Slashdot Mirror
Energy Star Program For Homes And Appliances Is On Trump's Chopping Block (npr.org)
Appliance manufacturers and home builders are in Washington, D.C., today to celebrate a popular energy efficiency program, even as it's slated for elimination in President Trump's proposed budget. NPR adds: You probably know the program's little blue label with the star -- the Environmental Protection Agency says 90 percent of U.S. households do. [...] The 25-year-old Energy Star program appears to be targeted simply because it's run by the federal government. It's one of 50 EPA programs that would be axed under Trump's budget plan, which would shrink the agency's funding by more than 30 percent. Critics of Energy Star say the government should get involved in the marketplace only when absolutely necessary. But that argument doesn't hold sway for the program's legions of supporters, which span nonprofits, companies and trade groups.
The higher the organizational level at which a standard is set, the fewer groups have to come up with standards, and the easier compliance becomes. Done at least somewhat close to well, it is more efficient for the standard setters, the companies who follow the standard, and the consumers who judge by it.
Now, Energy Star isn't a safety standard, so it's not exactly critical, but it's still a great thing to have a common measuring stick for all to use.
Please define absolutely necessary.
/. bug which narrows the comments.
On an unrelated note, I see that we are again suffering from the
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
Why don't they spin energy star off into a non-profit. It can be self supported with "membership" from appliance manufacturers.
Product makers apply for Energy Star ratings, they pay a small fee (how much can this program actually cost, anyway?). Consumers who care will be more interested in the products that are rated. I don't see the problem.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
Finally America is winning again, and that goddamned EnergyStar will sing to the depths of hell, where it belongs.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
I hope they get rid of smartway as well, I'm pretty sure that whole program is useless.
That's because Energy Star is pretty much a scam. It takes more time, energy, and money to actually verify the tens of thousands of "Energy Star" appliances. So manufacturers self report energy ratings - which are often off by 35%-50%. That is, the self reported appliances may use 35%-50% more energy than reported.
Since it's implementation, Energy Star has been a half hearted effort and a marketing tool. "Energy Star" doesn't mean anything. But millions can claim "Energy Star" tax breaks based on false marketing data.
My source... the same NPR news organization that is reporting this story.
Indeed, Energy Star needs to be examined and it's about time some one is putting it under scrutiny. If Energy Star is legit, they have nothing to worry about. But this has been a problem since its inception some 25 years ago. Just one of many, many, many half baked government projects.
The appliance aspect of Energy Star has a small impact. What's really at the heart of it is the energy efficiency program. I have reduced my home's energy consumption 40% by following Energy Star for Homes standards. I made my money back on the cost of repairs in the first year. I've been doing this and teaching it for years.
While I can certainly appreciate cutting budgets in the name of reducing federal spending, this one IS effective and is a direct financial benefit to homeowners. 40% of the world's energy is used by buildings, the largest piece of the pie. As someone who has studied energy efficiency for a long time, I know that energy efficiency programs like this one are far more effective at reducing emissions and cutting operating costs than any other strategy such as renewable energy or switching to natural gas. Think of it this way, how many PV panels would it take to power your house? Probably a lot, right? And it would take forever to pay back. Now what if you reduced your energy demand significantly through energy efficiency? Less panels, right? If you want renewables to be cost effective, the greatest efficiency has to be gained first.
And yes, it is about safety. Homes with combustion appliances are checked for CO spillage and negative chimney drafts that could allow uncombusted gas to accumulate in the home.
It's one of the few things the EPA does that's useful and efficient. Setting a national standard is well within the things that government should do. Compared to all the really wasteful things they do this should certainly be kept.
Nutrition labels on food were heavily fought by industry but that was the past when corruption (regulatory capture) was not as bad as it has been in recent decades.
Today, food labels wouldn't be implemented at all. Voluntary industry marketing labels on some products is all one would have. If it was passed in the 90s, we would have something like Energy Star where industry does it without punishment or oversight and the labels would be as inaccurate and unregulated as Energy Star is.
Do keep in mind that VW just was punished in a significant way (mostly because they are foreign) for cheating on recent regulations. So these things are not entirely useless.
