Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Energy Star Program For Homes And Appliances Is On Trump's Chopping Block (npr.org)

Posted by msmash on from the sad-state-of-affairs dept.

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.

17 of 273 comments (clear)

  1. It's pretty simple by Baron_Yam · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:It's pretty simple by DickBreath · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This common measuring stick you speak of would enable consumers to make an objective comparison of products' energy use. Fair comparisons tend to put one product, the inferior product, at a disadvantage. This affects profits and jobs. And people will say OMG! the government is involved in the market so it must be bad.

      Both Hershey Chocolate and Prestone Antifreeze are very sweet to the taste. But the safety of each should be subjectively measured in a way that doesn't put either product at a disadvantage when marketed as a snack treat.

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    2. Re:It's pretty simple by tripleevenfall · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The reason this story makes me yawn is that it's written as though the whole program is on the "chopping block", but in reality it's facing some proposed budget cuts.

      And we all know, there is no waste or bloat in government at all, and therefore no possible place where any sort of waste could be cut.

    3. Re:It's pretty simple by Tailhook · · Score: 3, Insightful

      common measuring stick

      Here is your valuable program certifying a gasoline powered alarm clock as compliant.

      It's a pencil whipping operation. Nothing of value is being lost here. The 'ceritification' is just a bit of red tape everyone has to go through to sell to certain customers, leech federal grants and other stuff. The red tape employs a bunch of lawyers and adds another hurdle for anyone that might try to compete with GE et al. This is precisely the crap that Trump was elected to kill.

      --
      Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
    4. Re:It's pretty simple by xfade551 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Energy Star probably should have been under NIST (National Institute of Standards and Testings, Dept. of Commerce), anyway.

    5. Re: It's pretty simple by msauve · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Except for the regulations (OSHA has them) which require UL (technically, NRTL) approvals, placing government mandated standards into the hands of unelected, answerable-to-nobody, private organizations.

      Even worse are the regulations, such as vehicle and electrical ones, which require compliance with privately created standards which are incorporated only by reference, and which cost big bucks to actually obtain (NEC and SAE), in which case "ignorance of the law" should definitely be an excuse.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    6. Re: It's pretty simple by barbariccow · · Score: 3, Informative

      "non-essential" means that the building won't blow up if they don't come into work, not that their work contributes to the organizational goal. essential are folks like basic skeleton security, some facilities folk, etc.

  2. Re:Can't it be self funding? by cfalcon · · Score: 5, Informative

    I mean, I can sorta show you what I think the problem is, but I think people will come to different conclusions on it.

    https://energy.gov/gc/articles...

    Energy Star was around 20 years old in 2011 when they finally launched a pilot program to actually test the manufacturer's claims. Unsurprisingly, they found that some were lying. Since there was third party testing involved, we run into an odd issue: the federal government has essentially said "some set of third party testers get to verify energy star, and, if they are ok with it, we will take their word on it and let you use the energy star branding".

    Inevitably, this means that the manufacturers will find some way, in some cases, to scam the results. After all, if word gets out that YOU actually test the products but *I* provide the advertising star, I get to eat your lunch. The system incentivizes cheating, and it wasn't until the Obama administration that anyone had the balls to go look for said cheating.

    You could make the case that the system really does make stuff more efficient, even when some participants cheat. After all, they aren't ALL cheating, and removing the system would probably replace it with nothing, or a possibly more corrupt private industry rubber-stamper. You could also make the case that the incentivization to cheat or not cheat shouldn't be coming from the federal government anyway, and that encouraging a small side industry in testing drama is wasteful and unethical.

    What we will probably see is this: the mainstream media will jump all over it, as it is something to smear Trump with. Internet Trump Team will respond by claiming it is wasteful swampy garbage. No one will be convinced of anything, the facts won't matter in the slightest, and nothing will change in a meaningful way for anyone, except maybe the divisiveness in the country will grow a bit.

  3. No! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  4. Conflict of Interest by realnrh · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  5. Trump has no chopping block by Dracos · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  6. Can globalisation help ? by Alain+Williams · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Can globalisation help ? by unimacs · · Score: 4, Informative

      Except that big manufacturers don't sell all of their products in all markets and I find it highly unlikely that manufactures would put EU energy efficiency labels on products sold in the US since there would be no incentive for them to do so.

      They will happily sell products in the US that don't meet EU standards and products in Thailand that don't meet US standards.

      And yes, I am one of those people that considers Energy Star ratings when I make a purchase. What you'll generally find is that products with better Energy Star ratings are also of better quality than similar products with lower ratings. They're not just more energy efficient.

  7. Government done right by Shotgun · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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
  8. Update: Testing EnergyStar by GAO resulted in: by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Update: Testing EnergyStar by GAO resulted in: by AmiMoJo · · Score: 5, Informative

      Seems that this "GAO" doesn't understand what Energy Star is. It's self certified, they don't do any verification.

      It's like the CE mark in Europe. There are standards, and you self-certify to say you considered and followed them. If someone questions your product and it turns out you lied, there are consequences.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  9. Re:Another outrage article by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.