I own one of the Kenmore Elite refrigerators manufactured by LG that lost its Energy Star designation. It is model number 795.775726. I purchased the refrigerator in June of 2007.I also own a Kill A WattEz energy usage monitor. When I measured the annual estimated usage over 3 days the monitor settled at an estimate of 1, 152KWH for the year. LG stated that the annual consumption was 578KWH for my model (This is what they told me over the phone). The refrigerator was at its maximum settings for both the refrigerator (33 degrees) and freezer (-6). The ice maker was turned off.

I called to have the modifications done to the refrigerator as outlined in the agreement with the DOE. Now, after having the modifications to the refrigerator done by Sears, the Kill a WattEZ estimate has settled at 966KWH for the year. If you are unfamiliar with the Kill a Watt products they measure usage electronically. You use the product as a go between of the product you are measuring and the wall outlet. The instructions say the unit constantly monitors the energy consumption until it settles in on the estimated usage. It has a stated accuracy of 99.8%.

I called LG for my rebate check. I received my rebate check today for $54.46. I called LG back and asked them what criteria they used to calculate the refund. I was told that my model number used 892KWH vs. the 578KWH stated. I was informed that my rebate was calculated from the time I purchased my appliance until 12/2009. I would then receive a check yearly after that based on the now modified difference in usage. They stated that the new annual usage, based on the modifications would be 613KWH. Now here is where it gets interesting.

1) There is a major difference in estimated annual usage between LG and my Kill a WattEz (1, 152 vs. 892).
2) There is a major difference in estimated annual usage between LG and my Kill a WattEZ after the modifications were made (966 vs. 613)
3) My rebate check in the amount of $54.46 is far below what is should be even when you take the LG figures. (892-578=314 difference) (314 divided by 12 = 26KWH a month rounded down) (30.5 months (based on 6/15/2007 purchase date X 26KWH = 793KWH) ($54.46 divided by 793 = 6.87 cents per kilowatt hour reimbursed). In NJ, our current rate is 17.8 cents, last year at this time it was 17.4 cents. I don’t have my previous invoices but I would be willing to bet the cost was no lower than say 16.5 cents going back to June 2007. At an average rate of 17 cents, the reimbursed amount should have been $134.81. Based on my own readings and not LG’s figures, the amount reimbursed should have been $248.01.
4) Over the next 10-12 years, LG will continue to short change consumers with their annual payments by using a much lower KWH rate and KWH usage figures.
5) LG is not reimbursing consumers for the implied premium we paid for the Energy Star Label for which we paid a premium.
6) LG has ignored the fact that many consumers, like myself, would not buy a major appliance without the Energy Star Label.

In Australia, consumers, who purchased these refrigerators were offered $322 for energy usage or a new refrigerator that was Energy Star compliant or a FULL reimbursement of the purchase price. I guess Americans don’t rate as high as Australians.

Contact your state attorney general. This must be addressed immediately.