I'm sure Energy Star doesn't cost that much; it is mostly an excuse to KILL it. Just like defunding PBS saves less than a pentagon rounding error. Hell, the Star Wars Program is STILL being funded (under less stupid names) and STILL doesn't work and costs about 50billion which is about the same amount Trump is asking to increase military spending.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
It is of course a mere coincidence that this highly successful and entirely voluntary program, which has saved US consumers billions of dollars over its existence, far more than the actual program cost or cost to manufacturers, was also responsible for rating several of Don The Con's properties as being in the bottom 10% of all rated structures from an energy efficiency standpoint, just because those structures happened to be highly inefficient with their energy usage. That got the program on his Enemies List. http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/25/...
Long? What do you mean the signature at the bottom of every comment I post on Slashdot is too lo
Nor does he have an agenda, plans, or power: all he has is Presidential authority. He's doing exactly what the GOP, Bannon, Kusher, Putin, the Kochs, the Mercers, or whoever else with actual power tells him to do. He's a puppet. All he actually cares about is feeding his narcissism and exploiting his position for personal gain.
Stop attributing anything to him, he deserves neither credit nor blame.
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/04...
Yet another bit of crookedry that would have right-wingers rioting in the streets if Hillary did it.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
That's why he wants those EnergyStar labels to go away. The corporations will make more profit if they don't have to sell energy-efficient appliances. Then there will be more demand for power, and subsequently more demand for coal. It all makes sense when you look at it from the viewpoint of greedy corporations.
The big manufacturers sell their products world wide. This means that they need to make them comply with the various standards that exist in different parts of the world. The EU market is about the same size as the USA one. The EU has its own energy standards and labelling, if the EPA Energy Star goes away in the USA they could simply display the EU ones in the USA. USA consumers would quickly learn what it was about, the manufacturers would save costs by not having to have their stuff tested twice; everyone wins. Going for global standards is where we will probably end up sooner or later anyway.
Everything I can find that actually cites a source indicates that the President's proposal directs the EPA to look into the possibility of spinning it off to operate like Underwriters Laboratories (UL) operates - with actual testing, and self-funding rather than taxpayer funded and government run.
Nothing stops them from setting standards as a private sector entity.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
This is the type of government program I like to see. The government is not mandating which appliance to buy. They are making a measuring stick available, and mandating that you can't lie about it. The "founding father's" made the central government responsible for setting weights and measures for a good reason. A fair market is impossible without agreed upon measures.
I wish they'd taken the same approach with the FDA. Instead of saying, "Drug X may not be sold", or "Drug Y may only be used for this specific application.", technology would have advanced much quicker and cheaper if they published a registry saying, "We have determined that Drug X has shown efficacy for this application." I'd still need my doctor, but he (and the army of bureaucrats blocking him) wouldn't be the gateway to which drug I could buy.
If Trump wants to cut the budget, make the FDA follow the Energy Star Program. Make the Dept of Education an advisory board ("We have studied the problem, and found these remedies work in those situations. Now, localities can more intelligently work out your own education programs.").
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
UL is a joke.
I worked at a large appliance manufacturer. Part of the UL stamp is having a processor check itself. The embedded software has to have a thread that launches every few milliseconds to have the processor check it's own operation.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
The best I've seen were the "smart" power strips with timers and motion sensors and whatnot they went around installing without permission.
Yeah, that meant unplugging the PCs and whatnot and plugging them into the new power strip, causing people to lose work and shit to break.
It also meant that people would have their shit power off if they didn't move their feet occasionally (or the sensor didn't see it happening). And even when working properly / having the PC plugged into the single "always on" port, the printers would boot up once, sit idle, enter their sleep mode to save energy, and then be powered off by the strip after some time. Then when the person moved the outlet would go live and the printer would go through its whole boot cycle, then sit idle for however long, then enter its sleep mode again. All that booting activity and time awake waiting for the sleep timer to retrigger results in massively increased power draw vs. just letting the damn printer utilize its own sleep mode.
Silly troll.
I don't respond to AC's.
they are so often wrong and too trivial to worry about.
Right there with you on the wrong part, but there is nothing so trivial that it will not be worried about on slashdot.
