Skip to content
Business
Link copied to clipboard

A clothes-washer way of arguing SUV fuel standards

Consumers Union might find fault with new washers, but it isn't taking lightly their application to vehicle efficiency.

Call this a tempest in dirty laundry and you won't even be guilty of mixing metaphors.

This week, the folks at the nonprofit Consumers Union were peeved by an ad featuring their magazine, Consumer Reports. But not the kind that usually riles them - one trying to capitalize on a top rating to sell a product.

No, this ad focused on something negative that Consumer Reports said about the latest crop of washing machines. And it was paid for by an advocacy group, the SUV Owners of America.

What do sports-utility vehicles have to do with washers?

Both must meet federal energy standards. Starting this year, washers have to use one-fifth less energy. And this month, the SUV owners group, along with automakers, has been fighting legislation to raise most fuel-efficiency standards for the first time since 1985.

As the Senate debated and passed a new fuel-efficiency standard this week, the SUV owners group ran this ad in two Washington newspapers:

"2001," it said. "Department of Energy mandates washing machines be 23% more fuel efficient by 2007.

"2007," the SUV owners group's ad continued. "Consumer Reports reveals top-loading washing machines no longer clean clothes.

"If that can happen to your washing machine, just think what can happen to your car."

Consumers Union says the ad distorted the magazine's findings, which its June issue touted with a cover headline, "Washers That Don't Wash."

Gene Kimmelman, a Consumers Union vice president, complained in a letter to the SUV group's chief, Barry W. McCahill, that the ad suggests energy standards harm consumers by limiting their choices. "We believe that energy efficiency mandates do work to reduce consumption without adversely impacting choice or safety," Kimmelman wrote.

Indeed, Consumers Union has been outspoken in its support for raising energy-efficiency standards, including the vehicle standards - called CAFE, or Corporate Average Fuel Economy - that the Senate bill would raise to 35 miles per gallon over the next 10 years.

The SUV owners group fought the bill, and is particularly opposed to a provision ending what critics call the SUV loophole: a lower efficiency standard for light trucks that also applies to SUVs and minivans. The current fleet-average standard is 27.5 m.p.g. for autos, but 22.5 m.p.g. for vehicles in the light-truck category.

Ron DeFore, a spokesman for the SUV owners group, said many pickup and SUV owners use their vehicles for heavier work, such as towing boats or trailers. He said those who buy them "as a fashion statement" will be driven away by high gasoline prices.

"It's not like consumers are stupid. They're saying, 'Hey, I still need this vehicle. And I'm willing to pay the high price of gas because I still need this vehicle,' " DeFore said.

So what about that dirty laundry?

DeFore said the vehicle-washer comparison was "a simple analogy that Joe Sixpack can understand."

But Mark Connelly, who oversees Consumer Reports' appliance testing, said some washer models seemed to cut corners to meet the new standard - for instance, by cutting the temperature of a "warm water" wash from the 95-degree range to near 85 degrees, because the standard counts energy used in water-heating.

Connelly said such changes were one reason why four conventional models scored a "poor" rating for their washing performance - a result not seen for any models in recent years.

As in recent years, the best results came from high-efficiency, front-loading machines, which typically cost $1,000 or more.

"The lesson is, you have to be more careful when you design more efficient products," Connelly said.