Disclosure Regarding Energy Consumption and Water Use of Certain Home Appliances et al.
Federal Register: March 11, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 47)
Proposed Rules
Page 11483-11502
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
DOCID:fr11mr10-21
Page 11483
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 16 CFR Part 305
RIN 3084-AB15
Rule Concerning Disclosures Regarding Energy Consumption and
Water Use of Certain Home Appliances and Other Products Required Under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (``Appliance Labeling Rule'')
AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission (FTC or Commission).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking and public meeting announcement.
SUMMARY: Section 325 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 provides the Commission with authority to promulgate energy labeling rules for certain consumer electronics, including televisions.
On March 16, 2009, the Commission sought comment on whether it should require energy disclosures for these products. After reviewing the comments received, the Commission is proposing to require EnergyGuide labels on televisions to help consumers with their purchasing decisions. As part of this effort, the Commission has scheduled a public meeting on April 16, 2010, from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before May 14, 2010.
ADDRESSES: Interested parties are invited to submit written comments electronically or in paper form by following the instructions in section IX of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below. Comments in electronic form should be submitted using the following weblink:
(https://public.commentworks.com/ftc/tvdisclosures) (and following the instructions on the web-based form). Comments filed in paper form should be mailed or delivered to the following address: Federal Trade
Commission, Office of the Secretary, Room H-135 (Annex T), 600
Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20580, in the manner detailed in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Hampton Newsome, (202) 326-2889,
Attorney, Division of Enforcement, Bureau of Consumer Protection,
Federal Trade Commission, Room M-8102B, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.,
Washington, DC 20580.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
-
Introduction
Section 325 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007
(EISA) (Pub. L. 110-140) authorizes the Commission to require energy disclosures for certain consumer electronics, including televisions, personal computers, cable or satellite set-top boxes, stand-alone digital video recorder boxes, and personal computer monitors.\1\ On
March 16, 2009, the Commission sought comment on whether to require energy disclosures for these products.\2\ After reviewing the comments, the Commission proposes requiring ``EnergyGuide'' labels for televisions. The Commission does not propose requirements for other consumer electronics at this time, but seeks further comment on test procedures and other issues related to these products.
\1\ EISA amends the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42
U.S.C. 6291 et seq).
\2\ 74 FR 11045 (Mar. 16, 2009).
This Notice first provides background on the Commission's current energy labeling requirements and its previous consideration of television labeling requirements. Next, it explains the Commission's new labeling authority under EISA and why requiring television energy usage disclosures is proper under that statute. The Notice then details the content, format, and location of those proposed disclosures.
Finally, it seeks comment on the proposed disclosures and on possible disclosure requirements for other consumer electronics.
-
Current Energy Labeling Requirements
The Commission's Appliance Labeling Rule (16 CFR Part 305) requires energy disclosures for a variety of covered products, including home appliances, lighting, and plumbing products. The Rule requires most covered products to have, at the point of sale, yellow EnergyGuide labels containing estimated annual operating cost information based on
Department of Energy (DOE) test procedures. The label information must also appear in catalogs and on Internet sites offering the products for sale.\3\ The Rule allows manufacturers to place the U.S. Government
ENERGY STAR logo on labels for products that qualify for that program.\4\
\3\ The Commission's Rule requires manufacturers of most covered products to file reports with the FTC. These reports must contain the estimated annual energy consumption or energy efficiency ratings for the appliances derived from tests performed pursuant to DOE test procedures. 16 CFR 305.8(b).
\4\ ENERGY STAR is a voluntary government labeling program that identifies high-efficiency products. The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) and DOE administer the ENERGY STAR program. See (http:/
/www.energystar.gov).
-
Previous Consideration of Televisions
In 1979, the Commission determined not to require labeling for televisions because annual energy cost varied little between competing models and because such costs amounted to a small fraction of the purchase price. Thus, the Commission concluded that television labels were unlikely to benefit consumers.\5\
\5\ 44 FR 66466, 66468 (Nov. 19, 1979).
In 2007, the Commission revisited the issue as part of a broad review of the EnergyGuide label's effectiveness.\6\ In response, several commenters urged the Commission to require television labels because many modern televisions use as much, or more, electricity than products currently labeled under the Rule. In addition, commenters indicated a significant range of energy use between similar products.\7\ In short, television energy consumption has changed significantly since the 1970s.
