The three key federal energy efficiency programs we reviewed–– minimum energy efficiency standards, EnergyGuide, and Energy Star— take different approaches to the shared goal of improving energy efficiency of selected categories of household appliances and consumer electronics. The scope of products that these three programs cover also varies. The three key federal energy efficiency programs we reviewed take different approaches to improving energy efficiency as follows: Federal minimum efficiency standards. Federal minimum efficiency standards for selected categories of household appliances and consumer electronics, among other things, are designed to eliminate the least efficient products from the market. Under EPCA, Congress required DOE to set minimum energy efficiency standards for manufacturers of specified categories of consumer products such as refrigerators, dishwashers, furnaces, and hot water heaters. Congress later amended the statute to include additional consumer product categories, as well as other categories. Manufacturers’ compliance with the standards is mandatory. The statute requires DOE to set and revise standards through the federal rulemaking process. This process calls for analyzing the technical and economic issues associated with setting energy efficiency standards for each category, proposing a standard through public notification, soliciting comments on the standard, revising the rule, and issuing the final rule. Most of the categories with deadlines require at least two rules—either to set an initial standard and later update it, or to update a congressionally set standard and then update it again about 5 years after the first deadline. DOE estimates that, from the inception of the federal minimum efficiency standards program in 1975 through 2005, consumer benefits from these standards amounted to about $64 billion. DOE projects that the standards will have saved consumers $241 billion by 2030 and $269 billion by 2045. EnergyGuide. EnergyGuide is designed to provide information displayed on a label attached to selected products that enables consumers to compare the estimated energy cost and energy consumption of different models within a given product category. EnergyGuide’s familiar yellow label has aided consumers for over 30 years in selecting household appliances and consumer electronics such as televisions and dishwashers by providing information on how much it will cost to run particular models per year and their level of energy consumption. EPCA requires DOE, in consultation with FTC, to study new product categories to determine whether they should be added to the EnergyGuide program and to report annually on the energy savings of the program. Manufacturers’ compliance with the standards is mandatory. FTC has the authority to add additional product categories if the commission determines that labeling for the product is likely to assist consumers in making purchasing decisions. The statute requires FTC to set and revise standards through the federal rulemaking process. Energy Star. Energy Star is designed to identify the most energy efficient models––generally the top 25 percent–– within a given category of products without sacrificing performance. Manufacturers of qualified products can place the widely recognized Energy Star label on qualifying products as an indication of energy efficiency, which gives the manufacturer an incentive to improve energy efficiency. Participation is voluntary. EPA has reported that the additional incentive the Energy Star program provides as a marketing tool for manufacturers encourages efficiency beyond the level of federal minimum efficiency standards, further reducing energy consumption and the associated greenhouse gas emissions. According to EPA, as of 2012, Energy Star products had prevented more than 150 million metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions annually and reduced electricity consumption by more than 200 billion kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year––a savings that offsets the need for more than 185 additional power plants. Figure 1 provides an example of the different types of information conveyed to consumers for household appliances and consumer electronics by each of the three programs. Specifically, the figure illustrates a hypothetical case of two models of dishwasher, a product covered by all three programs. In the example, both dishwashers meet the federal minimum efficiency standards. However, the model on the left side of the figure qualifies for an Energy Star label––as noted by the Energy Star logo on the lower right corner of the Energy Guide label for that product––while the model on the right does not. The manufacturers of both models also publish an EnergyGuide label as shown in the figure and are compliant with the federal minimum energy efficiency standard. In 2011, the most recent year for which data are available, DOE’s budget for these programs was $42 million; EPA’s was $53.3 million; and FTC officials estimated that FTC spent about $215,000, for a total of about $96 million to administer these programs. The scope of products that the three federal energy efficiency programs cover varies. Specifically, the minimum efficiency standards currently apply to 33 selected categories of household appliances and consumer electronics; EnergyGuide currently covers 16 such product categories; and Energy Star program––the broadest of the three programs––currently covers 37 such product categories. Our analysis found that some products are covered by only one program, some by two