PUBLIC ATTITUDES TOWARD ENERGY EFFIENCY AND 

APPLIANCE EFFICIENCY STANDARDS:

CONSUMERS SEE THE BENEFITS AND SUPPORT THE STANDARDS

MARK COOPER,

DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH

CONSUMER FEDERATION OF AMERICA

MARCH 2011
1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The consumption of energy by household appliances, which we refer to as home 

energy, does not receive the same level of attention as the fuel economy of vehicles. This is 

surprising since in 2009, home energy consumption for heating, cooling, lighting, cooking and 

hot water, took just as large a bite out of household budgets as does expenditures for gasoline. 

The 2009 Bureau of Labor Statistics consumer expenditure survey puts total expenditures for 

home energy (electricity, natural gas and fuel oil and other fuels) at $2,000 per year, exactly 

the same as gasoline expenditures. This observation and the commitment to energy policy 

that benefits consumers led the Consumer Federation of America (CFA) to conduct a 

nationwide survey in January 2011, to learn about the public’s knowledge and opinions about 

appliance energy efficiency. The survey results revealed that the consumer attitudes toward 

home energy consumption and efficiency are quite similar to the attitudes that consumers had 

expressed about vehicle fuel economy in prior CFA studies of that issue.

The data revealed the following:

 Nearly all Americans (95%) think it “beneficial for appliances like refrigerators, clothes 

washers, and air conditioners to become more energy efficient,” with 78% believing this increased 

efficiency to be “very beneficial.”

 Nearly all Americans (96%) think improved appliance efficiency is important for 

personal financial reasons – “lowering your electric bills” – with 80% considering this to be very 

important. However, large majorities also believe improved appliance efficiency to be important 

for environmental reasons – because it reduces the nation’s consumption of electricity “to reduce 

air pollution” (92% important, 77% very important) and “to reduce greenhouse gas emissions” 

(84% important, 66% very important).

 Substantial majorities also favor improved energy efficiency of appliances even when 

this increases the purchase price of appliances. This support predictably varies with the payback 

period: 3 years (79% favor, 35% favor strongly), 5 years (73% favor, 32% favor strongly), and 10 

years (60% favor, 29% favor strongly).

 Only about two-thirds of Americans (68%) are aware that the “government requires 

new appliances like refrigerators, clothes washers, and air conditioners to meet minimum energy 

standards.” Awareness is highly correlated with income (53% below $25k, 81% $100k and above) 

and education (50% no high school degree, 84% college degree).

 But nearly three-quarters of Americans (72%) support “the government setting 

minimum energy efficiency standards for appliances,” with strong support from 28%.

 Respondents who are aware of the minimum standards are more likely to support then 

(74% to 64%).

The conclusion is clear: The public overwhelmingly believes that improving 

appliance energy efficiency is beneficial and strongly supports appliance efficiency 

standards. Those people who are aware of minimum efficiency standards set by the 
2

government support them. They are willing to pay more for the product knowing that 

the additional cost will be made up over time in lower energy bills, and in fact, that they 

will ultimately save money. 
3

BACKGROUND

Although the fuel economy of the vehicle fleet receives a great deal of attention, the 

consumption of energy by households appliances, which we refer to as home energy, does 

not. This is surprising since in 2009 home energy consumption for heating, cooling, lighting, 

cooking and hot water, took just as large a bite out of household budgets as does expenditures

for gasoline. The 2009 Bureau of Labor Statistics consumer expenditure survey put total 

expenditures for home energy (electricity, natural gas and fuel oil and other fuels) at $2,000 

per year, exactly the same as expenditures on gasoline.

Over the past six years, the Consumer Federation of America has conducted a dozen 

surveys that examine public knowledge about and attitudes toward the fuel economy of cars 

and trucks. We have found that the public: is concerned about oil consumption for several 

reasons, including cost and dependence on imported oil; believes that lowering consumption 

is good for consumers and the nation; is willing to spend more on more efficient vehicles as 

long as the investment has a reasonable payback period; supports minimum fuel economy 

standards, and the better informed they are about fuel economy, the more they support 

minimum standards.

