Talk:Energy Star

Environment Mid‑importance

	Environment portal This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Energy Low‑importance

	Energy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Brands Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lighting[edit]

This section doesn't seem to include any citations and some of the language is ambiguous, particularly in the LED section. For example "Brightness is equal to or greater than existing lighting technologies " What is meant by brightness? Luminance, lumen output? Also, " Efficiency is as good as or better than fluorescent lighting. ". This probably should be efficacy, not efficiency, but I'm not sure. If someone can point me to where these bullet points came from, I could update to be a little more clear. Mskincaid (talk) 19:22, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

EnergyGuide[edit]

Has anyone ever heard of EnergyGuide, it is kind of like Energy Star. In fact Energy Star may own EnergyGuide. Im not for sure. Can anyone give any info, maybey right an article about it.--Alex Arnold 02:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is 'owned' by energystar.org.

See: http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=appliances.pr_energy_guide OR http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EnergyGuide

Specifications[edit]

I just gave this page some new life but it still needs a lot of work. I encourage somebody to use the information at this page or others to document some of the specifications electronic equipment must meet to gain this seal (now, in the past, and in the future). — GT 00:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Icon and BIOSes[edit]

Logo from old BIOSes

I remember old BIOSes where a logo was always shown. The logo is to the right. I like this logo. Could we use it perhaps? --Ysangkok 21:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a valid ENERGY STAR logo. It is similar to an older version of the logo that is no longer used.Kschneid 15:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about this one?^[1] PromyLOPh (talk) 17:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editing the ENERGY STAR article[edit]

Hi. My name is Karen Schneider. I work for the EPA in the ENERGY STAR program. I'd like to make some additions to the ENERGY STAR article. I'd also like to make some minor edits to what is already there (like always typing ENERGY STAR in all caps). Kschneid 15:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concern, considering the recent news about "inappropriate edits". IMO, as long as you're not censoring information or inserting propaganda, you shouldn't be worried and should jump right in. Do be careful to consider whether something is a fact or a point of view, but I doubt that should be too much of a concern on this article. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benhocking (talk • contribs) 15:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the all caps ENERGY STAR into Energy Star, per WP:MOS. Rien (talk\stalk) 00:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since ENERGY STAR is a trademarked brand name, it should not be modified under the WP:MOS rules. Writing style guidance for capitalization covers proper nouns, acronyms and so forth - but it does not cover brand names. This is why we don't change Coca-Cola to Coca-cola or iPhone to Iphone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesmelzer (talk • contribs) 15:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with the above comment by Jamesmelzer, the article should be ENERGY STAR instead of being a redirect to Energy Star, can we come to a concensus on this? If I don't hear back from anyone in 3 months I'll just change it myself figuring no one cares. Camelbinky (talk) 22:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The all-cap version looks stupid and is not even used on the Energy Star logo. I have no idea why it was chosen in the first place, but in normal use (I am editing a book on the subject at the moment and awash in googling) it is "Energy Star," and that is what Wikipedia should reflect. Languagehat (talk) 19:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed "ENERGY STAR" to "Energy Star" throughout the text of the article. See MOS:ALLCAPS. —Bkell (talk) 01:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm coming to this discussion a bit late, but the article should be named ENERGY STAR, and should say ENERGY STAR throughout the article. Go to the web site and see how they capitalize it everywhere. Contrary to Languagehat's comment above, the bottom part of the logo does indeed show all caps. There is a scripted version of the word energy on the logo, but that's not the program's name and is irrelevant to this discussion. Do we really want to ignore Karen Schnieder - who is from the program - saying it should be all caps? Wikipedia will maintain credibility by not forcing company and program articles to be spelled based on WP:MOS or MOS:ALLCAPS. That does a disservice to its readers. I had this discussion previously when fixing the SafeNet article, as a former employee.Timtempleton (talk) 21:50, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Specifications Addition[edit]

