision” to institute third-party testing and certification for Energy Star has “dramatically” increased” costs for the industry, the group said, responding to the proposal to eliminate funding for the Energy Star program in the Spending Reduction Act unveiled by the House Republican Study Committee. The CEA and environmental groups said the program has widespread support among stakeholders and is well-received by consumers.

The decision to require third-party testing and verification is the “most far reaching and costliest change to the Energy Star program in years,” said Douglas Johnson, the CEA vice president of technology policy. “This change cannot be justified in light of the successful record of self-certification by the consumer electronics industry,” he said. Even so, the EPA “mandated a new third-party certification regime across the entire Energy Star program.” For the CE industry that has “dramatically increased the cost and time involved to partner with Energy Star without producing any real consumer benefits,” he said.

While it’s important to maintain Energy Star’s integrity, “there surely are more cost-effective approaches to certifying and verifying Energy Star products, Johnson said. “If there is Congressional interest in reviewing and improving the Energy Star program, then EPA’s costly and time-consuming approach to third party certification is a good place to start,” he said.

Energy Star is a “key program for helping to reduce U.S. energy use and saves consumers and businesses a lot more money than it costs” to run the program, said Steve Nadel, executive director of the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy said.. Calling the proposal to eliminate the program “penny wise and pound foolish,” Nadel said Energy Star exemplifies the type of program that “helps improve U.S. competitiveness and keep energy use, pollution and energy prices a little lower than they otherwise would be.” Energy Star is a “highly cost-effective” program, he told us.

The move to eliminate Energy Star is “both surprising and disappointing” given its “widespread support,” said Jim O'Reilly, director of public policy at the Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships. “This is one place we see eye to eye” with the CEA and others in industry, he said. “We have been in many proceedings where the CEA has indicated strong support for the Energy Star program as a way of trying to set new market strategies for getting the most efficient products into the market stream.” Calling the proposal “foolhardy,” he said eliminating the program may only result in “potentially short money savings” for the federal government, while “giving up so many billions of dollars in savings” for consumers. The EPA declined to comment. The program got $53.6 million in fiscal 2010, the agency said.