backtop

Print 41 comment(s) - last by Smilin.. on Mar 29 at 5:31 PM
The agencies stand behind the certification process, though they say they will be making improvements

The Department of Energy and EPA have been quick to respond about scathing criticism stemming from a Government Accountability Office study, which found that the EPA-administered EnergyStar program would accept bogus products.  Members of Congress claimed that the EPA told them that products were being validated by machine only, at times, a statement that the EPA later refuted having said. 

Further, the GAO noted several examples of companies that apparently had used the EnergyStar label erroneously or fraudulently (LG and Samsung).  In both instances either the company or the EPA eventually pushed a correction through.

An Department of Energy spokesperson contacted us with the following joint statement from the DOE and EPA to share with our readers:
The American people can have confidence in the ENERGY STAR label – a voluntary program that helps consumers save money by using energy efficient products. In fact, a review last year found that 98 percent of the products tested met or exceeded the ENERGY STAR requirements, and last year alone, Americans with the help of ENERGY STAR saved $17 billion on their energy bills.

The program uses a series of checks to ensure consumers are getting products that cut energy costs and greenhouse gas emissions. One of the reasons the system has worked during the first 18 years of the program is that manufacturers have a market incentive to test competitors’ products and report violations, which supports the program's own independent testing, verification and enforcement initiatives.

We welcome all efforts, internal or external, to improve the program, and this report raises important issues. That's why we have started an enhanced testing program and have already taken enforcement actions against companies that have violated the rules. Consumers can continue to trust the ENERGY STAR to save energy and money and protect the environment.
We will keep you tuned if we receive more important information on the investigation or the EPA's steps to beef up its validation process.  For more on these steps, refer to the EPA releases linked in our previous article, which can be found here.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Of Course They Do
By MrDiSante on 3/26/2010 5:37:48 PM , Rating: 5
You can trust us, don't worry. Don't let anyone else tell you otherwise. We know better. In fact, we know better than you what's good for you.




RE: Of Course They Do
By th3pwn3r on 3/26/2010 5:50:24 PM , Rating: 3
They know so much that we need not know anything ourselves it seems. Pretty hilarious when someone has to say that you can "still trust" something.


RE: Of Course They Do
By Lord 666 on 3/26/2010 6:07:44 PM , Rating: 2
Or trust them after Christie Whitman said Ground Zero was safe to work and live around after 9/11 when she was head of the EPA.


RE: Of Course They Do
By Samus on 3/26/2010 8:36:54 PM , Rating: 2
Even though the program has some grim problems, imagine where we'd be without it. Sure, it is one of Al Gore's poster-programs from the Clinton administration but at its soul it is designed to qualify environmentally friendly products. That doesn't neccessarily mean energy efficient.

A Prius is efficient, but is it safe to produce? Hell no.

RoHS borrows much of its foundation from Energy Star, and without it, RoHS might never have been created and we'd all still have a ton of lead in components that operate perfectly ok with alternative metalic hardeners.


RE: Of Course They Do
By DEVGRU on 3/29/2010 12:47:06 PM , Rating: 3
Yeah, and the road to Hell is paved with good intentions...


RE: Of Course They Do
By Smilin on 3/29/2010 5:28:43 PM , Rating: 3
Which means that good intentions are bad. You should not have them.


RE: Of Course They Do
By Motoman on 3/27/2010 1:59:33 AM , Rating: 3
...Mr. Jobs, is that you?


Anyone surprised?
By JonnyDough on 3/26/2010 6:59:04 PM , Rating: 5
I'm not.

I worked at a job selling windows for a short while, and while most walls are around nine to eleven R-value (depending where you live), it only takes an R-value of about TWO to get an energy star rating! Some companies do make windows with R-values up to about eleven.

U-Values are a measure of heat conductance

R-Values are a measure of heat flow resistance

Typical R-values range between 0.9 and 3.0. Remember that you want a high R value and a low U value.

Anyway my point is that in the cold Michigan winters an R value of 2 on a window means you're pretty much going to be losing most of your heat through your windows. Always remember to fluff the insulation in your attic now and then, as AIR is what insulates, while insulating materials are actually thermal CONDUCTORS. This means that sometimes adding insulation can have a detrimental effect - and doubling insulation will not necessarily double its effectiveness. Pay attention to the TYPE of insulation you get, and if you can get it layered so that it doesn't collapse. Insulation is one place where pockets of trapped air are a good thing.