I added information on various ENERGY STAR product specifications. Pretty much all of the info was from energystar.gov. In fact, all of my updates were directly from ENERGY STAR. Is that bad? Should there be more diverse references? Muffinon (talk) 18:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Complete nonsense[edit]

This whole Energy Star thing is complete nosense. I today analyzed a pair of cellphone chargers, one from 1996 and without "Energy star", the other being a recent (2008) NOKIA charger with "Energy star" save-the-planet seal. Result (I'm an engineer): The old charger is (in the best case - the specificaions on the NOKIA are not clear) about TWICE as energy efficient as the "Energy star" charger. In the worst case (interpreting the ambiguous specifications the other way), it is 4 times as energy efficient.

I just wonder how much you have to pay to put this "Energy star" crap on your product :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.139.196.68 (talk) 23:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The criticism section (which may benefit from the image I added to the right - agree?) addresses this; many products are self-certified by the manufacturer, who simply sends a form to the EPA (or to the corporation that runs the program for the EPA!) I managed to get one de-certified recently, as I proved that the application had been fraudulent. However, as an engineer myself, I'd like to know exactly what makes you say it's 2x - 4x as energy efficient. NiCd and Li-ion chargers are very different... --Elvey (talk) 02:38, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IP user .68 is probably confused; because NiCd batteries can't charge as fast as Li-ion batteries, a NiCd charger will draw less energy per second than a Li-ion charger, even if the latter is 'Energy Star'. But it's still less efficient than the Energy Star one, which will turn itself off once the batteries are charged, which won't take long; the old one will keep drawing power for many more hours to charge the NiCd, and will keep drawing power after that, as it won't switch itself off. Adding the image. --Elvey (talk) 00:59, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Refrigerator testing[edit]

Energy Star test conditions and procedures for refrigerators are very complicated, obscure, confusing, hidden, and controversial. This article should address these matters in some detail, and/or link to another more detailed article.

The test conditions bear little resemblance to ordinary usage, and are so peculiar that it is nearly impossible for an ordinary user to test their appliance to see if it conforms to the ratings claims.

Typical usage of vertical refrigerators involves many daily door openings, which impact energy consumption, but the test procedure does not include any door opening: the test simulates normal operation at 70, by running with the door closed at 90. (This would result in the test exaggerating the benefit of very good insulation.)

"Test Criteria: Residential refrigerator manufacturers must self-test their equipment according to DOE’s test procedure defined in 10 CFR 430, Subpart B, Appendix A1. Residential freezer manufacturers must self-test their equipment according to DOE’s test procedure defined in 10 CFR 430, Subpart B, Appendix B1. When determining energy performance for purposes of ENERGY STAR certification, the following principles of interpretation should be applied to the existing DOE test procedures. The energy test procedure simulates typical room conditions (approximately 70ºF) with door openings, by testing at 90ºF without door openings. Except for operating characteristics that are affected by ambient temperature (for example, compressor percent run time), the unit, when tested under the DOE test procedure, shall operate equivalent to the unit in typical room conditions. Energy consuming components that operate in typical room conditions (including as a result of door openings, or in response to humidity levels), and that are not exempted by this standard, shall operate in an equivalent manner during energy testing under the DOE test procedure, or be accounted for by all calculations as provided for in the standard. Examples: (i) energy saving features that are designed to operate when there are no door openings for long periods of time shall not be functional during the energy test; (ii) the defrost heater should not either function or turn off differently during the energy test than it would when in typical room conditions; (ii) electric heaters that would normally operate at typical room conditions with door openings should also operate during the energy test; and (iv) energy used during adaptive defrost shall continue to be tested and adjusted per the calculation provided for in this standard. "

The real (confusing) regulations are here: www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/10/430/subpart-B/appendix-A

Title 10 › Chapter II › Subchapter D › Part 430 › Subpart B › Appendix A

10 CFR 430, Subpart B, Appendix A to Subpart B of Part 430 - Uniform Test Method for Measuring the Energy Consumption of Electric Refrigerators and Electric Refrigerator-Freezers

