## PUBLIC ATTITUDES TOWARD ENERGY EFFIENCY AND

APPLIANCE EFFICIENCY STANDARDS:

C ONSUMERS SEE THE 

## B ENEFITS AND 

## S UPPORT THE 

## S TANDARDS



### M ARK 

### C OOPER



### , D IRECTOR OF 

### R ESEARCH



### C ONSUMER 

### F EDERATION OF 

### A MERICA



### M ARCH 

### 20111



### E XECUTIVE 

### S UMMARY



### The con sumption 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 f uels) 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 Jan uary 2011, to learn about t he public’s knowledge and opinions about

appliance energy efficiency

. The survey results reveal ed 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 th is 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, larg e 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 emiss ions”

(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 co nditioners 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 gove rnment 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 believe s that improving

appliance energy efficiency is beneficial and strongly supports appliance efficiency

standards. Those people who are aware of minimum efficiency standards set by the2



### government support them. They are willing to pay more for the product k nowing that

th e a dditional cost will be made up over time in lower energy bills, and in fact, that they

will ultimately save money.3 

### B ACKGROUND



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

consumption of energ y 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 s ix 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 e conomy 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 poli cy on the consumer

pocketbook, 1 

### it 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 bel ieve it is beneficial for applia n ces 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 the y 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.

M ETHODOLOGY

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

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 consumptio n 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 Cons umer 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 h armful 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 effici ency of appliances?

L owering your electric bills

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

R educing the nation's consumption of electricity to reduce air pollution

R educing the nation's consumption of electricity t o reduce greenhouse gas emissions

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

the ir purchase price but r educed the cost of using them. I f the se price increases were offset by

reduced electricity costs over the foll owing time periods, w ould 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, clo thes 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 min imum 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 electri city 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.... Stro ngly opposes

both 1

- year and 10

- year6



### F INDINGS



### 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 m ore 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%) thin k improved appliance efficiency is im portant 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 t he 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 ev en 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 educat ion (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 r elate 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 bivar iate 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 th ey 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 fou r 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.

T ABLE 

### 1 : P ERCEIVED 

### B ENEFIT AND 

### S UPPORT FOR 

### M INIMUM 

### S TANDARDS

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 importa nt 204 17 43 17 24

Somewhat unimportant 53 11 19 17 538

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 to ward 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 distribu tion 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.

T AB LE 

### 2 : P AYBACK AND 

### S UPPORT FOR 

### M INIMUM 

### S TANDARDS

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

F avor 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 ge neral 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.

Dem ographic 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 signi ficant

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.

T ABLE 

### 3: B ACKG ROUND 

### C HARACTERISTICS AND 

### S UPPORT FOR 

### M INIMUM 

### E FFICIENCY



### S TANDARDS

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 1610



### The multivariate model includin g 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 Standard s

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 b enefit to the

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

respondents are, the stronger their support.

T ABLE 

### 4: C OMPARISON OF 

### A TTITUDES TOWARD 

### A PPLIANCE 

### E FFICIENCY 

### S TANDARDS AND



### F UEL 

### E CONOMY 

### S TANDARDS



### Appl iances 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_1 8_

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

- Survey

- PR092810.pdf



### Conclusion11



### 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 ultim ately save money.

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

consistent across products and across time.