Hope that helps educate anyone who is thinking of buying a first home. :)




RE: Anyone surprised?
By Omega215D on 3/26/2010 10:57:32 PM , Rating: 3
So what you're saying is that those windows go up to 11? Awesome, I need a set of those.

Seriously though good advice, not just for home buying but renovating a home as well.


RE: Anyone surprised?
By MadMan007 on 3/28/2010 2:31:06 AM , Rating: 2
I believe those windows are made by 'ST Windows'...ST standing for Spinal Tap.


RE: Anyone surprised?
By JonnyDough on 3/28/2010 3:14:40 AM , Rating: 3
To correct PorkPie on another article:

R values have nothing to do with how many panes of glass there are. While a basic window might net you a rating of one its downright foolish to assume that two panes equal an R value of two.

The type of gas its filled with, along with how much space is between the panes makes a difference in rating, and although Krypton is the best gas in wide use Argon is nearly as good and is quite a lot cheaper.

You can get a good window made with three panes that uses an argon/krypton gas mix - and vinyl spacers (aluminum is a poor insulator and a great conductor of thermal energy). While it may be more money up front it can be worth the investment, but do your homework and research.

If you own a fairly new home (built within the last twenty years and not a crappily built foundation) with good insulation and you live in a zone that has somewhat extreme temperatures (Such as the cold northern US, or the southern states like Texas or the tip of Florida) it is likely to be well worth replacing your cheaper double pane windows. Windows on new houses are often touted as being energy friendly when in fact they're not much better than a single pane.

Find out what you have currently before deciding. If you plan to own the home for around ten years or more then it is likely to be worth the cost if you live in a fairly hot or fairly cold region and don't have low-e windows. That said, this is an industry that loves suckers too - so do your homework and don't trust the salesman. They make a killing off windows.


A couple of things...
By OUits on 3/26/2010 5:19:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Members of Congress claimed that the EPA told them that products were being validated by machine only, at times, a statement that the EPA later refuted having said.


So which is it? And why isn't this information readily available if we can "still trust Energy Star"? An open process is the best way to earn trust.

quote:
In fact, a review last year found that 98 percent of the products tested met or exceeded the ENERGY STAR requirements.


In fact, I'm not impressed with your rhetoric. 98% should mean there is HUGE room for improvement.

What if a school district conducted a review and found that 98% of students that graduated met or exceeded graduation requirements? How did 2% just slip through with bogus credentials?




RE: A couple of things...
By Mitch101 on 3/26/2010 5:40:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
In fact, a review last year found that 98 percent of the products tested met or exceeded the ENERGY STAR requirements


It means only 2% needed to bribe large sums to get energy star approval. ;)


RE: A couple of things...
By OUits on 3/26/2010 6:14:57 PM , Rating: 3
Seems low for a government office, eh?


RE: A couple of things...
By BadAcid on 3/29/2010 12:11:03 PM , Rating: 2
Athletics.


Requirements
By Exodite on 3/27/2010 3:42:34 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
...a review last year found that 98 percent of the products tested met or exceeded the ENERGY STAR requirements...

That, to me, says it's way overdue tightening up those requirements.




RE: Requirements
By Smilin on 3/29/2010 5:31:11 PM , Rating: 2
not really. It ain't like the requirements are kept in some human-flesh bound tome and closely guarded.

Manufacturers obtain the specs ahead of time, do their own testing and only then do they submit something for approval.

I'm kind of surprised the results aren't closer to 100%. After all 98% just means that 2% either didn't RTFM or they just really suck.


Teh funny
By Smilin on 3/29/2010 5:25:59 PM , Rating: 2
So I found one of those waaaay off topic rants under a news article on CNN (I think?). Normally I run the moment I see the wall of ranting text but this one actually made a point in a fairly humorous way.

I hope you get a kick out of it too...

quote:
This morning I was awoken by my alarm clock powered by electricity generated by the public power monopoly regulated by the US department of energy. I then took a shower in the clean water provided by the municipal water utility. After that, I turned on the TV to one of the FCC regulated channels to see what the national weather service of the national oceanographic and atmospheric administration determined the weather was going to be like using satellites designed, built, and launched by the national aeronautics and space administration. I watched this while eating my breakfast of US department of agriculture inspected food and taking the drugs which have been determined as safe by the food and drug administration.

