California Energy Commission - Decertify a Refrigerator?

The California Energy Commission (i.e. California) is famous for setting appliance energy standards which result in decreased energy consumption (and electric bills) in ho-hum things like refrigerators, TVs, washers, lighting.

Numerous studies have shown efficiency is the cheapest and fastest way to lower our electric bills, energy consumption and GHG emissions. In fact, as much as 20% or more GHG reductions are possible through building efficiency (Efficiency Drive Could Cut Energy Use 23% by 2020, Study Finds - http://nyti.ms/cUIbEp). It can mean not building more power plants.

Even China has been influenced by California's work, especially the China Energy Group at LBL. This color coding on every Chinese appliance makes it easy, without knowing Chinese. [When looking for a new apartment in China, I used the refrigerator label to gauge how stingy the apartment owner might turn out to be. I didn't know the work had been done in California.]

Of course, in the real world standards, promises, labels are worthless if not verified. This includes California appliance standards.

So I was particularly interested in an "informal" public proceeding to decertify an appliance , held by the CEC's Efficiency Committee on Monday, April 26, 2010. The sole item was to consider decertifing two commercial refrigerators made by Turbo Air, a Korean manufacturer with facilities in Seoul and Qingdao, China.

No ruling has been issued yet, but the hearing raised a few flags which illustrates some of the issues CEC faces in enforcement.

The proceeding details  did not appear overly complicated. Two of the 5 CEC Commissioners form the Efficiency Committee and both were present. The CEC staff, the manufacturer, and a test company provided the background. The refrigerators in question had been 'certified' and placed into a CEC database in 2002 (search for Turbo Air) based solely on information provided by the manufacturer against standards in place at the time.

Under questioning, Turbo Air said the energy data had come from a test lab, and it had paid for the test. But the staff had noted that the manufacturer had actually sent slightly different versions of the data to 4 different regulatory bodies (Energy Star, for example), an apparent flag.

Turbo Air explained that in response to competitive pressures they had made a manufacturing change in February 2008.  At the time, they felt this was 'immaterial' to energy consumption (replacing 2 internal fans, with a larger single fan) and did not notify the CEC. It turns out that this simple change affected the temperature of the condenser and therefore the overall energy consumption. According to staff, however, any manufacturing change - even red to blue door - needs to be reported to CEC, a 2nd flag.

In April 2009, the CEC received an email complaint, which I could not find on the website, from a private group (Consortium for Energy & Efficiency http://www.cee1.org/; curiously CEC itself is a member.) CEC then asked its contracted test lab, BR Laboratories, to purchase a unit and test its energy use. (Manufacturer pays if a violation, CEC pays if not). Indeed the test lab, following accepted procedures, found violations, based on two units. To my surprise, both the manufacturer and the CEC are customers of the same lab! (a third flag)

So at time of this proceeding, 1 year after the complaint, 2 years since the manufacturing change, the manufacturer is still selling the unit! (A fourth flag; sources told me the industry norm is that manufacturers usually voluntarily immediately stop selling a unit, then fix or recertify it.)

Commissioners asked several questions, many addressed to staff about when model number must be changed and a unit recertified.

 But what about the four flags?
-no notification of manufacturing change
-4 versions of data
-the same lab hired by both CEC and manufacturer
-still selling the unit and listed on CEC website (based on 8 year old data?)

An member of the public was allowed to speak and asked questions of both the CEC, the Staff, the manufacturer.

 -Who has the burden to maintain the continuing accuracy of the CEC database?
 (I didn't catch the CEC's answer, and Commissioner Byron did not seem it was relevant to today's activity; I had the impression the people of California are somehow responsible; sources later told me that in practice competitors usually rat on each other.)

-How many units have sold since February 2008?
 (Again, Commissioner Byron felt this was not very relevant and did not need to be answered. However, sources later told me later that when a regulatory agency brings a case to the State's Attorney General this can be the first question the AG will ask. It is unclear if CEC has any penalty process or whether it is based on units sold.)

 -Since the equipment was manufactured in Seoul, Korea and Qingdao, China, the individual wanted to know if this model met Chinese standards.
(But even I can see it is not relevant.)

 Several sources noted that CEC has a limited experience and limited tools with enforcement. Although we agree, as the Chinese say, that the tiger should hide the claws, we do want to know know the tiger has claws and the tiger is watching.


 - CEC Consumer site http://www.consumerenergycenter.org/ ==