\6\ 72 FR 6836, 6857 (Feb. 13, 2007).
\7\ According to the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) comments during the 2007 proceeding, there are many ``large-screen'' digital televisions on the market that use 500 or more kilowatt- hours per year, as much energy as many new refrigerators. NRDC
(519870-00025). At an FTC public workshop held during the 2007 proceeding, one participant suggested that the average 42-inch plasma television draws 334 watts, with models ranging from 201 watts to 520 watts. Workshop Tr. at 198 (http://www.ftc.gov/os/ comments/energylabeling-workshop/060503wrkshoptrnscript.pdf).
After considering these comments, the Commission concluded that energy labeling for televisions may assist consumers in purchasing decisions, but noted that the outdated DOE test procedures could not adequately test most televisions.\8\ Because the law at that time required DOE test procedures for FTC labels, the Commission could not require television energy disclosures.
\8\ 72 FR 49948, 49962 (Aug. 29, 2007). See also 72 FR at 6858
(Feb. 13, 2007). Until recently, DOE's regulations contained a test procedure created for analog cathode-ray tube (CRT) products and relied on a black and white static test pattern. Since the publication of the ANPR, DOE has repealed its television test procedure. 74 FR 53640 (Oct. 20, 2009).
-
FTC's New Authority for Consumer Electronics Labeling
In late 2007, Congress amended the Energy Policy and Conservation
Act (EPCA) (42 U.S.C. 6294) to authorize the Commission to prescribe labels for televisions and certain other consumer electronics, subject to specific provisions.\9\ If DOE publishes applicable test procedures for those specified consumer electronics, the Commission must issue disclosure requirements
Page 11484
within 18 months of DOE's publication. Absent those procedures, the
EPCA amendments give the Commission discretion to require disclosures if it identifies adequate non-DOE testing procedures and finds that disclosures will likely assist consumers in making purchasing decisions. Regardless of whether DOE test procedures exist, the
Commission cannot require disclosures if those disclosures are not technically or economically feasible.\10\ The amended law empowers the
Commission to consider other types of energy disclosures in lieu of traditional product labels for these consumer electronics.\11\ Finally, the amendments provide the Commission with authority to require labeling or other disclosures for any other consumer product if the FTC determines such labeling is likely to assist consumers in making purchasing decisions.\12\
\9\ 42 U.S.C. 6294(a)(2)(I).
\10\ 42 U.S.C. 6294(a)(2)(I)(iv).
\11\ Specifically, the EPCA empowers the Commission to
``prescribe labeling or other disclosure requirements for the energy use of'' the covered consumer electronic products. 42 U.S.C. 6294(a)(2)(I)(i) (emphasis added).
\12\ Under EPCA, a ``consumer product'' means any article which consumes, or is designed to consume energy and which, to any significant extent, is distributed in commerce for personal use or consumption by individuals. 42 U.S.C. 6291(1). As with the five consumer electronic categories specifically listed in the EISA amendments, the FTC may identify a non-DOE test procedure for labeling such additional consumer products (in the absence of a DOE test procedure) and has discretion to require comparative information on the label.
-
FTC's Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
In response to these amendments, on March 16, 2009, the Commission published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeking comment on the need for energy disclosures for televisions and other consumer electronics.\13\ Given the lack of a DOE test procedure applicable to modern televisions, the Notice also sought comment on the adoption of non-DOE test procedures currently used by the ENERGY STAR program. In addition, the Notice requested comment on the appropriate format for any television energy disclosures, specifically asking whether such disclosures should be made using the yellow EnergyGuide label or whether the disclosures should have alternative formats and locations.
Finally, the Notice invited comment about the need for energy disclosures for personal computers, cable or satellite set-top boxes, stand-alone digital video recorder boxes, personal computer monitors, and other consumer electronic products.
\13\ 74 FR 11045 (Mar. 16, 2009).
The Commission received eight comments in response.\14\ In this
Notice, the Commission first analyzes the comments regarding television labeling, and then discusses the comments regarding other consumer electronics.