All regulations have unintended consequences. And the best intentions sometimes backfire. For example, take the new European standard for electrical consumption of vacuum cleaners. In essence they've now banned the larger models. But it's not going to save any electricity. Now with smaller models that can't create as much vacuum and thus induce a much smaller CFM of air flow. Hence they work less efficiently and more slowly. So any electrical efficiency gains are offset by the poorer performance overall, requiring longer use and just as much electricity. Besides that, even if all things were equal, the greater electrical use (and subsequent CO2 generation) from the bigger vacuums probably can't even be quantified for most people since vacuum cleaners are used so infrequently compared to computers, lights, heating, and other electrical devices.
This is, in my mind, a clear example of well-intentioned Energy Star -like programs and regulations that just don't apply well to many things and shouldn't. And this is why people, including trump supporters, get so upset with government interference in their lives. Most people I know aren't stupid. If they buy a new freezer, they do want to save money and energy by buying the newer, more efficient models. I think this would continue even without Energy Star, should it ever disappear entirely.
Besides that, if you really want to change things, a carbon tax is better than efficiency regulations. If the true cost of energy is passed on to consumers you can bet they'll make different choices and drive demand for energy-efficient devices. Rather than set fuel efficiency targets, tax a vehicle's registration based on its fuel consumption. Lets people have the freedom to drive an old, less-efficient vehicle if they wish, as long as they are willing to pay for it.
Sure direct regulation is easier for the government, but it's not always the best way. And it always has unintended consequences and leads to regulatory capture of the market by a few large companies.
GAO submitted a few non-existant products to test the EnergyStar program. Some notable results:
Gas-Powered Alarm Clock:
Product description indicated the clock is the size of a small generator and is powered by gasoline.
Product was approved by Energy Star without a review of the company Web site or questions of the claimed efficiencies.
Geothermal Heat Pump:
Energy use data reported was more efficient than any product listed as certified on the Energy Star Web site at the time of submission.
High-energy efficiency data was not questioned by Energy Star.
Product is eligible for federal tax credits and state rebate programs.
Computer Monitor
Product was approved by Energy Star within 30 minutes of submission.
Private firms contacted GAO’s fictitious firm to purchase products based on participation in the Energy Star program.
Refrigerator:
Self-certified product was submitted, qualified, and listed on the Energy Star Web site within 24 hours.
Product is eligible for federal tax credits and state rebates.
The corporations will make more profit if they don't have to sell energy-efficient appliances.
They already don't have to sell energy-efficient appliances. Energy Star is a voluntary program.
The Energy Star program costs almost nothing. There are zero government employees actually testing products. Instead, it is done on the "honor system" where manufacturers can voluntarily test their own products and then use the official label. Compliance is enforced by consumer groups and competitors rather than proactive government action. 3rd party testing has shown that this all works pretty well.
It is cost-effective, non-coercive, and works. So it makes sense to eliminate it since it doesn't fit the right-wing narrative of bloated and ineffective government. We can use the money saved to buy another windshield wiper for the F-35.
Rather than set fuel efficiency targets, tax a vehicle's registration based on its fuel consumption. Lets people have the freedom to drive an old, less-efficient vehicle if they wish, as long as they are willing to pay for it.
In the US this is already taking place. It's called a "gasoline tax", and both the feds and the states have their hands in the pockets of those who buy gas. Buy more gas, you pay more in taxes.
You just want another tax to do the same thing, as if one tax isn't enough.
The best I've seen were the "smart" power strips with timers and motion sensors and whatnot they went around installing without permission.
When did this happen? I've not seen anyone in my house doing that, nor have I seen any different power strips there.
If you mean "at work", then I am positive that they had all the permission they needed to do this: the owner of the company.
The embedded software has to have a thread that launches every few milliseconds to have the processor check it's own operation.
Regular integrity checks are a normal part of embedded system design. This is a reasonable requirement, although I have never seen it done with actual context-switching "threads", so I am assuming you are using that word loosely. Of course, you still need a separate WDT ... which UL also requires in many cases.
Educate yourself. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/01/04/5-facts-about-the-minimum-wage/
Government regulation is there to do things that businesses wouldn't do on their own, but are needed for a functioning society. It may be true that the needs of Rural people are different than the needs of Urban people, it doesn't justify the libertarian approach to things.
Except that this program actually got companies "in line" without costing the taxpayer an arm and a leg.
