1-3 appliances has exaggerated environmental credentials

ONE in three electrical appliances audited for energy efficiency is either unfit for sale or has exaggerated environmental credentials, a Herald investigation reveals.

Of the 171 appliances tested from January 2007 to June 2008, 38 per cent failed the federal government's minimum energy performance requirements or understated the item's energy consumption on initial screening.

The poorest performing categories were fridges and freezers (59 per cent), airconditioners (59 per cent) and dishwashers (27 per cent).

Since the six-star rating system began in 1992, more than 1900 appliances have been audited to verify their advertised energy rating and consumption in response to tip-offs or complaints.

Despite the alarming rate of failure, the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency and Water failed to provide a list of offending companies.

The federal government administers the star rating scheme, and the states are responsible for enforcement. Serious breaches may be referred directly to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission.

But, since 2003, the ACCC has taken action in just three cases.

Consumer advocates and testing laboratory operators have called for tighter enforcement to rein in offenders, many of which are based overseas.

Catriona Lowe, of the Consumer Action Law Centre, said harsher penalties were needed. She supported a name-and-shame list for multiple offenders.

''Perhaps for a first offence it's appropriate [for the manufacturer] to remedy but, when companies are doing it on a serial basis, consumers have a right to that information,'' she said.

This week, as the Herald reported, the electronics giant LG was forced to pay more than $400,000 in electricity rebates and offer refunds to 1259 customers who bought two models of fridge that were doctored to give lower energy consumption readings. The ACCC is reportedly investigating the matter.

Ian Jones, of Vipac, which performs efficiency tests for manufacturers and the government, said the self-regulatory aspects of the star rating scheme meant items ''could end up on the market without any testing''.

Testing costs could run into the tens of thousands of dollars and manufacturers sometimes made modifications to improve results, he said.

A spokesman for the Consumer Electronics Suppliers Association, Ian McAlister, said the majority of manufacturers complied with the requirements.

''They have their reputations to protect … we only hear about the ones that fail. It's very rare for the companies to be pinged.''

He said discrepancies between stated and actual energy consumption could result from variations in testing conditions.

There are more than 31,000 appliances on the federal government's energy efficiency register. More than 75 per cent of consumers used star rating labels to help choose an appliance, a 2006 survey found.

A spokesman for Choice, Christopher Zinn, said increased running costs made the star rating system more relevant.

''As the price of electricity goes up, consumer demand is going to be for more energy star-style disclosure on more and more products,'' he said.