\14\ The comments can be found at (http://www.ftc.gov/os/ comments/tvenergylabels/index.shtm). Unless otherwise stated, the citations for the comments in this Notice are: Consortium for Energy
Efficiency (CEE) 540779-00006; Consumer Electronics
Association (CEA) 540779-00007; Consumer Electronics
Retailers Coalition (CERC) 540779-00010; Mitsubishi Digital
Electronics America, Inc. (Mistubishi) 540779-00005;
Motorola, Inc. 540779-00004; Natural Resources Defense
Council (NRDC) 540779-00003; New York State Assemblyman
Robert Sweeney (Sweeney) 540779-00002; and Lonny Paul
(Paul) 540779-00001.
-
Proposed Television Energy Disclosures
The Commission proposes requiring energy disclosures for televisions. Disclosures are appropriate because they likely will help consumers in making purchasing decisions, the disclosures are not technologically or economically infeasible, and there is an adequate energy test procedure. Given these preliminary conclusions, the
Proposed Rule would require manufacturers to measure energy use for such disclosures using test procedures recently adopted by the ENERGY
STAR program. The television's estimated annual energy cost and use would appear on a newly designed EnergyGuide label affixed to the product itself. Finally, the proposed amendments would require Internet and paper catalog sellers to provide consumers with the same information that appears on the label.
-
The Need For Television Disclosures
Under the EISA amendments, the Commission has authority to require television disclosures if it determines such disclosures are likely to assist consumers in making purchasing decisions. As discussed below, the commenters generally supported energy disclosures\15\ for televisions and indicated that they would assist consumers because: 1) these products use a significant amount of energy; 2) energy use among models differs substantially; and 3) consumers are likely to use this information prior to purchase. Moreover, no commenters argued that energy disclosures for televisions are technologically or economically infeasible.
\15\ For example, New York State Assemblyman Robert Sweeney wrote that this information will ``allow consumers to more easily weigh energy costs in purchasing,'' and ``encourage the design of products with greater energy efficiency . . . .'' Similarly, the
CERC concluded that ``disclosures, properly implemented and executed can help consumers make educated purchasing decisions.''
First, the commenters suggest that televisions account for a significant amount of energy use in the home. CEE stated that disclosures are necessary because televisions ``are one of the largest energy users within a home . . . their energy use has increased significantly in recent years, and there has been notable technical advancement.'' Consistent with that view, NRDC estimated in 2004 that televisions account for roughly 1% of the nation's energy use. NRDC further noted that this number has probably increased ``due to the growth in screen size, operating hours, and the number of installed
TVs.'' In NRDC's estimation, television ``now represents 10 to 20% of a typical home's annual electricity use.'' Similarly, in a recent study, the California Energy Commission found growth in television energy consumption due to increases in flat panel sales, average screen size, the number of televisions per household as well as lower prices for high definition flat screen digital televisions and enhanced product features (e.g., higher resolution).\16\ In addition, according to CEE,
ENERGY STAR data indicates that some televisions consume more than 500 kWh per year, as much electricity as many refrigerators.
\16\ Draft Efficiency Standards for Televisions, Phase 1, Part
C, Docket 07-AAER-03-C (http://www.energy.ca.gov/ 2008publications/CEC-400-2008-028/CEC-400-2008-028-SD.PDF) .
Second, not only is television energy use large, but it also varies considerably among competing models. Though no comprehensive data is available, some commenters identified significant variations. According to Mitsubishi, for models with 65 inch screen sizes, the power consumption can range from approximately 135 watts to 433 watts.
Similarly, for 52 inch LCD models, energy use ranges from 115 watts to 329 watts. In addition, NRDC cited to ENERGY STAR data showing that energy use for 42 inch models ranges from approximately 110 watts to 210 watts.\17\ Mitsubishi also indicated that ``across display technologies there is even more variance'' and that such differences are likely to increase as manufacturers introduce ``novel new display technologies.'' As Motorola noted, in the absence of energy disclosures, even sophisticated consumers cannot determine energy cost variance between models because
Page 11485
such information is difficult to calculate.
\17\ See NRDC comments; see also, (http:// downloads.energystar.gov/bi/qplist/tv_prod_list.pdf) (ENERGY STAR data).