Since home energy home energy consumption deserves as much attention as gasoline 

consumption from the point of view of the impact of energy policy on the consumer 

pocketbook,1it should come as no surprise that a recent survey we conducted found that 

consumer attitudes toward home energy consumption and efficiency are quite similar to the 

attitudes about vehicle fuel economy. A large majority believe it is beneficial for appliances to 

become more energy efficient for several different reasons, among them is lowering electric 

bills as well as reducing pollution; they are willing to pay more for the product with a 

reasonable payback period, and they support the government setting minimum efficiency 

standards for appliances.

The remainder of this report examines the underlying pattern of attitudes toward 

appliance energy efficiency and minimum energy efficiency standards to gain further insight 

into public opinion about this important area of consumer spending and energy policy. A 

key goal is to provide policy makers with a deeper understanding of the nature of support for 

minimum appliance efficiency standards. 

METHODOLOGY

 

1 Home energy consumption and appliances efficiency standards have acquired another link to gasoline 

consumption. As concern about gasoline expenditures and Mideast oil vulnerability grows in the wake 

of recent turmoil in the region, electric vehicles have become a focal point for efforts to reduce oil 

consumption. Reducing electricity consumption in the home could free up electricity for use in the 

vehicle fleet, thereby allowing the U.S. to meet its national energy policy goals without putting excess 

pressure on the electricity sector.
4

In January 2011, the Consumer Federation of America commissioned a survey of 

public attitudes toward energy consumption of household appliances and support for 

government standards that set minimum levels of energy efficiency for appliances like 

refrigerators, clothes washers, and air conditioners. The national random sample survey of 1,000 

people was conducted by Opinion Research Corporation (ORC).

The survey posed five questions about appliance energy efficiency and minimum 

standards.

Benefit: Do you think it is beneficial or harmful for appliances like refrigerators, 

clothes washers, and air conditioners to become more energy efficient, that is, to use less 

electricity?

Specific benefits: In your view, how important is each of the following reasons to 

improve the energy efficiency of appliances?

Lowering your electric bills

Reducing the nation's consumption of electricity to avoid building new power plants

Reducing the nation's consumption of electricity to reduce air pollution

Reducing the nation's consumption of electricity to reduce greenhouse gas emissions

Payback: Now, suppose improvements in the energy efficiency of appliances increased 

their purchase price but reduced the cost of using them. If these price increases were offset by 

reduced electricity costs over the following time periods, would you say you would strongly

favor this, somewhat favor, somewhat oppose or strongly oppose?

Three years

Five years

Ten years

Awareness of Standards: Are you aware that the government requires new appliances 

like refrigerators, clothes washers, and air conditioners to meet minimum energy efficiency 

standards, that is, to use no more than a certain amount of electricity?

Support for minimum standards: In principle, do you support or oppose the idea 

that the government should set minimum energy efficiency standards for appliances?

The survey gathered data on the standard set of demographics that are typically 

included in survey research – gender, age, education, income, household tenure, region, – as 

well a question on summer electricity bills.

After examining the data, several summary indices were created for specific analyses. 

Recoded variables:

Sum of benefits: All very important..... mixed... none very important. 
5

Payback sum: Strongly favors both 3-year and 10-year.... Mixed.... Strongly opposes 

both 1-year and 10-year 
6

FINDINGS

Attitudes toward Appliance Efficiency and Standards 

As shown in Figure 1, nearly all Americans (95%) think it “beneficial for appliances 

like refrigerators, clothes washers, and air conditioners to become more energy efficient,” 

with 78% believing this increased efficiency to be “very beneficial.”

Figure 1: Perception of Benefits of Efficiency, Awareness and Support for Standards

Nearly all Americans (96%) think improved appliance efficiency is important for 

personal financial reasons – “lowering your electric bills” – with 80% considering this to be 

very important. However, large majorities also believe improved appliance efficiency to be 

important for environmental reasons – because it reduces the nation’s consumption of 

electricity “to reduce air pollution” (92% important, 77% very important) and “to reduce 

greenhouse gas emissions” (84% important, 66% very important).

