Time for an end to energy confusion

Last month, I attended a debate on IT energy efficiency that managed to be encouraging and dispiriting in equal measure.

Encouragement came in the form of a panel of executives from firms such as Intel, HP and Capgemini speaking of the urgent need to improve the energy efficiency of IT equipment that currently accounts for an estimated one percent of the western world's power demands. They also agreed that if the IT industry is to help its customers reduce energy consumption, standards are essential for measuring and comparing products' energy efficiency.

And there the consensus ground to a halt, because while everyone agreed standards are needed to resolve the current confusion caused by every vendor claiming their products are the most energy efficient, there is little agreement on how they should be developed.

Gordon Graylish of Intel insisted their development should be industry led and that government should restrict itself to setting "goals" rather than strict rules. "It's no good setting a rule that says a machine in standby can only consume 4W if then I can't wake my machine up because it doesn't have the power available," he argued.
However, Catriona McAlister of environmental consultancy AEA pointed out that the Energy Star labelling system, perhaps the most successful energy standard in the market currently, is run by the US government's Environmental Protection Agency.

It was at this point, with the confusion the industry is apparently committed to resolving deepening, that I asked if IT vendors actually had a vested interest in not developing a standard. The whole panel dismissed this, insisting the industry desperately wants clarity and that numerous standards agencies and vendors are rushing to develop a standard.

But, while I don't doubt their commitment, I'm not sure the whole industry shares their desire for clarity. The fact is an international standard allowing customers to compare and contrast hardware's energy efficiency will only benefit the few vendors delivering the most efficient systems. This would be great for customers, who will be able to easily pick products that'll lower electricity bills, and great for the planet as vendors try to out-engineer each other in search of more efficient systems. But it will be hugely damaging to those vendors who are followers rather than leaders in the race for more efficient technologies.

The fact Energy Star has been going for 10 years and still has limited traction; the fact so few vendors are prepared to submit to seeing competitive products independently tested; and the fact each vendor is currently developing their own standards, which they are unlikely to give up lightly, all suggest that even while saying they are committed to standards some firms don't mind the confusion.

Let's get this straight, a standard energy efficient metric supported by all vendors is perhaps the single biggest step the IT industry can take to tackle global warming and help customers slash electricity bills. Customers want one, governments want one, and manufacturers say they want one.

There are thousands of reasons why developing a standard is difficult, but I refuse to believe it is insurmountably so. It is crunch time for the hardware vendors: they must back up their words and settle on an agreed international standard and they must do it fast.