Third, consumers will likely use energy information in making purchasing decisions because, as explained below, they have an interest in saving energy and, therefore, would likely compare energy efficiency between models. CEA noted data demonstrating widespread consumer concern over rising energy costs and, as a result, greater consumer interest in energy efficient products. According to a CEA study, ``89 percent of consumers surveyed ranked energy efficiency as a top consideration for their next television purchase, although price and features remain most influential in actual purchasing decisions.'' In addition, several commenters suggested that consumers would have even more interest in energy use if they understood how much these products used. For example, NRDC explained that, at present, most consumers are not aware that one television may use two or three times as much energy as a similar model. Moreover, as NRDC noted, retailers often display a variety of models side-by-side to allow consumers to judge picture quality. Thus, because consumers are likely to compare several models while shopping, they are likely to use energy information when they are making their purchasing decision.
Finally, in addition to the consumer benefits, the commenters stated that television labeling is technologically and economically feasible.\18\ For example, Mitsubishi wrote that energy testing is inexpensive, nonintrusive, does not involve destruction of or damage to units, and is performed generally in any case for other reasons (such as ENERGY STAR). Similarly, CEA indicated that it ``was not aware of any such evidence that argues against providing energy use disclosures for televisions.''\19\ Indeed, no commenters suggested that energy disclosures would raise economic or technological feasibility questions.
\18\ The Commission cannot require disclosures if it determines they would be technologically or economically infeasible. 42 U.S.C. 6294(a)(2)(I)(iv).
\19\ Although the commenters generally supported disclosure requirements, CEA argued that ``there should be evidence to show that the buying judgements of a substantial majority of consumers would be affected by the availability of energy use information on products'' prior to imposing any disclosure requirements. However, the law does not contain such a ``substantial majority'' test but, instead, allows disclosure requirements if the Commission finds such disclosures ``are likely to assist consumers in making purchasing decisions.'' 42 U.S.C. 6294(a)(2)(I).
-
Determining Energy Usage
In recent years, the lack of DOE test procedures for modern televisions has served as a barrier to energy disclosures. However,
EPCA now authorizes the Commission to use ``adequate non-Department of
Energy test procedures,'' and such procedures now exist for televisions. Specifically, EPA's ENERGY STAR program recently adopted criteria for televisions based on specific international procedures
(Section 11 of ``IEC 62087, Ed. 2.0: Methods of Measurement for the
Power Consumption of Audio, Video and Related Equipment'' and ``IEC 62301, Ed. 1.0: Household Electrical Appliances - Measurement of
Standby Power'').\20\ The procedures require manufacturers to measure the power consumed by televisions when the products are on, and in standby mode (i.e., when the product is switched off).
\20\ See International Electrotechnical Commission (http:// www.iec.ch); and ``ENERGY STAR Program Requirements for Televisions
Eligibility Criteria (Version 4.0 and 5.0)'' (http:// www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/prod_development/revisions/ downloads/television/Final_Version%204_ 5_TV_Program_
Requirements.pdf).
In the ANPR, the Commission sought comments on these test procedures. Several commenters recommended that the Commission require the IEC procedures as currently adopted by the ENERGY STAR program.\21\
These commenters stated that this would ensure uniformity across the
U.S. government.\22\ Furthermore, no other commenter raised significant concerns with the IEC test or proposed alternative procedures.
\21\ See, e.g., CEA, CERC, Mitsibushi, and NRDC comments.
\22\ CEA and CERC comments.
Consistent with commenter suggestions, the Commission proposes to require manufacturers to use the IEC procedures as adopted by the
ENERGY STAR program. Indeed, the ENERGY STAR criteria offer advantages over the IEC test alone because ENERGY STAR makes mandatory several procedures which the IEC test leaves optional. For instance, the IEC procedure allows the use of either a dynamic or static video signal for testing (i.e., either moving or static images), while ENERGY STAR specifies the use of dynamic images only.\23\ In addition, the ENERGY
STAR criteria provide more detail regarding the brightness setting under which televisions must be tested because brightness levels can affect a model's energy use. Specifically, ENERGY STAR requires testing at the brightness setting in which the model is shipped. If a model requires consumers to select a brightness mode upon installation (i.e., a forced menu), the manufacturer must test that model at the ``home'' or ``standard'' mode. If the model has an automatic brightness control feature which adjusts brightness to ambient light levels, then the
ENERGY STAR criteria require testing at a combination of room light levels.\24\ Using these various criteria, the ENERGY STAR tests seek to reflect the manner in which consumers are likely to use the product in their homes. Lastly, as noted by the commenters, adopting the ENERGY
STAR program requirements will avoid imposing two separate Federal government tests for measuring television energy use.\25\
\23\ NRDC urged the Commission to require use of dynamic images.
