3rd-Party Energy Star Certifications ‘Neither Necessary Nor Justified,’ Says CTA
As a result of EPA’s 2011 imposition of mandatory third-party certifications of CE products qualifying for Energy Star, the process “is significantly more expensive and time-consuming to manufacturers than the successful self-certification system which existed previously,” CTA told EPA in comments posted Thursday at the Energy Star website. Of the 18 companies or groups that filed comments on EPA’s stated goals to build more “transparency” into the Energy Star program (see 1712150033), filings of CTA, the Natural Resources Defense Council and Samsung were directly germane to consumer tech.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
Requiring third-party certifications “was neither necessary nor justified based on the industry’s successful track record” of Energy Star compliance, said CTA. “It also is superfluous in light of the government’s post-market verification programs which are much more meaningful and impactful.” That the third-party certification mandate raises costs for manufacturers and slows the introduction of new models in the marketplace “creates a disincentive to participate in the program,” said CTA. “We are very concerned about EPA’s current approach to third-party certification as it applies to our products.”
The association has lobbied hard for congressional bills that would allow CE companies with a good record of compliance to earn their way out of the third-party certification requirement (see 1711080025), and did so again in its comments to EPA. Agency representatives told us repeatedly they aren't fans of those proposals for fear they would again leave Energy Star vulnerable to fraud as it was before the rules were imposed (see 1604220027).
The congressional proposals that CTA backs are “a mechanism of appropriate regulation and should be a model for future regulatory efforts,” said CTA. “Companies that act in good faith and with demonstrated track records avoid excess regulation. Companies that fail to meet their obligations require greater regulation. Also, the rigorous post-market verification system that exists today would stay in place.”
EPA needs to do more to fortify the “public comment process” when it revises Energy Star specifications, said CTA. “EPA should publish notices in the Federal Register that a draft or final specification is available” on the Energy Star website, said the group. “A simple notice of availability in the Federal Register would not add significant time to the release process and could be done in addition to EPA’s current practice” of posting drafts and final specs on the Energy Star websites and through e-mail distribution lists,” it said. “Government agencies routinely place notices in the Federal Register; it is the standard way the federal government communicates with the public.”
Energy Star’s “existing tools and product pages are a good way to track what has previously happened in the program but do not consistently provide forward-looking information,” said NRDC. But the green group said “we are not suggesting and do not support elevating” the Energy Star spec-revision process to that of a “full regulatory-style rulemaking,” it said.
NRDC is satisfied that EPA already “strives to promote transparency in its specification development process,” it said. “To help continually improve transparency in the procedures it follows and to better engage with a wider body of stakeholders, EPA should make it as straightforward as possible for stakeholders to become involved in the specification setting process.” It advocates an Energy Star product development website that’s “transparent, searchable” and easy to use, along with email distribution lists that are kept “up to date and straightforward to enroll in,” it said.
The green group stopped well shy of asking EPA to roll back its third-party certification mandate. “We are however open to some form of relaxed verification testing, that would reduce the rate of testing and the overall cost to the manufacturer,” as long as that doesn’t “compromise the integrity” of the program or brand, said NRDC. A manufacturer whose Energy Star-qualified products “have been tested routinely and for which no non-compliant or significant under reporting of product energy use was observed may be eligible for less frequent verification testing,” it said.
Samsung largely used its four pages of comments to hail current Energy Star practices without advancing any new proposals about how EPA can improve the program. For example, Samsung thinks EPA runs Energy Star “effectively through its notice and comment procedure with a clear timeline,” the company said. For home appliances and TVs, EPA “has provided sufficient notice for specification development throughout various phases and the Agency responds to stakeholder comments,” it said.
EPA "sets a clear timeline when communicating with stakeholders, which allows for business efficiencies," said Samsung: "When stakeholder consensus takes time to emerge, the EPA has the flexibility to extend specification development into additional rounds of notice and comment.” As with its comments to EPA, Samsung by and large has steered clear of the discord that has delayed the process of finalizing the v8.0 Energy Star TV spec after 18 months of trying (see 1712010056).