EPEAT rating to rank TVs' eco-features

Updated at 12:10 p.m. PT with comments from co-chair of the working group.

A consortium of manufacturers and retailers is working on an environmental rating for TVs that goes beyond just power consumption to include everything from packaging to amount of toxic material used.

The standard, tentatively called EPEAT-for-TV, is spearheaded by the Green Electronics Coalition and is being worked on through the IEEE Standards Association.

The arrival of energy-hungry flat-screen TVs has some consumers looking more closely at the electricity consumption of their electronics. (See CNET's energy-efficient guide for TVs here.)

The EPEAT-for-TV rating will define environmental performance for a TV by including data on "reduction or elimination of environmentally sensitive materials, materials selection, design for end of life, lifecycle extension, energy conservation, end of life management, corporate performance, (and) packaging," according to working group's Web site.

That means that the group will consider the amount of toxic materials, such as flame retardants, used in TVs and how much recycled content is used in the products, explained Patricia Dillon, the co-chair of a working group. The standard will also look at how whether a TV is designed to be disassembled at the end its life and manufacturers' environmental reporting, she said.

In terms of energy consumption, it's meant to go beyond the EnergyStar rating for energy efficiency. The standard is expected to be available on retail shelves in 18 to 24 months. In parallel, there is an EPEAT standard being done for digital imaging products, such as printers and copiers.

The EPEAT standard--the name comes from Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool--is primarily aimed at people who purchase electronics at businesses or government agencies. It now covers desktop and laptop PCs as well as monitors.

Because it was developed for institutional buyers, the EPEAT rating isn't well known by consumers. But the Green Electronics Coalition is planning on developing a branding campaign to raise awareness of the standard, Dillon said.

"That's what's majorly different here. There's been a recognition in the growth of EPEAT beyond what anyone had envisioned initially," she said. "There's a desire by many, including retailers and (manufacturing) companies, to bring EPEAT into the consumer space."

Members of the working group include representatives from Acer, Best Buy, Sharp, the Electronics Takeback Campaign, and JVC. According to a piece at The New York Times' Green Inc. blog, Sony broke rank with other manufacturers to back creation of the environmental performance standard.

In a sign of the friction among companies, the meeting minutes from March indicate that one working group participant said there is no data to suggest that consumers would be behind the effort.

[NervClaX]

Really? I understand the need for consistent data regarding electricity consumption (like on many large appliances), but how far is too far? I have a TV that gets better than 1080p, incredible black levels, uniform brightness, and perfect color. It's also very green. I call it A WINDOW!

What percentage of consumers will take energy consumption into mind when choosing a new LCD or Plasma TV? Maybe that will change when the government forces me to subsidize solar and wind power companies through cap-and-trade.

[monkeyfun14]

Oh you'd be surprised if it will save them a few dollars on their electric bill they will go for it.

[carlhage]

Unfortunately, the EPEAT test doesn't measure energy consuption or cost-- a major factor in new TVs. Tests here on CNET show that the lifetime cost of some TVs could be as much as $10,000 of electricity-- several times the cost of TVs. We badly need the "EnergyGuide" stickers like for refrigerators. Note the EPEAT test is not a score that quantifies (measures) the amount of toxic or green materials, etc.-- this is a count of brownie points for doing or not doing certain good or bad things. In other words, this is a count of qualitative measures (how many stars were rewarded for green activities), so comparisons mostly measure the size of greenwashing programs. The same problems exist for all the other products. A product from a high scoring company might be much worse for the environment than a product from a lower scoring company, since the EPEAT scores aren't measurements.