energy star in review energy star participants meeting anne wilkins and katherine delves office of...
Post on 18-Dec-2015
216 views
TRANSCRIPT
ENERGY STAR in review
ENERGY STAR Participants Meeting
Anne Wilkins and Katherine DelvesOffice of Energy Efficiency
June 4, 2008
ENERGY STAR in Canada 2007-2008
- Program highlights – a review of activities
- Managing the ENERGY STAR Brand- Loyalty and Brand Equity- Maintaining the Brand
- Overview of product criteria and levels
- Delivering energy savings (integrity of the mark)
Managing the ENERGY STAR Program – where we are today
2001-2002 2008
Symbols
Product categories 21 35
Plus houses
(ON and SK)
Product models Approx 10,000 over 500,000
Searchable data bases of E* products
4 (Canada – appliances)
23
Participants 40 425+
Our program successes
ENERGY STAR :• New and more stringent criteria• Canada develops decorative light strings spec• Begins work on heat recovery ventilators• Part of rebate requirements for ecoENERGY
Retrofit initiative• Criteria for rebates, incentives and tax exemptions; in
environmental programs (LEED); in info and web sites in all provinces and territories
• New houses program expanded to Saskatchewan• Requirement for NMSO for office equipment• Requirement in various social housing procurement
programs for appliance replacements
How we help
• Broadly relevant technologies
• ENERGY STAR web site – product models – criteria – extranet
• Publications
• ENERGY STAR calculator
• ENERGY STAR in procurement
• ENERGY STAR workshops
• ENERGY STAR in the news – common messaging
Loyalty
Satisfaction
Credibility
Relevance
Differentiation
Understanding
Awareness
Promotion
Partnership
Persistent
Managing the Brand
Promotional Activities
Which promotional efforts did participants undertake during 2007? 98% of participants undertook at least one of the promotional efforts listed below:
Participants' Promotional Efforts in 2007
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
Increased retail space for E*
In-store promotional events
E* in flyers & catalogues
Promoted E* on company website
Link from company website to E* website
Promoted E* in company literature
Promoted E* in TV or radio ads
Distributed E* information to stakeholders
Displayed E* materials in showroom
Launched campaigns for specific E* products
Rebates and incentives
Other
ENERGY STAR Awareness figures
ENERGY STAR AWARENESS LEVELS (%)
2613
32
17
40
25
44
29
4936
5948
6256
0
20
40
60
80
100
aided awareness unaided awareness
Nov-01 Jan-03 Sep-03 Nov-04 May-05 Aug-06 Sep-07
Aided awareness by region
Aided Awareness of the Symbol by Province / Territories
0
20
40
60
80
100
2007 2006
Understanding the meaning of the ENERGY STAR
0 20 40 60 80 100
Energy Efficiency/low energyconsumption/saves energy
Safe for the environment
Inexpensive
Poorly built
Doesn't mean anything
Other2007 2006 2004
Ipsos-Reid Survey Tracking Study on ENERGY STAR and EnerGuide for NRCan 2007
What does NRCan do to promote understanding of ENERGY STAR
• Material in ecoENERGY Retrofit kits– Pocket cards– Fact sheets and publications
• ENERGY STAR web site (www.energystar.gc.ca)
• Newspaper articles (News Canada); media relations; answer thousands of inquiries
• Working with our participants and other organizations to include ENERGY STAR in material, and to use the symbol correctly.
Purchasing and loyalty
72
40
21
41
7
18
I prefer to purchaseENERGY STAR products
whenever I can
I consider myself loyal toENERGY STAR labelled
products
agree neither agree or disagree disagree
Ipsos-Reid Survey Tracking Study on ENERGY STAR and EnerGuide for NRCan 2007
Barriers identified
Barriers to the marketing, sale, installation or promotion of ENERGY STAR qualified products
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Lack of awareness among stakeholders
Lack of awareness among consumers
Difficult to meet demand for qualified products
Parts/processes required to manufacture tospecifications are expensive
E* qualified products are perceived as moreexpensive than non-qualified products
Other
Do any of the following present barriers to the marketing/sale/installation/promotion of ENERGY STAR qualified products in your area? Two-thirds of participants indicated at least one barrier, as depicted below.
