	Three Federal Programs Take Different Approaches to the Shared Goal of Improving Energy Efficiency and the Scope of Covered Products Varies

The three key federal energy efficiency programs we reviewed–– minimum energy efficiency standards, EnergyGuide, and Energy Star— take different approaches to the shared goal of improving energy  efficiency of selected categories of household appliances and consumer  electronics. The scope of products that these three programs cover also  varies. Federal minimum efficiency  standards for selected categories of household appliances and consumer  electronics, among other things, are designed to eliminate the least  efficient products from the market. EnergyGuide is designed to provide information displayed  on a label attached to selected products that enables consumers to  compare the estimated energy cost and energy consumption of different  models within a given product category. Manufacturers of qualified  products can place the widely recognized Energy Star label on qualifying  products as an indication of energy efficiency, which gives the  manufacturer an incentive to improve energy efficiency. Specifically,  the minimum efficiency standards currently apply to 33 selected  categories of household appliances and consumer electronics;
EnergyGuide currently covers 16 such product categories; and
Energy Star program––the broadest of the three programs––currently  covers 37 such product categories. Our analysis found that some products are covered by only one program,  some by two programs, and some by all three. Figure 2 illustrates the coverage of product categories and the  extent to which products are covered by one, two, or all three programs. Federal Energy Efficiency Programs Are Fragmented and Overlap and Have One Area of Duplication

Federal programs to increase the energy efficiency of household  appliances and consumer electronics are fragmented because more than  one federal agency is involved in the same broad area of national need;  they overlap because the three programs have similar goals and target  similar users. Fragmentation. In March 2011, we  reported that fragmentation has the potential to result in duplication of  resources. Overlap. In the case of these three programs, we found that their  differing approaches may have complementary functions—with the  minimum efficiency standards setting a minimum level of efficiency for all  products in a category, EnergyGuide providing specific information about  estimated energy consumption and costs to help consumers select the  product that best meets their need within this range, and Energy Star  identifying a group of the most energy efficient models––generally the top  25 percent–– within a given category of products. Duplication: The efforts of the three programs to improve energy  efficiency for home appliances and consumer electronics are not broadly  duplicative in that they are not engaged in the same activities or providing  the same services; however, we identified one duplicative activity within  the testing activities undertaken to support the Energy Star program. DOE’s Energy Star verification testing activities were initiated in 2010  and are funded and managed by the department, though the actual  testing occurs at third-party laboratories. Officials from both DOE and EPA told us that they work closely to  coordinate their efforts; however, we examined DOE and EPA verification  testing data for a total of 1,238 tests during 2011 and a portion of 2012  and found 11 instances–-about 1 percent of the products tested— in  which identical models were tested in the same year under the testing  done for EPA and DOE. Without this information, DOE may  continue to select the same models; therefore, some models may  continue to be tested twice while other models go untested. As a result,  the agencies cannot coordinate to ensure that scarce testing resources  are maximized, either by eliminating unnecessary duplicative testing, or  reallocating resources toward testing additional products. Conclusions

Three key federal programs to foster energy efficiency in household  appliances and consumer electronics––the federal minimum efficiency  standards, the EnergyGuide product labeling program, and the Energy  Star voluntary product labeling program––each perform valuable  functions in improving energy efficiency. Nonetheless, because  EPA does not have timely information about the products that certification  bodies have selected for testing, it cannot regularly communicate to DOE  the models selected for testing to support the Energy Star program. Recommendation for Executive Action

To limit the potential for duplication in the current Energy Star verification  testing activities, we recommend that the Administrator of EPA develop a  process that helps ensure that the Energy Star certification bodies  communicate the models they randomly select for testing to EPA and  DOE as quickly as possible so that DOE can avoid selecting the same  models. Both agencies  acknowledged the importance of coordinating their verification testing  activities. EPA agreed with our findings but disagreed with our draft  recommendation and stated that it was concerned that it would be labor  intensive to collect information from the certification bodies. GAO staff who made major contributions to this report are  listed in appendix III.
Why GAO Did This Study

