UK PC manufacturer VeryPC posts this undated comment on its blog:

EPEAT is currently (at the time of writing) not available to any organisations who do not have an office in the US and should not currently be used for EU public sector procurement for this reason. EPEAT is a multi-tiered standard, which awards Bronze for a number of criteria (most of which are a legal requirement in the EU anyway), Silver and Gold are awarded for a number of optional criteria. However it should be noted that the optional criteria include key areas addressed by The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) as a minimum specification for green procurement, meaning that an EPEAT Gold product might not meet the minimum standard outlined by DEFRA! Many of the optional criteria are quite gimmicky, allowing manufacturers to score points for “Own Brand Solar Cell Accessories” instead of carcinogenic fire retardants identified by the EU and DEFRA.

I asked EPEAT about this; spokesperson Sarah O'Brien replied:

This post is obviously dated, since it references some past conditions of the EPEAT standard – e.g. the grace period for ENERGY STAR adoption (prior to adoption of EStar 4.0, a much more complex requirement than 3.0) which was eliminated last year. All products on the registry are and will be compliant with the current (or upcoming) EStar specifications at all times.  

“EPEAT is currently (at the time of writing) not available to any organisations who do not have an office in the US”  EPEAT has always been available to, and used by, international purchasers and manufacturers. Our international expansion last summer ensured that users outside the US can review and select products specifically registered in 41 countries – thus increasing the system’s efficacy for non-US use. There is no requirement for a manufacturer to have a US presence and no need for it. EPEAT works closely with government, manufacturer, reseller and purchasers reps to address regional and local concerns as much as possible within EPEAT’s standard setting processes. From the UK, Defra (Dept of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) participates in our standard setting process.

EPEAT “should not currently be used for EU public sector procurement” is incorrect. It is true that under EU guidance, an eco-label (whether the EU flower, Nordic Swan, Blue Angel, EPEAT or other) cannot be directly required as the sole required means of complying with government contract specifications.  But it is entirely acceptable (and common) to use criteria addressed by one or more ecolabel standards and to use certification under an ecolabel regime as a method of demonstrating conformity with those criteria requirements. The UK Environment Agency, among other EU governmental entities, uses EPEAT criteria as a part of their contract specifications.

Finally, though the renewable energy criterion may be somewhat weak (as can result from consensus stakeholder processes) – it has resulted in solar chargers and other renewable energy accessories (“own brand” not required) being available to end users – which is a step in the right direction. This may not be the most pressing issue to address in reducing ICT’s environmental impacts, but it encourages exploration of opportunities for further integration of renewable power.
 
EPEAT, given its history, use and stakeholder nature, is a complex system and requires a careful understanding.  Hope I have been able to set the record straight and contribute to such an understanding for Vertatique’s international readers.