Highlights of the ENERGY STAR Participants Survey
• Participation rate needs to increase, to make it an effective evaluation tool for the program and its participants.
– It is a requirement of the administrative arrangement;
– It helps to understand barriers and opportunities.
2007 Participants survey - Participant
category Asked Responded
% of Respon-dents per category
Manufacturers 71 36 51%
Retailers 29 11 38%
Utilities 36 22 61%
General participants 47 27 57%
Fenestration manufacturers 140 80 57%
Fenestration dealers 90 41 46%
Total 413 217 52%
2007 ENERGY STAR Participants survey says :
• Over 90% say that YES, the ENERGY STAR symbol adds value to the products they manufacture and sell
• ENERGY STAR mostly promoted in product/company literature or website
• Activities which had the greatest impact on sales :– Utility sponsored incentives, rebates; PST exemptions– Product exchange/rebate programs– Community engagement, workshops and energy assessments– Sales contests– Prime rate loan programs– Incorporating better performance parts and design in products
Utility programs across Canada
Hydro Québec
Ontario Power Authority
Efficiency New Brunswick
Gvt of Northwest Territories Kitchener Utilities
Conserve Nova Scotia
Credibility
• Consistent use of ENERGY STAR symbol - Usage requirements
• Performance
• Protecting the ENERGY STAR brand
Monitoring the ENERGY STAR
• Comprehensive program to maintain program integrity and ensure proper use of the ENERGY STAR label– Administrative arrangement requirements– Program identity guidelines– Qualification testing through Self-Certification– Compliance Audit Program
• Market Surveillance• Manufacturer Verification Testing• 3rd Party Certification and Reporting (for regulated products)
– Retail Store Level Assessment– Monitoring use of ENERGY STAR in the media– Assessing the consumer experience– Updating performance Criteria to ensure that ENERGY STAR is
meaningful
Attitudes Towards ENERGY STAR: Aware vs. Not Aware
76%
72%
74%
63%
50%
41%
13%
9%
72%
62%
68%
62%
52%
52%
17%
14%
Buying ENERGY STAR-labeled products makes me / would make mefeel like I'm helping to protect the environment for future generations
I prefer/ would prefer to purchase ENERGY STAR-labeled productswhenever I can/ could
Buying ENERGY STAR-labeled products makes me/ would make mefeel like I'm acting responsibly
Buying ENERGY STAR-labeled products makes me/ would make mefeel like I'm contributing to society
ENERGY STAR-labeled products provide me/ would provide me withmore benefits than products without the ENERGY STAR label
ENERGY STAR-labeled products offer better value/ would offer bettervalue than products without the label
All new products use energy just as efficiently, whether or not theyhave the ENERGY STAR label
Buying ENERGY STAR-labeled products makes me/ would make mefeel like I'm spending extra money for nothing
Aware of Energy Star Not Aware of Energy Star
For each of the following statements I would like you to tell me whether you agree or disagree on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 means you strongly disagree, 5 means you strongly agree and 3 the mid-point means you neither agree nor disagree.
% Agree (4, 5)
Base: Aware of Energy Star (n=1,513); Not aware of Energy Star (n=687)
Impact of ENERGY STAR Symbol on Perceptions of Products
50%
45%
41%
21%
13%
9%
9%
40%
47%
48%
45%
28%
25%
23%
9%
5%
9%
30%
58%
65%
67%
ENERGY STAR-labeled products provide me with more benefitsthan products without the ENERGY STAR label
ENERGY STAR-labeled products deliver what they promise
ENERGY STAR-labeled products offer better value thanproducts without the label
I don't find any real difference in performance betweenproducts with the ENERGY STAR label and those without the
label
All new products use energy just as efficiently, whether or notthey have the ENERGY STAR label
ENERGY STAR-labeled products do not meet my needs
Buying ENERGY STAR-labeled products makes me feel like I'mspending extra money for nothing
Agree (4, 5) Neither (3) Disagree (1, 2)
For each of the following statements I would like you to tell me whether you agree or disagree on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 means you strongly disagree, 5 means you strongly agree and 3 the mid-point means you
neither agree nor disagree.