\24\ NRDC suggested that the FTC provide guidance on brightness, including whether to test models in a certain mode or at a certain percentage of full brightness. NRDC asked the FTC to provide standardized guidance on measuring the energy use of models with an automatic brightness feature. The ENERGY STAR criteria offer such a standard.
\25\ The Proposed Rule also contains a definition of the term
``television'' that is consistent with the coverage of ENERGY STAR criteria for televisions.
Finally, the Commission notes two additional issues related to test procedures. First, in a recent notice repealing the existing test procedure, DOE announced that it soon will develop a Federal test procedure and energy efficiency standards for televisions.\26\ In doing so, DOE indicated that it ``will give serious consideration to the suggestion made by CEA that DOE adopt IEC 62087-2008(E).'' Second, CEA stated that it is developing its own version of the test procedure that consolidates ENERGY STAR's requirements into a more detailed protocol
(``CEA-2037, Determination of Television Average Power Consumption'').
However, to the Commission's knowledge, CEA has not published the protocol. The Commission seeks comments on whether it should wait to finalize disclosure rules until CEA, DOE, or both complete their work.
\26\ 74 FR 53640 (Oct. 20, 2009).
-
Location, Format, and Content of Energy Disclosures
The Commission proposes specific requirements for television energy labels, including the location, format, and content of the labels. In addition, the Commission proposes requirements for Internet and catalog disclosures. 1. Location
For most products currently covered under the Appliance Labeling
Rule, the energy disclosures appear on yellow EnergyGuide labels attached to the products themselves. In its ANPR, the Commission sought comments on the location of television disclosures. Several commenters recommended labeling televisions with an
Page 11486
EnergyGuide label on the product itself at the point of purchase.\27\
For example, Mitsubishi indicated that labels ``should substantially follow the existing EnergyGuide format, content, and placement requirements.'' According to NRDC, consumers continue to make the majority of their individual purchases in stores, despite the fact that some ``pre-shop'' on the Internet. Similarly, CEE stated that the most effective energy disclosures are displayed while a consumer views televisions for purchase.
\27\ See, e.g., CEE, Mitsubishi, NRDC, and Sweeney comments.
Some commenters urged the Commission to avoid imposing undue burdens. For example, CEE emphasized that disclosures should be easy for industry to manage. In addition, CEA urged that the ``FTC should carefully consider cost impacts while determining how to best serve consumers and minimize the economic impacts on government, manufacturers, retailers, and distributors.'' CERC raised particular concerns about the impact of potential requirements on retailers, cautioning in particular against a disclosure regime that required retailers to match labels to products on showroom floors.\28\ CERC argued that the manufacturer, not the retailer, is in the best position to label products and noted that disclosure requirements ``should be consistent with America's modern and incredibly diverse retail marketplace.''
\28\ CERC and Paul comments.
Although most commenters supported in-store product labeling, CEA urged caution and recommended that the Commission conduct research to understand consumer behavior, expectations, and perceptions before proposing any particular disclosure method. Specifically, CEA recommended consumer research on the effectiveness of various disclosure methods, including Internet disclosures, in-store material, product packaging, and product-related printed material.
After considering the comments, the Commission proposes requiring television product labels similar to EnergyGuide labels for appliances.
The Commission agrees with commenters that energy labels will help consumers choose televisions in retail stores. Retailers routinely display operating televisions in showrooms and, as NRDC indicated, models often appear in a line on walls or store shelves, allowing consumers to compare products before purchasing. In addition, research conducted in 2006 concluded that online sales accounted for only 6.4 percent of total television units sold.\29\ Although this number has likely increased, the Commission has no information to suggest online purchases dominate this market and expects that most consumers comparison shop and/or purchase televisions from brick-and-mortar stores. Furthermore, product labeling is preferable to other disclosure options. Requiring disclosures only on the Internet would not provide information to consumers in the store, where most consumers likely compare performance. Labels on packages, another possible option, would only provide information to consumers where retailers display boxes on the showroom floor.
\29\ ``Spending on Consumer Technology Products Increased in 2006 but at a Slower Rate, According to The NPD Group,'' Feb. 22, 2007 (http://www.npd.com/press/releases/press_070222.html).