Some superficial info is here: www.energystar.gov/specifications. -96.233.20.116 (talk) 19:30, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some detailed criticism: sunfrost.com/blog/2010/11/refrigeratorswindows-and-energy-star/ -96.233.20.116 (talk) 19:47, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

^ http://files.support.epson.com/pdf/sc86__/sc86__qr.pdf page 35

Requested move 6 February 2015[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: withdrawn. Timtempleton (talk) 19:33, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

{{requested move/dated|ENERGY STAR}}

Energy Star → ENERGY STAR – The program is spelled and trademarked in all caps, and the logo bears witness to this as well. A member from the program attempted to make this fix but was overruled by other well-meaning but incorrect editors. Timtempleton (talk) 22:01, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose - per WP:MOSTM. -- [[ axg // ✉ ]] 22:24, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose - per WP:MOSTM and early close as contrary to guideline. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:18, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose MOS:CAPS / MOS:TM / WP:OFFICIALNAME -- we do NOT use the official spelling just because it is official. -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 05:13, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this is not a case of incorrect editors but simpy a case of edtors properly following established guidelines.--67.68.211.169 (talk) 06:07, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw I'm the requester and am going to withdraw my request. I was unaware that Wikipedia had a policy of not allowing companies and entities to capitalize their names the way they wanted to. Sorry for any perceived slight to the other editors. I had earlier successfully argued to have my former company Safenet changed to SafeNet, and I wasn't sure why this would be different. While I'm withdrawing my request, based on the established guidelines, I disagree with them, and think it weakens the quality of the entries. I'm going to see if I can figure out why this policy was set in the first place. I see the cited examples of TIME, ASUS and KISS, but if you Google any of these brands, you'll see that in most cases the all caps versions are more common in the search results. If I can move a mountain and change the guidelines, I'll propose the move again.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Follow up to requested move[edit]

Looks like the WP:MOSTM archives have a lot of info on this discussion. Whew! I don't think I have time to correct what I perceive as a mistake, especially since it's been debated so much.Timtempleton (talk) 23:50, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Gillingham's comment on this article[edit]

Dr. Gillingham has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

The article would benefit from additional insight from the academic literature. For example, there is research by Sebastien Houde at the University of Maryland that shows that the Energy Star program provides incentives for firms to "bunch" their products just above the Energy Star rating, leading to an unusual distribution of products across energy efficiency. This new distribution is likely to have to more efficient products, but does not necessarily have more efficient products on average across the entire set of products available on the market. The article makes it sound like Energy Star will unquestionably lead to more efficient products on average.

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

We believe Dr. Gillingham has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:

Reference : Gillingham, Kenneth & Newell, Richard G. & Palmer, Karen, 2009. "Energy Efficiency Economics and Policy," Discussion Papers dp-09-13, Resources For the Future.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 14:26, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Energy Star. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:41, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Energy Star. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/industry/4350335.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070703110036/http://www.energystar.gov.au/ to http://www.energystar.gov.au/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:57, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV?[edit]

The opening paragraph of the article claims, "Energy Star provides simple, credible, and unbiased information that consumers and businesses rely on to make well-informed decisions to save money and reduce emissions. A widely recognized symbol for energy efficiency..." and so on. I think that "A widely recognized symbol for energy efficiency" reeks of ad populum and weasel words. And I think that the first sentence in that quote is pretty dubious (citation needed!) and possibly violates WP:NPOV. It reads like something someone's marketing department put together. Thoughts? --129.105.244.179 (talk) 20:06, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry this is so long after the original post, but I noticed this myself. This seems like a case of puffery. Rocky Role (talk) 01:03, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Add impact of energy star program[edit]

Maybe include facts from: https://www.energystar.gov/about/impacts Lectrician1 (talk) 18:07, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttp://files.support.epson.com/pdf/sc86__/sc86__qr.pdf page 35

[1]