programs, and some by all three. For example, of the 37 product categories covered by Energy Star, 21 are covered only by Energy Star, 3 are covered by Energy Star and the federal minimum efficiency standards, and the remaining 13 are covered by all three programs. Figure 2 illustrates the coverage of product categories and the extent to which products are covered by one, two, or all three programs. The three agencies have had varying histories expanding the product categories covered by each program, specifically, as follows: DOE has had a limited role in expanding the products covered by the minimum energy efficiency standards; rather, Congress has directed DOE to expand the products covered. The program has set standards for products such as clothes dryers and furnaces since the 1980s, and it has been expanded to include products such as ceiling fans and dehumidifiers. The scope of product categories covered under the federal minimum efficiency standards has largely been determined by statute and, while DOE has the authority to expand the scope of the program by adding new product categories and update standards for existing categories, it must go through a rulemaking process to do so. In 2007, we reported that DOE had faced difficulties meeting statutory deadlines for issuing standards, but it has recently made progress in improving its timeliness. FTC officials told us seven products have been added to EnergyGuide since 1980––including fluorescent lamps in the 1990s, ceiling fans in 2007, and color televisions in 2011. In 2007 we noted, among other things, that DOE, in consultation with FTC, is required to study new products to determine if any products should be added to EnergyGuide. At that time, however, DOE staff could not identify any instance of such a study, and they told us that they had not completed one during the prior 10 years. We recommended that DOE, in consultation with FTC, regularly review product categories not currently covered to assess whether they should be included in the EnergyGuide program. DOE and FTC took steps to implement this recommendation, including defining certain terms that would provide a basis for expanding product categories in the future. In addition, during the course of our current work, officials from FTC told us they take steps to consider new products, including soliciting suggestions from stakeholders during the rulemaking process, accepting petitions from interested parties, and coordinating with DOE and Energy Star officials. While FTC has not added any new products since 2011, officials told us that they routinely consider new product categories. For example, the agency considered requiring an EnergyGuide label for personal computers but determined that variations in the components used to assemble computers and the lack of a standard testing procedure were barriers. Like the federal minimum efficiency standards, the scope of product categories covered under EnergyGuide has largely been determined by statute, and FTC must go through a rulemaking process to expand the scope of the program. EPA has expanded Energy Star from its initial coverage of computers and monitors to include many more product categories. For example, it added new products, such as residential heating and cooling equipment, then continued to add product categories through the 1990s and 2000s—for example, clothes washers in 1997, ceiling fans in 2001, and water heaters in 2009—so that Energy Star now includes 37 household appliance and consumer electronic product categories. Because Energy Star is a voluntary program that does not engage in the same formal rulemaking process as the other two programs, it can add product categories more easily and has added many product categories. Federal programs to increase the energy efficiency of household appliances and consumer electronics are fragmented because more than one federal agency is involved in the same broad area of national need; they overlap because the three programs have similar goals and target similar users. The programs are not broadly duplicative because they are not engaged in the same activities and do not provide the same services, and the agencies coordinate on key decisions related to meeting their common overarching goal of improving energy efficiency. However, we identified one duplicative activity within Energy Star program. Fragmentation. Federal programs to improve energy efficiency for household appliances and consumer electronics are fragmented because three federal agencies are addressing the same broad area of national need—in this case, improving energy efficiency. In March 2011, we reported that fragmentation has the potential to result in duplication of resources. For example, fragmentation can lead to technical or administrative functions that could be shared among programs instead being managed separately by each agency. However, we have also reported that fragmentation is, by itself, not an indication that unnecessary duplication of efforts or activities exists. In the case of these three programs, each agency collects its own data on the products covered by its program, but we did not find evidence that the independent data collected by each agency adversely impact the effectiveness of these programs. Moreover, agency officials told us they are working to share data with one another. For example, FTC officials told us that they are formally working with DOE officials through the rulemaking process to create a single database that manufacturers will use to submit the information required for both agencies. Overlap.