Knows Green

I was recently the co-teacher at the EPEAT first certificate course – you can read the story here.

The class was taught by myself, Wayne Rifer and Erin Gately, both of GEC. We had several current QV’s and PVC members as well as new QV’s there for training and a few industry folks as well. As this was the first class, it was a great learning experience for all involved – the teachers and the students – and more classes will be forthcoming in the future.

First EPEAT Certificate Class, Portland, April 2010

Wayne Rifer at QV Training Class

EPEAT EPEAT, QV, Training Class

Recently wrote an article with Anne Peters of Gracestone Inc. on EPEAT and E-Scrap for the recent E-scrap conference – “Setting the Standard: An EPEAT Progress Report.”   I now have a copy available for download for those that are interested!

Click — E-Scrap EPEAT Article to open article in a new window.

EPEAT

Environmentally Sensitive Materials: Materials experts have joined recent calls and provided input; September meetings will focus on organohalogens.

Materials Selection: Investigating recycled plastics and bio-based materials, policies.  Focusing on criteria for recycled plastics.

Design for End of Life/Product Logevity: Focusing on Design for EOL.  Reviewed currently existing ecolabels in the market with general agreement that Blue Angel methodology is the leading standard for environmental design criteria.  Forming discussion groups on disassembly criteria.

Energy Conservation: Discussing embodied energy and stand-by energy criterion.

EOL Mangement: Conducting webinars on R2 and e-Stewards.  Developing equivalency guidelines for potential inclusion in standard.

Corporate Performance: Discussion of various proposed criteria including GHS/carbon reporting, EICC, water disclosure, OHSA 18001.

Packaging: Reviewing first 4 criteria of existing 1680.1 standard and identifying additional information needs.

Consumables: Early in criteria development – use of recycled paper, remanufactured cartridges, materials selection, warranties, longevity etc.

Indoor Air Quality: Investigating GreenGuard, EU methods and types of data used by each.

EPEAT

The EPEAT 1680.2 Imaging standard has established a variety of subgroups to begin work on criteria and definitions for this standard.  Below is my initial summary of these groups and any issues they have uncovered.  Mostly, there is a call for additional stakeholders so I would ask that if you can, please join the discussions in these subgroups.

Indoor Air Quality – Preliminary discussion on scope of products, definition questions. Committed to gather information from similar programs that have IAQ requirements for future use.

Environmentally Sensitive Materials – Covered issues of common criteria using 4.1 section with most items as common criteria. Need to coordinate closely with definitions and consumables committee. Using energy star standard for definition of Imaging Devices at this time.

Materials Selection – Reviewed current standard; working on keeping meetings to a minimum. No substantial findings/conclusions at this time, mostly logistical discussion

Design for End of Life – Has not met. Meets April 3 to discuss org issues and common criteria. Think need some more information on the end-of-life system to help set what design for end-of-life should cover. Suggesting a presentation to the group on what definitions need to be considered – in terms of imaging devices and types. Wide variety of products could be covered.

Energy Conservation – Reviewed 1680.1. All criteria should be common. Group will look at more. Questions about what energy conservation and what corporate performance would cover – Embodied Energy came up. Seeking more NGO representation for the group.

EOL Management – Reviewed 1680.1 4.6 criteria. Take back and Audit should be common with modifications; battery take back doesn’t apply to imaging. Main question is around consumables – what subgroup will address EOL management for consumables, this group or the consumables group?

Corporate Performance –  First meeting had limited attendance.   Focus is on increasing attendance before launching into many discussions however initial requests to gather any information on corporate performance issues in EUP as well as what new issues like climate change and LCA’s might need to be looked at and by which subgroups were discussed.

Packaging – Reviewed 1680.1 and the eco-label matrix. Considering long list of criteria from these. Need to refer back to definitions that have already been developed – recovered content, recyclability etc.

Consumables – Need to define what the scope of this WG is supposed to be. Some agreement that imaging equipment needs to use Green consumables but not really defining what a green consumables would be. Need to define what consumables come from each of the covered imaging products as defined in 1680.2.

Definitions – No NGO or purchasers represented.  Will review e-star definitions, any issues/concerns there. Also includes marking technologies. Asking for folks to join the SG.

EPEAT 1680.2, EPEAT, Imaging, subgroups

Imaging Work Group

The subgroups for the EPEAT Imaging workgroup have formed and will be meeting over the next two weeks.  Subgroups have formed for each of the 8 existing EPEAT categories.  In addition, 2 additional potential categories have formed groups – consumables and emissions/air quality.  Also, a product definitions group has formed to define the different products that will be included in the scope of the standard.

The main task for the subgroups will initially be to identify possible criteria that are common across the existing and potential EPEAT standards – Computers, Imaging and Televisions.   From there, subgroups will focus on developing and/or modifying criteria and building consensus among the stakeholders prior to draft criteria being circulated to the full working group for voting.

Television Studygroup

The primary goal of the TV studygroup is to develop a Project Authorization Request (PAR) and then vote to accept or reject this PAR.  It has been decided that a 75% approval/acceptance will be required to approve the PAR and establish a TV Workgroup that would then be tasked with developing the EPEAT criteria.