Although CEA's comments urged the Commission to conduct research on various disclosure methods, the Commission does not believe such research is needed. CEA has offered no evidence that contradicts the commenter observations with regard to product labeling. In the absence of any evidence suggesting that product labeling will not assist consumers in their purchasing decisions, consumer research is unnecessary in this circumstance.
The Commission now seeks comment on the proposed labeling requirement, including evidence disputing or supporting these conclusions. Because some stores place television boxes in the showroom, the Commission also seeks comment on whether the label should be required on the television box, in addition to the product itself. 2. Format
Label format is a particularly important factor for televisions.
Unlike many large appliances, televisions have no interior in which to affix a label and much of the product's exterior consists of a viewable screen that consumers want to see while shopping. CERC emphasized that any labeling requirement that obscures the viewable screen diminishes the consumer's ability to evaluate televisions based on performance.
Similarly, CERC argued that the label should not interfere with the product's performance, display, or safety.
Other commenters offered specific suggestions about label size and placement. CEE urged that the label be displayed consistently in the same location. Mitsubishi offered three alternatives types of labels: 1) an adhesive label, 2) a hang tag, and 3) a cling label. It also suggested that the Commission configure the label into a triangle shape so that it could fit into the corner of screens, perhaps through a cling label.
After considering the comments, the Commission proposes two options for television EnergyGuide labels: a small rectangular adhesive label affixed either vertically or horizontally on the product's bezel (i.e., the border or frame surrounding the television) or a triangular cling label affixed to the bottom right hand corner of the screen.\30\ Thus, the proposed requirements give manufacturers flexibility to account for the configurations of their televisions. Both proposed labels are significantly smaller than the appliance EnergyGuide labels. Examples appear in Figure 1. The small size should minimize any affect the labels have on the aesthetic presentation of televisions in the showroom and should not impair the ability of consumers to compare the performance of competing products. In addition, the proposed labels appear to be consistent with some current industry practices.
Specifically, some manufacturers already provide descriptive information (e.g., screen resolution, sound features, and high definition capability) about their televisions through similar adhesive labels on the television bezel or screen.
\30\ The Proposed Rule does not contain a hang tag option because such labels on the exterior of products could become easily dislodged.
Page 11487
GRAPHIC
TIFF OMITTED TP11MR10.000
Figure 1
Proposed Television Label
(horizontal version)
The Commission seeks comment on this proposal including whether the proposed labels are appropriate and whether it should consider other point-of-purchase alternatives. In particular, the Commission requests that commenters address whether the rectangular label must appear in a consistent location on the bezel or whether manufacturers should have the flexibility to choose the location. The Commission also seeks comment on whether some television models are too small for the proposed label and, if so, what requirements should apply to such models. 3. Content
In its ANPR, the Commission sought comment on the content of television energy disclosures. The commenters generally provided views on two types of disclosures: product specific disclosures and comparative information. As discussed in more detail below, the
Commission proposes requiring product specific information consistent with EnergyGuide labels for other products, including annual energy costs based on a uniform electricity rate of eleven cents per kWh and a usage rate of five hours per day. The Commission also proposes requiring comparative information in the form of a small scale on the label similar to that required on EnergyGuide labels for appliances.
Product Specific Information: Commenters identified annual operating (i.e., energy) cost and energy use as key descriptors in television energy disclosures.\31\ In addition, CEA recommended that the disclosure include information about the variability of energy cost in actual use and the electricity rate underlying the cost estimate, similar to information on the EnergyGuide label. Commenters also suggested requiring disclosure of manufacturer name, model number, television type (e.g., plasma, etc.), screen size (measured diagonally), screen resolution, product features that may affect energy use (e.g., integral DVD players or set-top boxes), and the ENERGY STAR logo.\32\
\31\ See CEE, CEA, NRDC, and Sweeney comments.
\32\ See, e.g., NRDC, Sweeney, and CEE comments.
After considering the comments, the Commission proposes disclosure requirements consistent with EnergyGuide labels for other products.
Such labels would disclose a television's annual energy cost and energy use. As the Commission has stated before, a ``cost disclosure provides a clear, understandable tool to allow consumers to compare the energy performance of different models.''\33\ Energy cost information also allows consumers to assess trade-offs between energy efficiency and other expenditures.