Substantial majorities also favor improved energy efficiency of appliances even when 

this increases their purchase price. This support predictably varies with the payback period: 3 

years (79% favor, 35% favor strongly), 5 years (73% favor, 32% favor strongly), and 10 years 

(60% favor, 29% favor strongly).

Only about two-thirds of Americans (68%) are aware that the “government requires 

new appliances like refrigerators, clothes washers, and air conditioners to meet minimum 

energy standards.” Awareness is highly correlated with income (53% below $25k, 81% $100k 

and above) and education (50% no high school degree, 84% college degree).

But nearly three-quarters of Americans (72%) support “the government setting 

minimum energy efficiency standards for appliances,” with strong support from 28%.
7

We next examine how these basic responses relate to each other and the demographic 

characteristics of respondents. In the following discussion, we examine all of the variables for 

which we have data that show a statistically significant relationship with support for 

minimum standards in both bivariate analyses and a multivariate analysis. All of the 

relationships discussed in this section are statistically significant by a Chi Square test with p < 

.01. The following analyses also exclude the respondents who refused to answer questions, or 

said they did not know. Therefore, the percentages vary slightly from the overall percentages 

cited above.

Perception of Benefits and Support for Minimum Standards

Table 1 shows that there is a statistically significant relationship between perceived 

benefits of energy efficiency and support for minimum standards. Those who perceive 

benefits are more likely to support minimum standards and the more benefits perceived to be 

very important, the greater the support. Thus, 83 percent of those who think that all four 

benefits are very important support minimum standards. This percentage declines steadily as 

the number of perceived benefits declines. Among those who find none of the benefits very 

important, only 44 percent support efficiency standards, the program, while 56 percent 

oppose it. 

TABLE 1: PERCEIVED BENEFIT AND SUPPORT FOR MINIMUM STANDARDS

Efficiency Benefit N Support For Standards (% of Respondents)

Very Strong Somewhat Somewhat Strongly

Support Support Oppose Oppose

Sum of Benefits

 All 4 very Important 393 52 31 8 7

3 very Important 203 49 34 6 10

2 very Important 115 27 38 19 16

1 very important 133 16 32 16 37

0 very Important 110 8 36 14 42

Bills

Very important 775 42 32 12 15

Somewhat important 189 28 37 12 23

Somewhat unimportant 19 21 21 15 48

Very unimportant 12 17 33 0 50

Plants

Very important 548 51 31 8 10

Somewhat important 270 27 44 15 14

Somewhat unimportant 82 26 28 17 29

Very unimportant 79 8 18 11 63

Pollution

Very important 680 50 32 10 8

Somewhat important 204 17 43 17 24

Somewhat unimportant 53 11 19 17 53
8

Very unimportant 51 4 16 10 71

Greenhouse Gases

Very important 617 52 33 8 8

Somewhat important 201 24 40 14 21

Somewhat unimportant 61 11 30 33 26

Very unimportant 93 4 20 10 66

Attitudes toward Payback Periods and Minimum Standards

Results for the response to the payback questions parallel those for the perception of 

benefits question (see Table 2). We have observed a high level of support for energy 

efficiency, even with a ten year payback period, but there is stronger support with shorter 

payback periods. While the difference between the distribution of responses based on the 

three year payback and the five year payback is not statistically significant, the difference 

between the distribution of responses based on the three year payback and the ten year 

payback is statistically significant, as is the difference between the distribution of responses 

based on the five year payback and the ten year payback is statistically significant. 

TABLE 2: PAYBACK AND SUPPORT FOR MINIMUM STANDARDS

N Support for Standards (% of Respondents)

Very Strong Somewhat Somewhat Strongly

Support Support Oppose Oppose

Payback Sum

Support All 54 24 8 14

Mixed 35 39 13 13

Oppose All 9 27 9 55

3-Year

Favor strongly 404 56 27 6 10

Favor somewhat 405 27 43 15 15

Oppose somewhat 109 25 22 20 33

Oppose strongly 65 21 23 5 17

5-years

Favor strongly 327 57 26 5 11

Favor somewhat 408 32 42 14 12

Oppose somewhat 140 22 31 19 258

Oppose strongly 94 28 21 11 40

10-year

Favor strongly 265 56 27 6 11

Favor somewhat 324 34 42 11 12

Oppose somewhat 175 31 31 19 18

Oppose strongly 285 29 33 11 38

The more favorable the respondent is to the payback period, the stronger the support 

for minimum standards. The response patterns are similar for each of the payback periods. 
9

