|
 |
|
|
|
Tighten Energy Star certifications to start Jan. 2011
|
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Technology manufacturers may start dropping out of the US EPA's Energy Star program as a result of new certification requirements scheduled to go into effect on January 1, 2011.
The new requirements are a response to an investigation earlier this year by the US Government Accountability Office (GAO), which found that the Energy Star self-certification program was vulnerable to fraud and abuse. The GAO obtained Energy Star certifications for 15 bogus products, some of them rather outlandish.
But information technology and consumer electronics manufacturers say that the new requirements will cost both time and money. Even though Energy Star is a voluntary program, not a regulation, it now has "stricter testing and verification rules than the Clean Air and Clean Water acts," claimed Ken Salaets, director of global policy, Information Technology Industry Council in Washington, DC.
In April, after the GAO published its report, the EPA stopped its automated approval process - by which a manufacturer essentially certified itself - and started requiring manufacturers to submit complete lab reports and results to be approved by EPA. It also announced that it would as of January 1 require manufacturers to submit test results from an approved, accredited lab. Previously, the manufacturers' own testing was sufficient.
This third-party testing is going to be a burden, say manufacturers, although exactly how heavy a burden is hard to know. Salaets said it could stretch the certification process to as long as six weeks, a long time for a product that may have a shelf-life of only six months. (Before April, certification was much quicker. One of the GAO's bogus products, a computer monitor, was approved within 30 minutes.) Cost estimates vary widely. For IT products, for example, ITI estimates the new requirements could add $500,000 to $1.5 million in annual costs for each company, said Salaets. For TVs, on the other hand, the cost might be closer to $2,000 per product, said Mark Sharp, group manager in the Corporate Environmental Department at Panasonic Corp of North America.
Although IT manufacturers have long supported and would like to continue supporting the program, the additional time and money may drive some companies out, Salaets said. "Energy Star as a brand has probably already peaked, at least in our industry sector," he said. "There's a risk because of these additional costs and burdens, its role and impact in the marketplace will diminish," he said.
Doug Johnson, vice president of technology policy at the Consumer Electronics Association, also warned of waning participation among its members. "We have feedback from our members that indicates that they are taking a fresh look at whether they can justify continued participation in the program for some product categories." Products might meet the Energy Star specification, but companies would forgo the certification that enables them to use the Energy Star label and be listed as qualified products on the Energy Star Web site.
In addition, at least some international Energy Star government partners don't like the new rules. "There are ongoing concerns in Asia and Europe about how EPA has made these changes unilaterally, without properly engaging and involving the country partners of this program," said Johnson.
The EPA itself recognizes that it may lose participants, said Katharine Kaplan, EPA team lead for Energy Star product development. Manufacturers were given a deadline of November 30 by which to "recommit" to the program, which amounts to signing a new partner agreement that includes the new requirements. As of that date less than half had done so, said Kaplan. Consequently, EPA extended the deadline, sent out reminders, and even planned to make personal phone calls to encourage manufacturers to recommit, she said. Those that do not by January 1 will be dropped from the program. As of January 4, when the Energy Star Web site is due to be updated, "they will see their name drop off our Web site, and their products drop off our qualified products list," said Kaplan.
As for country partners, "we understand that other regions may want to structure their programs differently," she said. The European Union doesn't want to require third-party certification, and so when Energy Star updates its agreement with the EU, due in a year, "we will probably drop mutual recognition," said Kaplan.
Which companies stay and which leave may depend on how much particular, specific markets value the Energy Star label. Energy Star is important for IT equipment, for example, because one of the biggest markets in the world - the federal government - requires the purchase of Energy Star-listed equipment. "It's a federal procurement requirement, it's a de facto standard, so in effect Energy Star is not a voluntary program," said Salaets. And in some categories of consumer electronics - TVs in particular - many consumers demand Energy Star products, noted Kaplan. In markets where Energy Star is not in high demand, and among smaller companies that can't shoulder the additional costs, the program will lose companies, said Kaplan. "It's a sad outcome, I have to say."
Panasonic is one company that will be staying. "It's going to be a significant challenge and will require a complete re-working of our system," said Sharp. However, "we certainly support the program and want to continue to have our products labeled even though it will require more effort and expense on our part."
Even if they stay, it's doubtful that many manufacturers will make the January 1 deadline. Part of the problem is that the requirements keep changing. In April, the EPA said that manufacturers would no longer be allowed to do their own testing, they had to use an outside third party. Then it said that manufacturers could use their own labs if they were ISO/IEC 17025 accredited or if they participated in a "supervised or witnessed manufacturers' testing laboratory program" of a certification body recognized by the EPA. However, later statements by the EPA seemed to indicate that a manufacturer had to participate in such a program even if its own lab was accredited. Finally, in an e-mail sent to participants on December 6, the EPA said that a manufacturer's lab had to do one or the other but not both. It also said, however, that certification bodies could use their own discretion about whether to accept the testing that came out of a manufacturer's ISO-accredited lab.
At a meeting last week held by ITI in Texas, an Energy Star representative referred to the procedures of the system as "a living document," indicating that they would continue to change, according to Salaets. That's an untenable situation for computer companies, most of whom have multiple manufacturing partners in Asia and elsewhere. These companies want to have the testing done close to their manufacturing partners' facilities. "For companies that have to push this process out into their supply chains all over the world - where a lot of Energy Star testing used to take place - they can't be compliant [with] a moving target," he said. What's more, Salaets feared that certification bodies in one region - the US, for example - might not accept testing blessed by a certification lab in Asia, where the ODMs are located. "The EPA is saying they are going to encourage the certification bodies to collaborate, but there's no guarantee that they will. It's at their discretion."
Add to that the fact that there are very few EPA-approved certification labs in Asia, which is where computer companies need them (close to their manufacturing partners), said Salaets. In fact, manufacturers are already worried that there aren't enough certification labs in the United States to handle the coming wave of demand. As of December 9, there were six EPA-approved certification bodies for computers and TVs listed on Energy Star's Web site: Bureau Veritas, CSA International, Intertek, Keystone Certifications, MET Laboratories, Inc, and Underwriters Laboratories Inc.
"Certainly we'd like to have more options," said Sharp. "That would increase the likelihood that [submissions] will be processed quickly, plus a little competition would probably lower the cost."
ITI has asked for a six-month delay to give manufacturers and certification bodies more time to prepare. In its December 6 e-mail, the EPA granted a bit more time to four IT product categories: computers, displays, imaging equipment, and servers. They are still required to submit most of their information, such as product name and model, by January 1, but can take till January 31 to file the lab report.
Given that the new requirements kick in January 1, manufacturers are likely to swamp the Energy Star program with submissions this month. Kaplan said she had not yet seen a big increase, but she expects to. A subcontractor that helps support the Energy Star program, ICF International, has staffed up in anticipation of a flood of applications, she said.
Salaets thinks neither EPA, certification bodies, nor manufacturers are ready. "It's going to be a train wreck," he warned.
By: DocMemory
Copyright © 2023 CST, Inc. All Rights Reserved
|
|
|
|