At the appropriate time as regulated by the US congress and kept accurate by the national institute of standards and technology and the US naval observatory, I get into my national highway traffic safety administration approved automobile and set out to work on the roads...

built by the local, state, and federal departments of transportation, possibly stopping to purchase additional fuel of a quality level determined by the environmental protection agency, using legal tender issued by the federal reserve bank. On the way out the door I deposit any mail I have to be sent out via the US postal service and drop the kids off at the public school.
After spending another day not being maimed or killed at work thanks to the workplace regulations imposed by the department of labor and the occupational safety and health administration, enjoying another two meals which again do not kill me because of the USDA, I drive my NHTSA car back home on the DOT roads, to ny house which has not burned down in my absence because of the state and local building codes and fire marshal’s inspection, and which has not been plundered of all it’s valuables thanks to the local police department.

I then log on to the internet which was developed by the defense advanced research projects administration and post on freerepublic.com and fox news forums about how SOCIALISM in medicine is BAD because the government can’t do anything right.




hello
By chenlin1122 on 3/28/2010 5:57:26 AM , Rating: 1
right




Yep
By xxsk8er101xx on 3/27/10, Rating: -1
RE: Yep
By Motoman on 3/27/2010 2:00:36 AM , Rating: 2
Right. Because every administration before has been *perfectly* honest with us about everything.


RE: Yep
By AssBall on 3/27/2010 3:34:28 AM , Rating: 5
Right, because focusing on our former administrations is so useful for alleviating our current situation. Stop blaming and start acting. Alternatively, shut the f_ck up.


RE: Yep
By Kurz on 3/27/2010 9:10:39 AM , Rating: 2
You need to have a foe before you can act.
Many people see the government as a good thing.


RE: Yep
By Kurz on 3/27/2010 9:13:31 AM , Rating: 5
I mean to say the current government.
Since they have gone way past the bonds of the consitution a while back.


RE: Yep
By quiksilvr on 3/27/10, Rating: 0
RE: Yep
By snyper256 on 3/27/2010 5:14:32 PM , Rating: 3
Too bad real people have no say when it comes to what the Government decides to do.


RE: Yep
By Motoman on 3/28/2010 1:08:44 PM , Rating: 2
Hmmm...do you:

1. Vote.

2. Contact your congressman with your views on issues they are voting on

3. Contact your representatives with your views on issues they are voting on

4. Do the same with your state and local elected officials

...no? Huh.


RE: Yep
By seamonkey79 on 3/28/2010 1:52:26 PM , Rating: 3
1. Yes

2. Yes, but they don't care because they know where I live and whether people in my area voted for them. Since people in my area do not vote for the people that win, they can 'safely' ignore everything I say because they don't need to make me happy so they can get re-elected.

3. Yes, read #2

4. Yes, and the village I live in does run things very lean and tight. Few people in administration, and all of the different departments are run with a limited number of people, doing multiple jobs. The county, however, read #2.

When a majority of people are being given things by the government, they're going to elect the people who are going to give them more things.

As for the Energy Star thing, it's been a joke since day one, and it's certainly no less a joke now. This is what happens when you create government jobs that have no actual benefit.


RE: Yep
By aj28 on 3/28/2010 8:20:27 PM , Rating: 2
That's democracy though. Rather, a republic, representative democracy, or whatever you want to call what we have stateside. Point being, just because you don't get your way doesn't mean the government is somehow illegitimate. Democracy isn't about who makes the most intelligent argument. You may well be right in everything that you believe, but it's majority rule, and who votes rules. And yes, I believe that no matter who is in office.

You have to admit, if we sat here voting on everything the government did, we'd get even less done than they do now. The country is deeply divided, but all that means is that a large portion of us are wrong. We could go back to the days when only wealthy, white land owners could vote... After all, we don't want stupid people voting, do we? I certainly don't, but hell, you might think I'm the stupid one!

Point being, I'm sorry that you feel you're not worth anything to your representatives. I admit that I would be the first to support abolishing the electoral college so that everyone's vote was worth the same, but it's just not the reality we live in, and I don't think that you can blame the present administration for that.


RE: Yep
By Kurz on 3/29/2010 9:38:30 AM , Rating: 2
If 'your way' happens to be following the supreme law of the land (Consitution). Then yes you can say the government is illegitimate.

Congress is supposed to be upholding the consitution so yes they'll be doing less, but they'd be doing more by protecting the fudemental ideals this country was based on. One based on limited government involvement.

The reality is the population is in control, but they reliquished that right. So they leave the scary decision making to a few without any reprecussions.


