Is it any wonder I'm so cynical? You simply cannot trust a single company or government entity in this country.

@msbask: Don't worry, the UK government isn't far behind.

@msbask: The problem is that many of the problems are by design. Conservatives want to destoy government, so is it any wonder that when they get control, government doesn't perform well?

Bush starved the EPA and reduced/eliminated its enforcement powers but maintained the requirements. The EPA was forced to allow companies to engage in self-reporting. Word gets out and everyone screams about how ineffective the government is and we need to privatize or eliminate the program.

Now if you gave the EPA budget and power, they could enforce truly independent testing or test products themselves. The cost would be minimal and would probably be recovered in energy savings by having a legitimate Energystar program.

Wait...you mean a government program is poorly run and not living up the its promised performance? *faints*

The fox certifies that the henhouse is free of foxes. Classic!

That's not really a big problem as long as the penalty for lying is sufficient. What is the penalty for lying?

Yikes, what the freaking point to any of these agencies.. They don't do anything but say well, um, we don't, um, have enough funding, or um staff. Please send us more money. We may catch up some day.

Government causing moral hazard... you don't say!

How about we end the "Energy Star" program? Underwriters Laboratories puts its mark of safety on tens of thousands of products every year.

Why not a company stamping an energy efficiency mark?

i think that companies should be allowed to affix their own energy star sticker on their products with an understanding that their product can be audited randomly and if said product does not adhere to the standards that the manufacturer promised, then the manufacturer would be slapped with a hefty fine.

@AnthonySc: Unfortunately, when an admin cuts the budgets for these agencies to the point that they can't actually do their jobs, it's hard for them to do their jobs.

@dfens42: Please read ARP's post above.

@AdvocatesDevil: Doesn't anyone remember what was going on with the Consumer Product Safety Comm???

They didn't have enough funding for staff and their building was falling apart. Agencies can do a pretty decent job if they are given resources and the ability to do their jobs.

This annoys me since the price jump from non energy star to energy star fridge is a minimum of $300 more. We are in the process of fridge shopping and were seriously considering spending the extra money. So I am glad I found this out before we bought.

So does CR do energy consumption tests on the products they review to get a true consumption rating?

@MooseOfReason: The U.S> Government runs several very effective laboratory accreditation programs. OSHA runs the Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL) Program that covers the safety of products used in the workplace (The UL Mark and 14 of UL's competitors). Contrary to popular belief, UL, and all of the other NRTLs are under very significant government scrutiny to ensure that they do their job in accordance with the regulations that were put in place.

The Department of Commerce/NIST runs the National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditaton Program (NVLAP) which is less specific than OSHA's program, but covers a wider variety of products. Depending on the oversight that EPA wanted, they could model the program after OSHA's or utilize NVLAP certification that most of the laboratories already have. Neither of these programs cost the government much money as most of the fees are paid by the labs seeking accreditation.

We bought a large two-door-with-bottom-freezer refrigerator from LG about three years ago. A year and some later, we got mail from LG admitting that the energy usage information posted with the fridge was incorrect, and that they would do a repair to bring it in line with the posted usage, and that for some years (10 to 15, I forget) they would send us the difference in the cost of the energy above the postage usage. I don't remember if the posted energy usage sticker was Energy Star compliant. They have never called to schedule any repair, but we did get a check from LG then and one a year later (total probably around $90).

@ARP: They could likely run it on a net zero cost basis for something as simple as measuring energy consumption. Other government agencies run laboratory accreditation programs on a shoestring budget (by Government standards anyway...under $1 million) and most if not all of the total costs including technical, administrative and legal staff are covered by the accreditation fees baid by the laboratories.

@Cant_stop_the_rock: Eternal damnation.

@Rachacha:

Contrary to popular belief, UL, and all of the other NRTLs are under very significant government scrutiny to ensure that they do their job in accordance with the regulations that were put in place.

"Popular belief"? Can you cite a source proving that?

By the way, here's what OSHA does:

OSHA primarily enforces the requirements for NRTL approval by: 1) recognizing NRTLs to assure itself that qualified organizations test and certify the safety of products used in the workplace, 2) auditing each NRTL annually to verify that it sustains the quality of its operation and continues to meet requirements for recognition, and 3) performing workplace inspections during which OSHA compliance officers (CSHOs) review specific products to check whether they contain the certification mark of an NRTL. OSHA may cite an employer and impose penalties if the officer finds improperly certified products for which OSHA requires certification.

They approve the company, check the laboratories for operational quality, and checks workplaces to make sure equipment is properly certified.

I just don't think it's necessary.

Plus the government isn't even watching it's own stamp of approval with the "Energy Star".

@bohemian: They do.

@Rachacha: Anyone that enjoys sports knows how important it is to have enough competent referees with the authority to enforce the rules. The same applies to business, politics, war...to any situation that a "win at all costs" mentality exists.

What you suggest usually ends up costing the taxpayers more through corporate externalization of costs. Besides the extra costs, the testing itself doesn't work well either for the FDA, USDA, EPA, NHTSA nor (lately) the FAA.

Anyone that enjoys sports knows how important it is to have enough competent referees with the authority to enforce the rules. The same applies to business, politics, war...to any situation that a "win at all costs" mentality exists.

Deregulating any industry with a profit incentive is putting the fox in charge of the hen house, and we are the hens.

I'd have to feel a bit of pity on the companies that actually do go through the effort of making their products more energy efficient.

Just because the agencies overseeing the whole thing aren't doing their job doesn't necessarily mean the individual companies aren't upholding their end of the bargain.

I just wish we all could know for sure which companies we could trust >_<

Can we not just use an established and trusted source like oh say... Consumer Reports. With extra funding provided by whatever the govt was going to waste they could cover every facet and get free advertising by being the new goto logo for eco-types.

@Cant_stop_the_rock: erm. A slight mocking in blogs?

@nygenxer: The program that I described is in practice in the government and is working very effectively. OSHA oversees a laboratory accreditation program for the safety of products used in the workplace (the UL mark (and UL's competition) that you see on the back of your computer, television and other electric product you use at work or home). The program has an annual operating budget of less than $1 million, and 75-80% of the cost is reimbursed by the laboratories seeking accreditation. The net result is over 50 laboratories around the world have been accredited, and each are audited annually to ensure that they are following the rules, or they will be removed from the program.

@ARP: Pretty much. It makes very little sense to allow people who do not believe in government to run the government and then expect it to run efficiently.

@MooseOfReason: My source...15 years or personal experience in the industry.

Why don't you believe it is necessary? You have a program that costs U.S. taxpayers essentially nothing (Less than $1 million budget, most of it is reimbursed by the labs that are accredited) that essentially verify that electrical equipment complies with appropriate standards.

The alternative is a program that is in use in Europe, CPSC, DOE/EPA and others where the manufacturer "declares" that their product complies and there is little oversight by the government (EPA/DOE with the Energy Star Program), or the government is spending all of its resources chasing after the manufacturers that don't comply after the product is already in the user's hand (CPSC). These programs cost taxpayers over $80 million per year.

@Bridonik: One good marketing strategy for the honest companies that truly earn their energy star rating would be to make the truth public on their websites. Most already do research on their competitors. They probably already know how much power their competitor's products use and if they don't then could easily find out.

So, find out the reality and transform that reality into something which is very easy to understand on your website to show consumers how much better your product is in comparison. Also make the details available so that people who wish to take the time to fully understand why such and such product is better can spread the news on the internet like it always gets spread.

Granted, no company "should" have to do this and I guess that is the real point. A product should only get the rating if it actually earns the rating.