Base: Aware of Energy Star (n=1,513)
Loyalty towards the ENERGY STAR Brand
Loyalty to ENERGY STAR
7674
63
1619
26
77
11
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Buying an ENERGY STAR qualified product makesme feel like I'm helping to protect the environment
for future generations
Buying an ENERGY STAR qualified product makesme feel like I'm acting responsibly
Buying an ENERGY STAR qualified product makesme feel like I'm contributing to society
Agree Neither Agree or disagree Disagree
2007 ENERGY STAR Participants Survey says..
• Were there any other comments or suggestions on any other aspect of NRCan’s ENERGY STAR initiative?– Keep up the good work!– You are a wonderful service and I just wanted to say
thank you.– The number of participants involved is excellent.
Education of the general public is the main goal, and it is getting there.
– Thanks for gathering our feedback.– Continue doing what you are doing.
How can we increase market penetration?
• What additional activities should NRCan undertake to increase market penetration ESTAR?– National advertising– Simplified newsletter for consumers– Promote web site– Position ENERGY STAR as easy action that consumers can take in
response to environmental messaging– Assist manufacturers to develop simple visual prompts to
demonstrate payback period and/or ROI at point of sale– Target municipalities– Develop free training seminars where clusters of participants are
located– Financial incentives– Harmonize activities of provincial governments and utilities, to
assist participants in planning and forecasting activities
Guiding principles for ENERGY STAR criteria
• Significant energy savings can be realized on a national basis
• Product performance can be maintained or enhanced • Purchasers will recover their initial investment within
a reasonable time period• Efficiency can be achieved with several technology
options, at least one of which is non-proprietary• Product energy consumption and performance can
be measured and verified with testing • Effectively differentiate products and be visible for
purchasers
ENERGY STAR in Canada
• Harmonized Technology Criteria with harmonized markets (Canada / U.S. / World)
• Products must first meet the requirements of the Energy Efficiency Regulations and Provincial Authorities
• Where practical, identify Canada only deviations
Products and categories
AppliancesClothes washers
DishwashersRefrigeratorsDehumidifiersAir cleaners
Water coolersWater Heaters
Heating &Cooling
Central ACHeat pumps
BoilersFurnaces
Ceiling fansRoom AC
Ventilating fansThermostats
Home Electronics
Battery chargersTelephonyTV/VCRs
DVD productsHome audio
External power Adaptors
DTA’s
Office EquipmentComputersMonitorsImaging
Fax machinesMulti-function
devices
LightingCFLs
Res. light fixturesDLSSSL
Traffic signals
FenestrationWindows
DoorsSkylights
Commercial Food ServiceRefrigerators
Freezers Dishwashers
Clothes WashersFryers
SteamersHot food cabinetsVending machines
Icemakers
BuildingsNew Homes
Criteria – Finalized
• Revisions– Residential Light Fixtures
– CFLs
– External Power Adapters
– TVs
– Residential Refrigerators / Freezers
– Residential / Commercial Clothes Washers
• New Products– Decorative Light Strings
(DLS)
– Solid State Lighting (SSL)
– Digital TV Adapters
– Commercial Dishwashers
– Commercial Icemakers
Criteria – In development
• Revisions– Set-Top Boxes
– Computers
– Imaging Equipment
– Monitors
– Commercial Solid Door Refrigerators and Freezers
– Programmable Thermostats
– Furnaces
– Ventilating Fans
– Windows, Doors and Skylights
• New Products– Servers
– Commercial Refrigerator Freezers (laboratory grade)
– Commercial Griddles
– Water Heaters
– HRV’s
Criteria Finalized- Revisions
• Residential Light Fixtures: Version 4.2 effective August 1, 2008– Primarily addresses GU 24 based lamps and coordinates with CFL criteria– includes: Accelerated, Cycling, Thermal and Voltage stress test; Maximum mercury content; Run
up time; Packaging and labelling requirements and 2 year warranty– includes performance requirements for SSL fixture applications
• CFLs: Version 4.0 effective December 2, 2008– includes: max mercury levels, increased efficacy, add candelabra base, manufacturer 3rd party
testing, elevated temperature testing for reflector CFLs
• External Power Adapters: effective November 2008– Increases the Active Mode efficiency requirements– Separate Active Mode requirements for low voltage EPS models– Reduces No-Load power limits and proposed separate No-Load requirements for ac-dc and ac-
ac models – Adds a power factor requirement for power supplies with an input power of 100 watts or greater
• TVs: effective November 2008– Addresses On Mode and Standby
• Residential Refrigerators / Freezers: effective April 28, 2008– 20% more energy efficient federal government standard (full size, 7.75 ft3 or greater; Types 1 - 7)
• Residential / Commercial Clothes Washers: effective January 1, 2009– MEF=1.8 and WF=7.5 and for 2011: MEF=2.0 and WF=6.0.
Criteria Finalized- New Products
• Decorative Light Strings (DLS): effective fall 2007 (NRCan lead)– 1½ years in development – 19 qualified brands and authorized importers– Criteria includes: visual inspection; electrical requirements (maximum input power
of 0.20 watts per lamp); Life test (1000 hrs); Weathering requirements (heat and water spray); Product packaging requirements
• Solid State Lighting Luminaires (SSL): effective September 30, 2008– Limits coverage to LED systems for “white light” general illumination– Luminaire efficacy key metric– Establish 2 category specification: A. prescriptive specs for near-term lighting
applications and B. performance specs for all applications (long term)– Applies to luminaires for commercial and residential general service lighting
• Digital TV Adapters: effective January 31, 2007– On mode < 8 W and sleep mode < 1 W
• Commercial Dishwashers: – on average 25% more energy-efficient and 25% more water-efficient than standard
models. • Commercial Icemakers
– on average 15% more energy-efficient and 10% more water-efficient than standard models.
Criteria in development- Revisions
• Set-Top Boxes: Tier 1 effective January 2009; Tier 2 effective January 2011– Independent requirements for Service Providers and manufacturers– Service Providers must buy ENERGY STAR or refurbish boxes to meet ENERGY STAR along with ensuring boxes
maintain qualification in field. Annual requirements 2009-2011 proposed.– Manufacturers must meet efficiency requirements based on a calculated Typical Electricity Consumption approach
• Computers: Tier 2: final October 2008, effective July 2009– For notebooks and desktops: uses an energy efficiency performance assessment (EEPA) tool developed by
standards body ECMA (Eccomark) which will allow for scaling by computing performance and greater longevity and viability of spec
– Uses similar benchmark tool for workstations developed by SPEC– Covers game consoles, thin clients with requirements specific to these products; also covers desktop derived
servers and integrated computers
• Imaging Equipment: Tier 2: final Summer 2008, effective April 2009– Address Typical Electricity Consumption (TEC) levels, standby for Operational Mode (OM), other standby
requirements, digital front end guidance, minor clarifications
• Ventilating Fans: initiated only• Windows, Doors and Skylights: finalize fall 2008, effective early 2010 (NRCan lead)
– Changes include more stringent levels for the four climate zones and increased testing, certification and labelling requirements
– NRCan is also trying to coordinate the changes with the U.S. DoE who are also proposing changes to their own program.
– Discussion with industry and other key stakeholders is continuing.
Criteria in development- Revisions
• Boilers and Furnaces: Tier II effective October 1, 2008– Considering going from 90% to 92% for gas and 83% to 85% for oil. (consideration to
include electrical criteria postponed to Tier II) – Industry and NRCan support for 92% AFUE for gas. – Some Industry concern with the availability of oil furnaces at 85%; COHA supports 85%
oil furnace. • Programmable Thermostats current spec expires March 2009
– Little differentiation between ENERGY STAR qualified PT and nonqualified PT. Cost and energy savings are not assured, dependent on consumer behavior.
– Initiating a consumer education campaign and requiring partners to participate– Working with industry to develop a new Criteria that will identify and reinforce energy
saving behavior by the consumer
• Monitors: final Fall 2008, effective Summer 2009– Expanding scope to include small (digital picture frames) and big (professional displays)– Possible convergence at a later time with TV spec into one Display spec, – Power requirements with different features/interfaces.
• Commercial Solid Door Refrigerators and Freezers: Finalize Summer 2008, effective May 2009
– To include transparent door and hinged door units– Make energy requirements more stringent
Criteria in development – New products
• Servers: Finalize and make effective December 2008– Current Tier 1 Considerations– Power supply efficiency and/or net power consumption– Standard reporting requirements (standardized data sheet)– Power and temperature reporting requirements– Idle power – looking for input on prevalence in data center– Power management and virtualization “hooks” – Proposed Tier 2 Approach – utilize industry developed energy performance
benchmarks to derive requirements• HRV: finalize Q1 2009, effective date TBD (NRCan lead)
– Considerations include: • Sensible Recovery Efficiency (SRE) at 0 degrees C• SRE at -25oC• Air movement efficiency - minimum net air flow per W• maximum standby power• annual electrical use
– Labelling regarding installation - with main message to be that for systems using furnace fan and ductwork, ECM for furnace is highly recommended.
Criteria in development – New products
• Water heaters: effective January 2009 (Final in US)– Gas Storage: EF 0.62, tier II EF 0.67 (effective September 2010)– Tankless EF 0.82; Condensing EF 0.80; HPWH COP 2; Solar
Fraction in US 0.50– Water Heater Considerations for Canada: finalize fall 2008
• Tankless – change scope from US 50,000-200,000 btu/h to 150,000-250,000 btu/h
• HPWH - allow add-on• Solar - test method and qualifying level to be based on CSA test
methods and Canadian conditions.
• Commercial Refrigerator Freezers (laboratory grade)– Based on ASHRAE 72, looking for data and input from
stakeholders
• Commercial Griddles: initiated only
Trends in criteria
• Consumer electronics moving from addressing standby to active
• Coordination between categories
• Addressing more than just energy
• Ongoing compliance requirements
ENERGY STAR Success
Criteria (to be) retired• Exit Signs• Transformers• Traffic Signals
Earlier criteria used in regulation• Refrigerators• Clothes Washers• Dishwashers• Commercial Refrigeration
Integrity of the ENERGY STAR label
• Comprehensive program to maintain program integrity and ensure proper use of the ENERGY STAR label– Partnership agreement requirements– Program identity guidelines– Qualification testing through Self-Certification– Compliance Audit Program
• Market Surveillance• Manufacturer Verification Testing• 3rd Party Certification and Reporting (for regulated products)
– Retail Store Level Assessment– Monitoring use of ENERGY STAR in the media– Assessing the consumer experience– Updating performance Criteria to ensure that ENERGY STAR is
meaningful
Market surveillance
Results from in-store survey
Units
Tested
Passed Compliance
Rate
Integrated Stereo
39 9 2 22
Computer
Monitors
78 45 43 96
Televisions 198 111 104 94
DVD Players 71 7 7 100
Overall 386 172 156 91%
CFL testing
CEATI Testing Compliance with ENERGY STAR Criteria
for 15 Models
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Efficacy (lm/W) 1000-hour LumenMaintenance
40%-life LumenMaintenance
Interim Life Test
Per
cen
tag
e
PEARL
Manufacturer verification testing
• In latest criteria Residential Light Fixtures and CFL’s
• Testing is funded by manufacturers, but is performed by a third-party laboratory that is certified by the National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program or equivalent
• Manufacturer testing of computers consideration for next criteria revision
Third-Party verification and reporting
• 3rd party verification applies to ENERGY STAR products for which there are MEPS
• Performance requirements reported to NRCan
• 17 of 35 regulated products have ENERGY STAR criteria
• All have online searchable databases
Contact information
Katherine Delves, [email protected]
Anne Wilkins [email protected]
http://www.energystar.gc.ca
http://www.energystar.gov (US Site)