ENERGY STAR aims to help consumers identify the most energy efficient
products with the use of a simple, clear, single label. Our guiding
principals call on us to qualify approximately the top 25% of products
while ensuring that ENERGY STAR products are equal or better performance
than conventional products - in other words, we don't ask the consumer
to sacrifice when they buy ENERGY STAR. In order to make good on this
guiding principal, for all of our product categories, we consider the
different functionality or features of a type of product when
establishing ENERGY STAR requirements. Especially for products as
complex as computers, we consider the features of systems when setting
power limits. Ideally, and where we are aiming to be for Tier 2, we
would have a more fluid spec - where power allowances scale with
functionality. Absent an agreed upon metric for such scaling at the
time of the completion of Tier 1 requirements, we developed three bins
for desktops and two for notebooks and power allowances associated with
each bin. These bins attempt to allow the consumers the access to
feature rich but also energy efficient products. Without multiple
categories, only basic systems would qualify for ENERGY STAR. Altering
our label to reflect the bin in which a product resides would likely
cause confusion in the market place and move us away from our intent of
making buying an energy efficient computer very easy for the consumer.

To say that the Version 4.0 specification is only a small improvement
over 3.0 seems a bit unfair. Version 4.0 brings significant savings
over 3.0 through requirements associated with power supply efficiency as
well as active or idle power. Version 4.0 is expected to save U.S.
households and businesses more than $1.8 billion in energy costs over
the next 5 years and avoid greenhouse gas emissions equal to taking more
than 2.7 million cars from the road. If every computer purchased by
businesses meets the new ENERGY STAR requirements in effect next year,
businesses will save $1.2 billion over the lifetime of their new
computers, equal to lighting 730 million square feet of U.S. commercial
building space each year. Government agencies buying ENERGY STAR will
also garner big savings. If the government sector buys only computers
that meet the new ENERGY STAR requirements, this sector will save nearly
3 billion kWh each year and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 4.4
billion pounds each year. I don't think this is disappointing.

Regards-Katharine

Katharine Kaplan
ENERGY STAR Program
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

I can see one loophole that manufacturers might use to get an Energy Star rating without necessarily doing very much for energy efficiency; to a large extent the "Dual-Core Systems with 1GB RAM" and "Gaming/Heavy Multimedia Systems" categories overlap and manufacturers are bound to plump for Cat C rather than Cat B certification, given the choice.

The standout feature of the ES 4.0 spec is the 80% efficiency requirement; that is a big step forward, as even among the SPCR favourites there are only a handful of power supplies that meet or exceed this level.

It reminds me of my recent experience shopping for a fridge, another appliance where I valued silence and efficiency above most other criteria.

I think an improvement would be not just providing a star rating, but an actual number based on assumed hours of idle/active use (kW/Hr/Yr). That way, people could still look for the energy star label, but also compare more readily across platforms. If the program required this labeling, it would be much fairer.

It reminds me of my recent experience shopping for a fridge, another appliance where I valued silence and efficiency above most other criteria.

I think an improvement would be not just providing a star rating, but an actual number based on assumed hours of idle/active use (kW/Hr/Yr). That way, people could still look for the energy star label, but also compare more readily across platforms. If the program required this labelling, it would be much fairer.

Australia's energy star program does this. Each appliance gets a rating out of 6 stars as well as an estimated typical kW/h per year number. I think my fridge at home is ~800kW/h a year. We even have websites setup to help people buy appliances, recommendations on power savings, etc.

Well it can't be having much impact, seeing as Australians are the biggest CO2 emitter per capita?

I think in Australia, it's not the people that are the problem, it's the cows.

Agreed. Energy Star could gain some cred by copying the EPA MPG sticker. Instead of City and Highway MPG we could have Idle and Load.

if only so they can brag to their friends about having the "better" computer because it's more high tech in it's efficiency.

Well it can't be having much impact, seeing as Australians are the biggest CO2 emitter per capita?

Surely you mean the Kangaroos?

Australia relies on fossil fuels for its energy, unlike countries such as France that generate a large percentage of their electricity from nuclear power. It is also heavily engaged in energy intensive industries such as metal smelting, and in recent years has had comparatively high economic growth. As result, Australia is the second greatest emitter of carbon dioxide per head in the world, surpassed only by the U.S. Australians averaged just over 18 tonnes of CO2 per head in year 2000, compared with 20.5 for the average American.

It seems like Category A is almost useless. In just a two years there are going to be virtually no computers sold with less than a dual core processor and 1GB of memory.