You're right though, there have been some fake products put through, and it seems that the EPA responded in kind -- requiring 3rd party verification
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Star
Also, it looks like the tax credit they DO get are for a limited time only and primarily for houses: https://www.energystar.gov/about/federal_tax_credits and solar power installations (which are cheaper and safe than building another coal or nuke)
That's a very naïve view of reality. For every business that's on the brink, there are hundreds that are doing well, and many that are turning record profits. A business that cannot afford to pay its employees a living wage is almost certainly doomed anyway, so allowing it to pay a less than a living wage is just delaying the inevitable slightly. The business will fail. Let it fail.
Keeping a business on life support by letting it pay a subminimum wage doesn't help anyone in the long term, and doesn't help very many people even in the short term. But allowing businesses to pay a subminimum wage does hurt people who work for all those other companies that actually are profitable, because given the opportunity to pay their employees less, they will do so.
More to the point, if that is the only business providing jobs in a particular community, then that community is doomed. Keeping the business alive a little longer by depressing wages just encourages people to stay in the doomed community and make less and less money, thus making them less and less able to afford to move to a community that isn't doomed. So continuing to pay those employees a wage actually ends up hurting those employees more than it helps, at least in the aggregate, though the individual employees might not believe it at the time.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
The US currently has 10 aircraft carriers in service, and are building 2 more.
How about we reduce that number from 12 to 5?
That way we could fight a war on 2 fronts with 2 carriers each (like Japan and Germany were), and have one left over for relief aid and support, like we did with Haiti.
This sounds like a low flow toilet all over again
And you can buy a laptop on DealDash for $11.
It costs "almost nothing" only if you look at the financial impact on a select part of the economy (the government) rather than on the economy as a whole. To truly measure the cost of Energy Star, you need to measure how much it's costing manufacturers to design to comply with the Energy Star standards. Because they're passing those costs onto their customers in the form of higher prices, which means that cost is coming out of your and my pocket just as if it were taxes.
(Likewise, the way DealDash works is that they charge for each bid everyone places on an auction. So the cost of the $11 laptop is actually the $11 winning bid + how much everyone trying to win it paid in bidding fees. See how deceptive you can be if you don't include all the costs something has on the entire system?)
There are Energy Star standards which are totally worth it (e.g. average electricity cost of appliances like refrigerators which are not always-on). And there are Energy Star standards which totally don't work (e.g. auto-dimming TVs to save power). You need to be able to pick out the wheat from the chaff. Basically, you need an Energy Star for programs like Energy Star, which estimates the cost of having the standard vs. the benefit of having it. And axes any standards which simply aren't worth it and cost more in paperwork and expense than the benefit they produce.
you need to measure how much it's costing manufacturers to design to comply with the Energy Star standards.
It is a voluntary program, so if the manufacturers aren't getting their money's worth, they can just decline to participate.
One thing I hate about energy star ratings is that it shows a scale based on a range of unspecified other devices
You're doing it wrong. Just ignore the comparison, and instead look at the "annual energy cost". If one item costs $100 more, but costs $20 less in energy use, then you should buy it if you expect to use it for at least five years.
According to data from the World Bank (http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.USE.ELEC.KH.PC), US electric energy consumption per person (kWh per capita) was 7,517 kWh per capita in 1971 and grew by 72.6 percent to 12,973 kWh per capita in 2014. Energy efficiency programs do not decrease total energy usage. More efficient air conditioners allow more people to live and work in warmer climates. More efficient refrigerators allow more people to own bigger refrigerators, etc. Plus, additional energy savings from other appliances that we do not use more, allows us to use other energy appliances, microwaves, cable boxes, routers, rechargeable cell phones, tablets, and laptops, etc., without concern our monthly energy bill will get too high.
This sounds like a low flow toilet all over again
Deja poo?
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
Almost no government spending is unnecessary or unjustified. The problem is the total spending. And to reduce the total spending, some programs that create something good must be prioritized away. The question every government program should as be asked is not "is this good". Rather "do we really create good value for the money spent?", "can someone else do this better?", "could these money create more value spent elsewhere?" etc.
Europe, Aus, NZ, Canada, Japan and Taiwan all support the programme.