The PAR is basically finalized though there are a few more questions that the study group chairs are investigating and will report back to the group at the next meeting.  It is anticipated that a vote on the PAR will occur at the next study group meeting in April.

Other Information

A face to face meeting will take play June 8 and 9 in Washington DC for both the Imaging and TV groups as part of the development of the criteria for each standard.

EPEAT Group on LinkedIn started last week.   Looking to have some good, open discussions about EPEAT and GEC.

EPEAT EPEAT, Imaging, Televisions

When EPEAT was originally begun in 2003 and implemented in 2006, one of the key drivers for the standard was to provide a consistent method for institutional purchasers to specify environmental characteristics for IT products by calling out EPEAT as the requirement in bids and proposals.  This worked well and motivated manufacturers as it provided a purchasing incentive to meet EPEAT criteria and strive for more and more points until they achieved Gold level products.

Though criteria were written with institutional purchasers in mind, there was nothing that would prevent a consumer or retailer from accessing the EPEAT database and browsing through all the listed products to examine the various environmental criteria being claimed.  There are only a few criteria that may not directly apply in the consumer space, just based on the way they are worded in the standard (Product and packaging takeback, for example).

Now, though, several years later, the EPEAT IT product standard is undergoing an update and revision as well as an expansion into other products – Imaging devices like printers and scanners and Televisions.  The discussion has been reopened as to whether or not EPEAT (or specific product categories within EPEAT) should jump directly into consumer and retail space.   There are (as always) both advantages and disadvantages to staying focused in the institutional space or also overtly designing the standard for both institutional and consumer purchasers.   These concerns include cost of design changes to products, education and marketing to consumers, additional verification by the EPEAT administrative organization, The Green Electronics Council (GEC) and many others.

There is an obvious desire by consumers to be informed as to the environmental benefits or attributes of the electronic products they want to buy.  Today, however, without any set “holistic” environmental standard in the consumer space, it is very difficult to compare these benefits from one product to another or one manufacture to another.  Energy Star has done a good job of educating purchasers about the energy use of products but what about other aspects – recycling, hazardous materials, use of recycled materials, ease of upgradability etc.  The lack of a standard and the desire for more informed purchasing was a driver for the initial development of EPEAT so it would seem to make sense for EPEAT to move into this area.

However, the purchasing power of a single individual or even thousands of individuals is far less than the purchasing clout of a single institutional purchaser like a government agency or a university that could purchases tens of thousands of IT products at once.   There is a cost to the manufacturers to design and manage products for EPEAT compliance that manufacturers were willing to undertake for the institutional purchaser knowing that there would be a likely return on investment (the manufacturers, after all, are in the business to make money first and foremost).

Products for institutional purchasers were, for many manufacturers, designed with different characteristics to meet the demand of those users – they didn’t need the most intensive graphic cards or the largest hard drives or fastest processors but did demand more attention to security features and services for end of life and data destruction.   It was, technically, simpler and more familiar ground to create a more environmental product in the institutional space knowing there would also be a payback.  The consumer, though, generally was looking for the fastest processors and graphics capability and didn’t consider the energy use or materials the system was made from as important so it was both technically more difficult to achieve portions of EPEAT (or Energy Star) and riskier as the ROI on the design changes wasn’t as assured on the retail level.

The question is:  Are those assumptions still true today?

The current EPEAT working groups and the IEEE standards balloting is occurring now and will continue for the next 18 months.  I would encourage anyone interested in helping forge the future of EPEAT and answer that question to participate in these groups in giving their time, experience, insight and/or funding the development of the standards.  The previous post talks a bit about each group and where to go to find more information.

EPEAT

Currently, there are three working groups for EPEAT that have been formed to update the IEEE 1680 standard.  Details for each group can be found here.

1. Computer/IT Workgroup:  This group formed in 2008 to expand the scope of products covered by IEEE standard.  As such, the creation of an umbrella IEEE 1680 standard was undertaken, completed and is in process of being balloted by the IEEE standards association.   The umbrella standard includes the rules of how EPEAT operates (bronze, silver, gold levels) and removes the criteria for IT products by placing them into a newly created, separate standard IEEE 1680.1.

The IEEE 1680.1 standard contains the original IEEE 1680 criteria for desktops, notebooks and monitors with minor modification and interpretations as approved by the working group.  The IEEE 1680.1 standard has just been approved to be balloted by the IEEE standards association.

2. Imaging Workgroup:  This group met at an initial meeting in early 2008 and agreed to form a workgroup.  This group formally formed at the end of 2008 to create the IEEE 1680.2 standard for Imaging devices.  This workgroup is in the final stages of developing the project authorization request (PAR) that initiates the formal request to IEEE to begin development of the standard itself.

3. Television Studygroup:  This group met at an initial meeting in early 2008 and agreed to form a studygroup.  This studygroup has the charter of determining whether or not an EPEAT standard for Televisions should be developed.  This group has also met several times and appears to be on track to becoming a formal workgroup and develop the PAR to form the IEEE 1680.3 standard for televisions.

EPEAT