I hope this means a move away from standards that result in serious usability impacts for moderate improvements.
Examples I've personally experienced is that many/most driers now available require multiple attempts to get clothes actually try. Then there was the debacle of fedora enabling aggressive power saving in a difficult to disable way in updates, claiming it was mandated-- resulting in nonsense like remote hands incidents to unsuspend servers and users using TV as monitors perpetually needing to turn the TV on and off every use because TV's won't wake and the power saving functionality wasn't disclosed (if you could even figure out that this was WHY the screen kept failing-- and did so without sending a display to the landfill first).
Energy efficiency when it comes at no impact to functionality is good (at least if it pays for its own landfill burden-- many home devices have more embodied energy in their manufacture than they'll ever use) but when it has a usability impact it really ought to have a good justification or even just not happen at all because people are capable of choosing more efficient devices when it actually makes sense to do so.
(like the efficiency impact of a device run for 10 minutes a month is very very different from something that runs 24/7 and usually only the owner of the device knows the usage).
Intrusive requirements also set back environmental causes by enlisting opposition by members of the public that are harmed by them-- which could easily have a greater long term impact than the benefit of the standard. (and if it's argued that these changes have gone too far, then I'd say it's likely an example of exactly that).