Those who find any payback unacceptable are three times as likely to strongly oppose 

minimum standards. We have used the responses to the three and ten year payback questions 

to develop a general index of “willingness to pay.” Respondents who strongly favor the three 

and ten year periods have the higher score of 8. Those who oppose both the one and 10 year 

periods have a score of 1. This captures the strong difference between the extremes. Sixty 

four percent of those who find any payback period unacceptable oppose both of the payback 

periods strongly oppose minimum standards; whereas 64% of those who strongly favor both 

the 3 and 10-year payback periods strongly support the standards. 

Demographic Variables

Table 3 shows several background characteristics that exhibit significant relationships 

to support for minimum efficiency standards in addition to education. It starts with the data 

that show awareness of minimum standards is associated with support for them. Forty-two 

percent of those who are aware of the standards strongly support them, while only 31 percent 

of those who are not aware, do not support them. 

Among the demographic variables, only education exhibits a statistically significant 

relationship to support for minimum standards in both the bivariate and multivariate analyses 

(income drops out in the multivariate analysis, since education is a stronger predictor). 

Education also exhibits a relationship to awareness that minimum efficiency standards exist. 

To be clear, gender, region, marital status, age and housing tenure (owner v. renter) do not 

exhibit significant relationships to support for minimum standards in either the bivariate or 

multivariate analysis. 

TABLE 3: BACKGROUND CHARACTERISTICS AND SUPPORT FOR MINIMUM EFFICIENCY 

STANDARDS

N Support for Standards (% of Respondents)

Very Strong Somewhat Somewhat Strongly

Support Support Oppose Oppose

Awareness of Standard

Unaware 284 31 34 11 20

Awareness 714 42 33 10 16

Education

LT 8th Grade 35 27 27 20 27

8th Grade 55 40 29 13 18

High School 254 32 36 12 20

Associate Coll. 83 27 45 11 18

Some College 196 43 28 14 15

College Grad 213 42 34 9 15

Post Doc. 170 45 33 9 16
10

The multivariate model including five variables – education, political leaning, payback 

attitude, perceived benefit and awareness – explains about 15% of the variance, which is high 

for attitudinal variables such as these.

Appliance Efficiency Standards Compared to Fuel Economy Standards

The public attitudes toward appliance efficiency standards are quite similar to their 

attitudes toward fuel economy standards, as shown in Table 4. They perceive the importance 

of reducing energy consumption as both an important personal benefit and a benefit to the 

nation. There is strong majority support for standards and the better informed the 

respondents are, the stronger their support. 

TABLE 4: COMPARISON OF ATTITUDES TOWARD APPLIANCE EFFICIENCY STANDARDS AND 

FUEL ECONOMY STANDARDS

 Appliances Fuel Economy

Benefits/Concerns

Overall benefit of Efficiency 78 79

Price 80 72

Greenhouse Gasses 66 57

Payback

1-year na 81

3-year 79 na

5-Year 78 72

10-year 60 na

Support for Standards

General 71 na

27 to 35 mpg (current) na 78

35 to 50 mpg by 2025 na 65

35 to 60 mpg by 2025 na 59

Awareness & Support for Standards

Aware 74 72

Unaware 64 66

http://www.consumerfed.org/elements/www.consumerfed.org/file/Gas_Oil_Survey_Oil_Spill_PR_5_18_

10.pdf, http://www.consumerfed.org/pdfs/MVFE-Survey-PR092810.pdf

Conclusion
11

The conclusion is clear: The public overwhelmingly believes that improving appliance 

energy efficiency is beneficial and strongly supports appliance efficiency standards. Those

people who are aware of minimum efficiency standards set by the government support them. 

They are willing to pay more for the product knowing that that the additional cost will be 

made up over time in lower energy bills, and in fact, that they will ultimately save money. 

The public recognition of the benefits of efficiency and support for performance standards is 

consistent across products and across time.