He explained that LG Electronics was not exploiting a loophole in the Energy Star criteria. LG chose to use an outdated test methodology rather than the test method required by the Energy Star criteria. Either LG Electronics read the Energy Star criteria and chose to ignore the test requirements — OR — LG Electronics never read the Energy Star criteria.

Either way, LG Electronics should not have been using the Energy Star label on those products.

And, despite your assertion that the Department of Energy quickly rectified things, DOE actually ignored the most important aspects of the LG fraud. DOE asked LG to reimburse consumers for the additional electricity they consumed as a result of the fraudulent data LG provided. DOE did not, however, require LG to offset the additional global warming pollution resulting from the LG fraud.

Avoiding global warming pollution is the entire reason I and others bought the LG frdige to begin with. Shouldn’t that issue have also been addressed?!?

Even more interestingly, the Consumer Reports article also points out that the Samsung refrigerators violated the Energy Star criteria. Why hasn’t DOE taken any action against Samsung?

Thanks again for the series on the Sins of Green Washing.

PS:

The problems with Energy Star include relatively antiquated standards that take a long time to update, and that DOE/EPA do not provide objective third party verification of Energy Star compliance–instead leaving that up to voluntary testing by the appliance makers. That’s kind of like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse. Consumer Reports wrote on this subject, and you can find it here:
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/home-garden/resource-center/energy-star-has-lost-some-luster/overview/energy-star-ov.htm

Interestingly, LG refrigerators were mentioned, pointing out that LG’s Energy Star testing for some of their fridges took place with the icemaker turned off, which made the refrigerators comply with the Energy Star standard. However that is not a realistic way of testing, since almost nobody would turn off the icemaker, and CR found that the fridge used more than double the energy (in gross violation of Energy Star) when the icemaker was turned on.

DOE wasted NO time in stripping the guilty LG refrigerators of their Energy Star status (http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/manuf_res/PressRelease_DOE_LG_SettlementAgreement.pdf), demonstrating again the value of independent third party testing.

To be fair to LG, it was relying on a DOE loophole that allowed the icemaker to be turned off, such that DOE is at least as much at fault. Where LG went wrong, according to the DOE press release, is that while the icemaker can be turned off the temperature of the ice storage compartment must remain at its coldest setting, whereas when LG turned off the icemaker it also turned off the ice storage compartment’s cooling element. Is it reasonable for DOE to assume that the ice maker and the ice storage temperature control will always have separate on/off switches? Beats me, but it’s this kind of loophole nonsense that can cast doubt on what should be a great energy efficiency certification.

What’s annoying is that consumers are SUPPOSED to rely on standards like Energy Star to avoid greenwashing and do the right thing for the environment. Lack of verification and old standards defeat the purpose of the label. Hopefully good people like the folks at CR will continue to expose problems with Energy Star certifications and keep companies honest.

The Energy Star standard does not require fridge manufacturers to provide proof of their claims. Manufacturers are just allowed to put the label on when they think it meets the Energy Star criteria.

Companies should be required to provide proof. How are we supposed to know otherwise.