Businesses across multiple industries where surprised and dismayed when CNN reported on May 6 that the Trump administration is planning on eliminating the ENERGY STAR program from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The administration’s proposed “skinny budget” includes a line item that would cut the entirety of the Atmospheric Protection Program, which houses the ENERGY STAR program.  

High-value, high-return

It also attracts significant investment from participating businesses: for every $1 that the EPA spends to administer the ENERGY STAR program, partners add another $230 of their own investment. The program both inspires industry and saves consumers’ money. ENERGY STAR began under former President George H.W. Bush in 1992 as a means to inspire innovation in American manufacturing while protecting the environment. The program partners with thousands of businesses and organizations to help create new cost-saving solutions that help protect the public’s health along with their pocketbooks. Those partnerships include nearly 40% of Fortune 500 companies and are vital to the U.S. economy’s productivity.  

This unique and successful public-private partnership results in $40 billion of savings for Americans each year, while requiring a relatively modest investment of $32 million. Its outsized return on investment is part of the ENERGY STAR program’s long-term success and its continued value to a variety of industries.  

Industry leaders and consumers across the country are hoping the administration will exclude the well-established ENERGY STAR program from the proposed eliminations. According to more than 1,000 companies, the ENERGY STAR program is “among the most successful public-private partnerships in U.S. history.” In a letter they signed and sent to Lee Zeldin at the EPA on April 11, those companies urged him to “maintain full funding and staffing levels to ensure it continues delivering unparalleled economic benefits to millions of Americans.” They pointed out that for “every dollar the federal government spends on [ENERGY STAR], consumers save $350.”  

Industry support for ENERGY STAR

As Steve Nadel, the executive director for the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy put it, “If you wanted to raise families’ energy bills, getting rid of the ENERGY STAR label would be a pretty good way. This would take away basic information from consumers who want to choose cost-saving products easily. There’s a reason this program has been so popular with consumers and manufacturers alike.” 

Immediately after the proposed elimination was reported, the commercial real estate industry spoke up in further support of the important energy efficiency program. Jeffrey D. DeBoer, President and CEO of The Real Estate Roundtable, quickly came to the program’s defense, stating: “The highly successful ENERGY STAR program is an integral, voluntary participation program critical to residential and commercial, private and public sector U.S. buildings. The program drives efficiency, helps create greater capacity on energy grids to boost economic growth, and enhances profitability for owners and investors in U.S. real estate.”  

The U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC), among others, is asking Congress to reject this program elimination. According to senior policy counsel at USGBC, Elizbeth Beardsley, “Thousands of product manufacturers, utilities, real estate companies, and local governments rely on the program to create value, adopt energy efficiency practices, and manage energy use; shuttering it would only cause confusion and raise costs.” 

As a market transformation program, CalMTA believes ENERGY STAR provides critical standards and labeling that help consumers choose energy-saving products for their homes and businesses and bring value beyond the cost to run it.  

As industry leaders have made clear, now is not the time to chop a successful program that American businesses and consumers rely on.