Rather than set fuel efficiency targets, tax a vehicle's registration based on its fuel consumption. Lets people have the freedom to drive an old, less-efficient vehicle if they wish, as long as they are willing to pay for it.
In the US this is already taking place. It's called a "gasoline tax", and both the feds and the states have their hands in the pockets of those who buy gas. Buy more gas, you pay more in taxes.
You just want another tax to do the same thing, as if one tax isn't enough.
The "one" you refer to is more like "one half". We haven't increased the tax in proportion to increase in price, it was a fixed amount, and we used to up in every couple years, until 1993. And so we have crummy roads because few states have the ability to pay for them. http://www.npr.org/2014/12/08/...
Even if you don't believe in science, not raising gas taxes to keep up the roads is stupid.
I'm fine with raising gas taxes to pay for roads.
Not bike lanes.
Not light rail.
Not streetcars.
Not pensions for people who retired from the highway district 20 years ago.
Roads. For cars. To drive on.
It's called a watchdog, and UL should definitely require it. Is this the only reason you have to indicate that this rather well-respected set of standards is a joke?
The "one" you refer to is more like "one half".
No, it is actually at least two -- state and federal -- and some people pay three (city). In two counties in Oregon, you are also paying a COUNTY gas tax. When I said "one tax", I meant "one kind of tax".
We haven't increased the tax in proportion to increase in price, it was a fixed amount, and we used to up in every couple years, until 1993.
You know, it is pretty easy to google this stuff and see that you are wrong. Oregon, for one, increased their tax rate in 2011, and according to the font of all knowledge, Wikipedia: "While most fuel taxes were initially levied as a fixed number of cents per gallon, as of 2016, nineteen states and District of Columbia have fuel taxes with rates that vary alongside changes in the price of fuel, the inflation rate, vehicle fuel-economy, or other factors." Portland added yet another hand to the pocket-dipping by creating their own gas tax that took effect on Jan 1 of this year. New Jersey increased their gas tax by 23 cents a gallon (not TO 23cpg, BY 23cpg) in 2016. No increases? Hmmmm....
And so we have crummy roads because few states have the ability to pay for them.
We have crummy roads because costs for road construction have skyrocketed and we have poor project management.
Even if you don't believe in science,
Pure flamebait.
The only problem being there is absolutely no enforced compliance. As long as a company pays their dues they can stick whatever the hell they want on that sticker with no worries about any type of blowback seeing no one from Energy Star is actually checking their numbers.
In one round of tests from an outside lab they found that energy star ratings were on average 35-50% off the actual energy used. As it exists and has always existed it's just a federally run marketing scheme and nothing more.
It effectively the same as allowing Coke and Pepsi to just make up the calorie count on their products out of thin air and then praise them for including calorie information.
Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
Then, almost by definition, it is worthless
And yet it works in exactly the way Libertarians are telling us things will work: companies put an agreed-on label on their products, they have an incentive to check unreasonable-sounding claims from their competitors as do consumer groups, and there is redress through the courts (and bad publicity) if anyone is caught cheating. For once, it's a free market solution that is working with a minimal amount of government intervention.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
companies put an agreed-on label on their products, they have an incentive to check unreasonable-sounding claims from their competitors as do consumer groups
I have NO problem with this. None. Zip. Zero.
What is NOT needed, is government program to do so. Consumer Reports does a great service, and is way more effective than government would be doing the exact same job. AND they aren't influenced by donations to political campaigns. The problem I have is "Government MUST do it, because nobody else will" mentality.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
One prominent example is minimum wage regulations. While the intent behind these may have been good, what they've ended up becoming are huge burdens to businesses that are already on the brink. It's not economically viable for a business to pay somebody far more than the value they're providing. What is the end result? Fewer jobs, and a lot more focus on automating away low-end jobs.
If a business can only exist by paying its permanent, full-time employees less than a living wage, then maybe that business shouldn't exist? We hear the same argument from the produce growers who claim they have to pay illegal immigrants dollars a day under the table, otherwise "food prices will rise." Well maybe the food prices should rise then. We should pay the actual costs.
What, are you nuts? We need to use MORE energy! Burn more coal. Create more coal mining jobs. No more of this job-killing energy conservation!
</sarcasm>
J