RE: Yep
By Solandri on 3/28/2010 4:44:41 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Wake up. Our current situation is a result of the mistakes of the past. Insane frivolous spending in a short period of time is what ruins an economy, not a planned (and edited from both sides) educated spending (with a few questionable ares) that is spread out over a span of a decade.

While I agree that Bush did a lot of stupid things, insane frivolous spending was not one of them. For the record, federal spending as a percent of GDP during his terms was relatively flat, roughly equal to the average of Clinton's two terms.

What caused the the big deficits during Bush's Presidency was a drop in Federal receipts primarily due to:

- The tech bubble popping causing a recession. I blame this on Clinton.
- 9/11, causing a weak recovery post-tech bubble to spiral back into recession. I blame this on terrorists and the public reacting just like the terrorists wanted.
- Bush's tax cuts. This was self-inflicted, and I blame Bush.

http://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/y2009/Humme...


RE: Yep
By sinful on 3/28/2010 1:14:40 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
While I agree that Bush did a lot of stupid things, insane frivolous spending was not one of them.


Are you kidding? He started the Iraq/Afghanistan war, which is a THREE TRILLION DOLLAR boondoggle!

That's MORE THAN 30 YEARS OF OBAMACARE -- WITH NO RETURN ON INVESTMENT.

Was Saddam a bad man? Yes, of course. Was it worth sucking $3 TRILLION out of our economy to get rid of him? NO WAY!

Go ahead and advocate Bush all you want, but make no mistake that you'll be paying for his war for the rest of your life -- and probably your childrens lives -- for his war.

And the next GOP goons that get in office are just itching to spend another $3T, this time in Iran. "Bomb Bomb Bomb, Bomb Iran!"


RE: Yep
By Solandri on 3/29/2010 4:06:39 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Are you kidding? He started the Iraq/Afghanistan war, which is a THREE TRILLION DOLLAR boondoggle!

That's MORE THAN 30 YEARS OF OBAMACARE -- WITH NO RETURN ON INVESTMENT.

Considering the $3 trillion estimate is based on a roughly 70-year cost of the war (it included interest on debt and the lifetime medical costs to care for wounded veterans), your comparison is actually biased in Obama's favor.

quote:
Go ahead and advocate Bush all you want, but make no mistake that you'll be paying for his war for the rest of your life -- and probably your childrens lives -- for his war.

Advocate for him? I voted against him in both elections and opposed invading Iraq. There are a long list of charges you can criticize him for. Making up untrue ones just damages your credibility among those who disagree or are unconvinced of your viewpoint by making you sound like an extremist. And like it or not, that's just what the original claim I quoted was. As a percentage of the nation's GDP, the average federal spending during Bush's years was pretty much the same as the average during Clinton's years. The budget deficits during Bush's terms were caused by a drop in tax revenue, not by overspending.


RE: Yep
By sinful on 3/27/2010 5:14:26 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Right, because focusing on our former administrations is so useful for alleviating our current situation. Stop blaming and start acting. Alternatively, shut the f_ck up.


Right, because we shouldn't focus on the CAUSE of our current situation - just blame the people in charge now.

Stop blaming and start acting - just don't think about why we put the current people in power -- (i.e. to fix the problems the PREVIOUS administration caused).


RE: Yep
By xxsk8er101xx on 3/27/2010 8:31:52 PM , Rating: 2
hey guess what? we did act and now they're doing the same crap the previous people were doing.

THERE IS NO CHANGE JUST THE SAME OL SAME OL! (caps on purpose for yelling)


RE: Yep
By aj28 on 3/28/2010 8:22:10 PM , Rating: 2
Are you calling Bush a socialist?


RE: Yep
By Amedean on 3/27/10, Rating: 0
RE: Yep
By Kurz on 3/27/2010 10:02:06 PM , Rating: 1
Actually I am a member of the tea party movement.
Dont say anything you don't understand.


RE: Yep
By xxsk8er101xx on 3/27/2010 8:30:06 PM , Rating: 2
no they were lieing too.

Remember the whole "change" thing Obama was praising? Guess what?

Same old crap! Nothing new, no change, he's doing the same crap Bush did.

Change? my ass!


RE: Yep
By DominionSeraph on 3/27/2010 11:37:09 PM , Rating: 2
*Lying

Now that's a change I can believe in.


RE: Yep
By aj28 on 3/28/2010 8:24:04 PM , Rating: 2
Hello. You win this thread.


"Death Is Very Likely The Single Best Invention Of Life" -- Steve Jobs











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki