[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Refriferator Standards in Trouble!
NEWS RELEASE
September 11, 1996
ENVIRONMENTALISTS URGE DOE TO ADOPT 1994 AGREEMENT ON REFRIGERATOR EFFICIENCY
Department is "Poised to Make a Nearly $2 Billion Mistake"
WASHINGTON -- More than a dozen of the nation's leading environmental groups have
expressed "deep concern" that the Department of Energy is proposing further delays in
new energy efficiency standards for refrigerators that were part of a 1994 consensus
agreement between refrigerator manufacturers, electric utilities, state energy offices
and environmentalists. The consensus standards would cut U.S. energy use by an amount
equivalent to the output of eight 500-megawatt power plants.
In a letter to Energy Secretary Hazel O'Leary [reproduced below], the groups note that
further delay in implementing the refrigerator rules could call into question the
Administration's commitment to combating carbon emissions and associated global warming:
"Appliance efficiency standards are a crucial environmental protection policy that
rewards technological innovation and reduces harmful air pollution emissions. DOE has
estimated that the consensus proposal for refrigerators could itself reduce air
pollution from all sources by 0.7%, saving hundreds of lives each year that would
otherwise be lost to pollution-related disease. These pollution reduction benefits also
include cuts in carbon emissions of 30 million metric tons over a 15-year period . . .
The urgent need for action on energy efficiency is apparent."
In separate comments submitted to DOE today, the American Council for an
Energy-Efficient Economy said it is concerned that DOE "is poised to make a nearly $2
billion mistake (the value to lost consumer benefits due to a three-year delay)" and
notes that if DOE delays the standard to 2003 as suggested, "manufacturer costs will
only be reduced by a very minor degree, but cumulative energy savings will be reduced by
nearly 1 quadrillion Btu."
Final publication of the refrigerator standard was delayed by a congressionally
mandated moratorium on new appliance efficiency standards that was inserted into FY'96
appropriations legislation. That moratorium is slated to lapse with the beginning of the
new fiscal year October 1.
On August 12, DOE published a notice requesting comments on options for the refrigerator
rules, only one of which reflects the 1994 agreement. The other six options, including
DOE's preferred option of delaying the effective date of the new standard to 2003,
"would have the Department capitulate to the demands of a handful of companies who are
reneging on commitments they made just two years ago. Most of these options would reduce
environmental benefits by one-third or more. They would reward those manufacturers who
have opposed DOE's polices and its budget, encouraging them to be even more recalcitrant
in the future," the letter continues, adding, "We are dismayed that DOE would entertain
such a notion."
The environmental groups point out that the cost of the new refrigerator standards is
"less than nothing. American consumers will realize net benefits of over $20 billion
over the lifetime of the new refrigerators and freezers."
ACEEE's comments note that the group has been "involved in this rulemaking since its
inception, and was one of the leading parties in negotiations" leading up to the
November 1994 agreement. DOE recently proposed a new process for appliance standards
that encourages consensus agreements, and "the 1994 refrigerator agreement is the best
example of how such a process can work. DOE should build upon this agreement, rather
than send a message that consensus agreements can be changed at the whim of one or more
participants."
CONTACT:
Henry Griggs,Communications Consortium Media Center
202-326-8714
or
Steven Nadel, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy
202-429-8873
# # # # # # # # # # #
# #
[Text of Green Group letter sent September 11, 1996 to the Secretary of Energy regarding
Energy Efficiency Standards for Refrigerators]
September 11, 1996
The Honorable Hazel R. O'Leary
Secretary of Energy
1000 Independence Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20585
Dear Madam Secretary:
We are writing to express our deep concern that the Administration not waver in its
support for prompt US action to reduce carbon emissions and their associated
contribution to global warming. One of the most concrete and effective steps available
to the nation in the near term is the full use of existing law to improve the efficiency
of newly manufactured appliances and lighting equipment. Appliance energy efficiency
standards developed and administered by the Department of Energy are one of America's
foremost tools for
pollution prevention.
Many of us have previously written to you and to President Clinton urging the adoption
of new energy efficiency standards for refrigerators and freezers that would cut energy
use by an amount equivalent to the output of eight 500-megawatt power plants. These
standards were based on currently available technology and were contained in a 1994
consensus agreement between environmentalists, refrigerator manufacturers, state energy
agencies, and electric utilities.
Regrettably, final publication of this standard was delayed by the
Congressionally-imposed moratorium on new appliance efficiency standards inserted into
the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal 1996. Compounding this
setback, however, the Department of Energy is now proposing further delays.
On August 12, DOE published a Federal Register notice requesting comments on different
options for new refrigerator efficiency standards. One of these options ("Option 1")
embodies the consensus agreement to improve efficiency. Each of the other six options
-- including DOE's preferred option -- would have the Department capitulate to the
demands of a handful of companies who are reneging on commitments they made just two
years ago. Most of these other options would reduce environmental benefits by one-third
or more. They would reward those manufacturers who opposed DOE's policies and its
budget, encouraging them to be even more recalcitrant in the future.
We are dismayed that DOE would entertain such a notion. Appliance efficiency standards
are a crucial environmental protection policy that rewards technological innovation and
reduces harmful air pollution emissions. DOE has estimated that the consensus proposal
for refrigerators could itself reduce air pollution from all sources by .7%, saving
hundreds of lives each year that would otherwise be lost to pollution-related disease.
These pollution reduction benefits also include cuts in carbon emissions of 30 million
metric tons over a 15-year period. With US fossil carbon emissions growing by 13
million metric tons in 1995 alone, the urgent need for action on energy efficiency is
apparent.
Of course, appliance efficiency alone will not solve the problem of global warming, nor
can any policy addressing only one sector of the economy. Nevertheless, strong new DOE
appliance efficiency standards can provide a very significant share of the US
contribution to a global solution.
The good news is that the cost to our economy of all this pollution prevention is less
than nothing. American consumers will realize net benefits of over $20 billion over
the lifetime of these new refrigerators and freezers. However, the present value of
these benefits will be reduced by more than $1.5 billion if the effective date of the
standard is delayed as proposed in DOE's preferred option.
Madam Secretary, if the Department were to back away now from its initial
consensus-based proposal, it would be sending the wrong message to all the participants
in that good-faith effort. By degrading the value of a consensus agreement once
reached, it will be much harder to reach consensus on similarly complex technical and
policy issues in the future. In sum, for all the tangible benefits we have cited here,
and for the additional benefits that will flow from more constructive participation by
manufacturers and the environmental community in future rulemakings, we urge the
Department to adopt "Option 1" for implementation of the consensus-based energy
efficiency standards for refrigerators.
Sincerely,
John Adams
Executive Director
Natural Resources Defense Council
Roger E. McManus
President
Center for Marine Conservation
Brent Blackwelder
President
Friends of the Earth
Robert K. Musil
Executive Director
Physicians for Social Responsibility
Phil Clapp
Executive Director
Environmental Information Center
Carl Pope
Executive Director
Sierra Club
Paul Hansen
Executive Director
Izaak Walton League
Paul Pritchard
President
National Parks &Conservation Association
Hugo Hoogenboom
President
Population Action International
Howard Ris
Executive Director
Union of Concerned Scientists
Gene Karpinski
Executive Director
U.S. Public Interest Research Group
Victor Sher
President
Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund
Fred D. Krupp
Executive Director
Environmental Defense Fund
cc: The Honorable Albert Gore, Jr.
The Honorable Carol Browner
The Honorable Tim Wirth
Kathleen A. McGinty