Comments on: Is the ENERGY STAR Program Abandoning Average Consumers?

By: pocketstring

pocketstring — Sat, 10 Aug 2013 16:16:00 +0000

I would like to know more about who the Coalition for Home Energy Efficiency represents. When your about us page has nothing more specific than “a group of citizens, manufacturers, and retailers who want to preserve and protect ENERGY STAR” I start to smell an industry lobby group. Jack here may not be a lobbyist, but my guess is he’s on the payroll. There’s nothing wrong with lobbying or paid advocacy, but it should be out in the open.

By: Jack

Jack — Fri, 09 Aug 2013 01:10:00 +0000

Robert: Rep. Peter Welch (D-VT), a leader on energy efficiency issues, led a bipartisan group in Congress to raise these concerns regarding cost-effectiveness of the proposed ENERGY STAR standard: http://coalitionforenergyefficiency.org/docs/20130416-congressional-letter.pdf

Historically, the ENERGY STAR program has been focused on balancing energy efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and product performance. Market share, while an important consideration, can be driven by many factors (such as recessions, when many average income Americans can’t afford to make home improvements.)

The Coalition for Home Energy Efficiency enjoys the support of tens of thousands of Americans, retailers, and manufacturers. Our purpose isn’t to “attack efficiency standards,” but to keep a successful program working as originally designed for our environment and for American consumers.

By: Jack

Jack — Fri, 09 Aug 2013 00:37:00 +0000

James: I’m not a lobbyist, but I do value – and advocate for – government programs that are proven to help the environment and consumers. My point re: the “ultra-rich” is that, from a theoretical standpoint, someone could make a product that is 100% energy efficient. But very few people could afford to buy it. The ENERGY STAR program was designed to steer consumers toward energy efficient products that help the environment AND which allow them to recoup the additional investment through lower utility bills in a reasonable “payback period.” That balance has been central to the program’s success over the last two decades. The new proposed standard would push the payback period for ENERGY STAR rated windows in the Northern Zone (which is almost half the country) to beyond the average time an American stays in their home. If the ENERGY STAR program abandons average consumers, it doesn’t just hurt the consumers, it hurts the environment.

By: JamesWimberley

JamesWimberley — Thu, 08 Aug 2013 18:28:00 +0000

Jack the presumed lobbyist writes: “only the ultra-rich would be able to afford them”. This is false, in any normal understanding of “ultra-rich”, say the top 0.1% of incomes, even a generous top 1%. Triple glazing is routine in Sweden, with an average income lower than the USA’s.

By: Robert Howd

Robert Howd — Thu, 08 Aug 2013 17:18:00 +0000

The Energy Star label has always been intended to provide a consumer guide to the most energy-efficient products, not average products. Market share above 50% is one of EPA’s basic criteria for revising upward the Energy Star performance standards. When market share rises far above that, it’s time for a large change in the standard, as for windows, and recently for refrigerators. It appears that the “Coalition for home energy efficiency” is a group started and funded by window manufacturers, who are afraid that the change in Energy Star criteria will hurt their sales.

It doesn’t appear correct to say that the amount of change in market share projected by this change is unprecedented. The Version 5.0 changes in refrigerator standards were also projected to drop the market share of Energy Star products by about 30%, according to the NRDC comments at http://www.energystar.gov/products/specs/sites/products/files/NRDC%20Comments.pdf.

Is publishing comments by a manufacturer’s lobbying group that attack efficiency standards really consistent with the mission of this website?

By: Jack

Jack — Thu, 08 Aug 2013 16:25:00 +0000

The ENERGY STAR program is one of our nation’s most successful federal government programs; it is completely voluntary and has saved Americans $230 billion on utility bills and prevented over 1.7 billion metric tons of carbon from entering our atmosphere during its 21-year lifespan. It’s done this by helping average consumers choose energy efficient products by showing that the difference in initial cost will be paid back in a reasonable time with energy savings.

The ENERGY STAR program could identify only the very most energy efficient (read: expensive) products, but then only the ultra-rich would be able to afford them. A central principle of the program — and a reason for its success — is affordability.

Middle-income households use 1/3 of all residential energy each year. With an estimated 1 billion single-paned windows still in use in American homes, the potential gain of upgrading to energy-efficient windows is huge. Replacing those windows with existing ENERGY STAR windows would save 1.12 quadrillion BTUs per year – an average of 20 million BTUs per house.

Saving the ENERGY STAR program is consistent with President Obama’s initiative to #ActonClimate and provide a #ABetterBargain for the middle class.

By: Matt

Matt — Thu, 08 Aug 2013 13:12:00 +0000

I do think we need more that a yes/no. Maybe 3-5 grades. Think 3 level for a minute (L, M, H). Then the question is do you base it on a set goal to get to M and H, which raises over time; kind of like Corp MPG standards. Or is it set based on the what was available last year. H is top 1/3, M middle, L bottom. Goals means it only goes up when if the gov picks. Last year base, means it goes up or down based on what manufacturer decide to make. Or you can end up with blended. But the scale should not be fixed for all time. Since what is poor, good, better, best changes over time. Like MPG, it should get better as time goes by.

By: JamesWimberley

JamesWimberley — Thu, 08 Aug 2013 10:20:00 +0000

On the other side, dumbing down the label to match current mainstream products makes it harder for consumers to identify those at the cutting edge. European energy labelling uses a scale from A++ to D. They had to add A+ and A++ as the average rose over time. It would be sensible for the US to go over to a scale. However, this should start with A as the minimum,leaving an open-ended escalation, at any rate until you each Z.