The federal government has established three key programs to encourage energy efficiency in household appliances and consumer electronics sold in the United States: (1) federal minimum efficiency standards, led by DOE; (2) EnergyGuide, which requires product labeling and is led by the FTC; and (3) Energy Star, a voluntary labeling program led by EPA.
Pub. L. No. 111-139 requires GAO to annually identify programs, agencies, offices, and initiatives with duplicative goals and activities. In response to this mandate, the objectives for this report are to: (1) examine these three programs' approaches to improving the energy efficiency of household appliances and consumer electronics and the scope of products they cover, and (2) determine to what extent, if any, federal programs to foster energy efficiency for these products are fragmented, overlapping, or duplicative. GAO reviewed relevant legislation and program documents and spoke with staff at the agencies about each of the programs, and to stakeholders, including manufacturers.

What GAO Found

The three key federal energy efficiency programs--minimum energy efficiency standards led by the Department of Energy (DOE), EnergyGuide led by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), and Energy Star led by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with support from DOE--take different approaches to the shared goal of improving the energy efficiency of selected categories of household appliances and consumer electronics. The scope of products covered by these three programs also varies, and a number of products are covered by only one program, while others are covered by two or all three. Examples are as follows:
Minimum energy efficiency standards establish a national minimum level of energy efficiency for selected categories of products and are designed to eliminate the least efficient products from the marketplace. These standards currently apply to 33 categories of products, including refrigerators and dishwashers.
EnergyGuide provides information displayed on a label attached to selected products that enables consumers to compare the estimated energy cost and energy consumption of different models within a given product category. EnergyGuide covers 16 such product categories, including televisions and dishwashers.
Energy Star identifies the most energy efficient models within a given category of products. Manufacturers of qualifying products can display an Energy Star label on their products that is widely recognized by buyers as an indication of energy efficiency. The program also encourages manufacturers to improve energy efficiency of some models so that those models qualify for the Energy Star label. Energy Star covers 37 such product categories, including televisions and washing machines.
Federal programs to increase the energy efficiency of household appliances and consumer electronics are fragmented and overlapping, with one area of duplication. The programs are fragmented in that three federal agencies are addressing the same broad area of national need--improving energy efficiency. The programs are overlapping in that they target similar users--consumers. While fragmentation and overlap may result in duplication of resources, GAO found that these three programs are not broadly duplicative because they are not engaged in the same activities and do not provide the same services; however, GAO identified one duplicative activity within Energy Star. Specifically, GAO identified duplication in some testing activities undertaken to verify that products meet the criteria for carrying the Energy Star label. EPA and DOE each manage separate verification testing programs and, while the agencies coordinate to minimize duplication, GAO found 11 instances in which identical models had been tested twice in the same year--about 1 percent of the products tested. This duplication occurred because EPA does not communicate to DOE about some models that have been selected for testing until after the tests are complete; therefore, some models were tested twice while other models went untested. As a result, the agencies cannot ensure that scarce testing resources are maximized, either by eliminating unnecessary duplicative testing, or reallocating resources toward testing additional products. To limit the potential for duplication in the current Energy Star verification testing activities, GAO recommends that EPA take steps to better communicate to DOE the models selected for testing so DOE can avoid testing the same ones. DOE and EPA acknowledged the importance of coordination, but EPA disagreed with the draft recommendation, citing concerns it could be labor intensive to implement. GAO revised the recommendation to clarify EPA's flexibility in implementing it.

What GAO Recommends

To limit the potential for duplication in the current Energy Star verification testing activities, GAO recommends that EPA take steps to better communicate to DOE the models selected for testing so DOE can avoid testing the same ones. DOE and EPA acknowledged the importance of coordination, but EPA disagreed with the draft recommendation, citing concerns it could be labor intensive to implement. GAO revised the recommendation to clarify EPAs flexibility in implementing it.