\33\ 72 FR at 49959.
One commenter, NRDC, suggested that the FTC also consider disclosing lifetime energy cost on the label to help consumers compare the product's total cost over time. CEE disagreed, stating
Page 11488
that lifetime information may confuse consumers because such costs do not appear on the EnergyGuide label for other products. The Commission considered a multi-year cost disclosure in its recent proceeding on the
EnergyGuide label for appliances.\34\ The comments at that time raised concerns that such a disclosure may imply a product's lifetime to consumers and, therefore, introduce confusing assumptions. The
Commission believes such concerns remain valid and, therefore, does not propose a multi-year operating cost disclosure for televisions.
\34\ 72 FR at 49952-3.
In addition to energy cost, the proposed television label would, like EnergyGuide labels for other products, include manufacturer name, model number, and the ENERGY STAR logo (where applicable). This information allows consumers to confirm the identity of the labeled product without crowding the label with information irrelevant to the product's energy use. However, the Proposed Rule does not require information such as screen size, television type, multiple functions
(e.g., integral DVD player), and screen resolution. Manufacturers and retailers routinely provide this information through marketing and point-of-sale materials, and, therefore, cluttering the label with this information would not substantially benefit consumers. The Commission seeks comment, however, on whether televisions with additional functions, such as integrated DVD players, are common in the market. If so, the Commission requests comment on whether the label should inform consumers that the annual energy cost does not include the operation of such additional functions. Would such a disclosure likely be helpful or confusing to consumers? Given the size of the label, how should the disclosure be presented?
To calculate annual energy use and energy cost information from test results, manufacturers must have a standard usage rate (e.g., a certain number of viewing hours per day) and a standard electricity cost. The Proposed Rule would require annual cost information using 11 cents per kWh, which is based on 2009 DOE data rounded to the nearest cent.\35\
\35\ 74 FR 26675 (June 3, 2009).
The commenters had different opinions regarding appropriate usage rates. Several suggested that the FTC require a usage rate of 5 hours per day in on-mode and 19 hours per day in standby (i.e., sleep) mode.\36\ The ENERGY STAR program uses these same numbers to provide annual energy use estimates.\37\ Other commenters, however, noted recent consumer research suggesting higher actual usage patterns. For example, Mitsubishi stated that recent data suggests the primary television in U.S. households is active 7.1 hours a day. To take into account likely increases in the future, it recommended that the FTC require a usage pattern of eight hours per day. According to NRDC,
Nielson data suggested a range between five and eight hours per day.
NRDC, however, urged that the FTC and ENERGY STAR use the same assumptions for calculating annual model energy use.
\36\ See, e.g., CEE and CEA comments.
\37\ 74 FR at 11048.
After considering the comments, the Commission proposes five hours a day in on-mode and 19 hours per day in standby mode to calculate annual cost and energy consumption information. This range is consistent with the ENERGY STAR program and within the range of usage data provided by commenters. Furthermore, regardless of the actual average usage rate, the proposed usage pattern of five hours will establish a consistent number that will allow consumers to compare products.
Comparative Information: Comparative information, which the
Commission requires on EnergyGuide labels for most appliances, allows consumers to gauge the energy use of a particular product against similar models by displaying the range of energy costs or use of all competing models. The EPCA amendments provide the Commission with discretion to require comparative information in labeling or disclosures.\38\
\38\ 42 U.S.C. 6924(c)(9).
Given this discretion, the Commission sought comment on whether television energy disclosures should provide comparative information and, if so, how such information should be organized. Commenters provided three different views. First, several urged the Commission to include comparative information, although they disagreed about the basis of the comparison. For example, Mitsubishi suggested disclosing comparative information based on screen size only.\39\ Sweeney favored comparative disclosures, but suggested sorting information by technology (such as LCD, plasma, rear-projection) or by the existence of extra accessories bundled with the model (e.g., HDTV with built-in
Blu-ray player). Second, CEE proposed gathering information about consumer purchasing behavior before determining whether to require comparative information across all models or categorized by size.
\39\ Mitsubishi explained that ``Consumers don't shop for a LCD television, for example: they shop for a 60'' television and evaluate their options.'' It urged the Commission to limit comparison information to screen size for
-
