Bipartisanship in Washington D.C. is difficult to achieve these days. However, one program that both sides of the aisle and those with differing opinions about climate change have always seemed to agree with was the success of the Energy Star program.
Since the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of Energy launched the program in 1992, the program has saved households, institutional organizations and commercial businesses more than $500 billion in energy costs and 4 billion metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions.
In commercial markets for 2023, the most recent data, more than 8,800 buildings earned Energy Star certification, saving more than $2.2 billion and preventing more than 5.7 million metric tons of emissions. Since 1992, more than 43,000 commercial buildings have earned Energy Star certification and combined to use 35 percent less energy than typical buildings nationwide.
All that data, provided by the U.S. government, would seem to indicate a success story that continues to pile up victories, and one that should be touted by elected leaders as a triumph of government working for its people. Yet as the second Trump administration continues to reduce federal spending, the Energy Star program is on the chopping block.
Ken Sandler, who worked in the federal government under six presidents, starting with the George H.W. Bush administration when the Energy Star program was created, is among the many in the energy industry wondering why.
“Because it was so well-developed and managed for so many years, Energy Star maintained a huge reservoir of bipartisan support across industry sectors, environmental groups, state and local governments, and much more,” says Sandler, a former sustainability advisor with the General Services Administration, who recently retired after a 34-year career with the federal government.
“Energy Star lasted through six presidential administrations — half Democratic and half Republican — and it’s what makes the current effort to kill the program so inexplicable and so indefensible.”
Energy Star is a voluntary labeling and certification program for institutional and commercial buildings as well as residential and industrial buildings. The buildings that seek certification and the products that qualify for the program must meet strict energy performance standards to qualify for the label.
Sandler further explains that the benefits of the program provide positive marketing value for building owners to relay that their facilities are better buildings than what their counterparts have to offer.
“For government and society at large, Energy Star provides effective, less expensive and less controversial means to slash energy use and greenhouse gas emissions,” Sandler says.
In addition to the opportunity for facilities to earn Energy Star certification, the program also provides facility managers at commercial and institutional access to its Portfolio Manager benchmarking tool.
“Energy efficient properties are, as a rule, better built and managed, and often more comfortable to spend time in than those that are leaky,” Sandler says.
The Portfolio Manager has emerged as a popular tool for facility managers. Last year, more than 330,000 buildings — or 25 percent of commercial floor space in the U.S. — used the Portfolio Manager tool to track energy use, water use, waste and materials.
“This would take away basic information from consumers who want to choose cost-savings products easily,” says Steven Nadel, executive director for the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy in a statement about potentially eliminating the program. “There’s a reason this program has been so popular with consumers and manufacturers alike.”
The Portfolio Manager has helped facilities identify underperforming buildings, identify best practices to maintain them, and help set investment priorities to help reach energy saving goals.
Success stories spotlighting the use of the Portfolio Manager are many. They include such facilities as:
“Energy Star is not just for U.S. households, it’s a global benchmark with far-reaching influence across commercial facilities of every type,” says Michael Geary, president and CEO of IFMA, in a statement. “From HVAC systems to lighting, life safety equipment and manufacturing tools, Energy Star provides independent, trusted confirmation of quality and efficiency. Facility managers, building owners and employers depend on this program to maintain healthy, sustainable workplaces that support core business functions.”
As of this writing, no decision on the future of the Energy Star program has been made since a CNN report in early May said that its elimination was possible due to a reorganization of the EPA.
Reaction to the potential ending of the program has produced plenty of negative reactions from all corners of the energy industry. All the goodwill generated by the program and the savings associated with it — both monetarily and energy-wise — has industry leaders wondering what, if anything, could take Energy Star’s place.
“This program saves families and businesses more than $40 billion every year with a budget of less than $40 million,” Nadel says in a statement. “It’s an astonishingly good deal. Major industry associations have rightly rejected this notion that someone else could simply pick up this program and run it as EPA has, with the decades of trust it has built with manufacturers, builders and consumers.”
Nadel’s statement was in response to EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin’s recent comments that Energy Star “is an example of one (program) that can be run outside of the government.”
Public pleas to save the program have come from far and wide. The U.S. Green Building Council is among the environmental organizations rallying to save Energy Star, launching a campaign to encourage support to contact Congressional representatives to express their interest in preserving the program.
If the program is eliminated, Sandler anticipates other organizations would step up to fill the gap such as a private company or state and local governments creating plans to support their businesses, institutions and residents. But he says the idea of developing other options is harder than it may seem.
“The market demand for a label like Energy Star has been clearly demonstrated,” he says. “But replacing a program with the government’s credibility and backing it with one run by anybody else will introduce challenges and costs. Who is plausibly unbiased and has the reputation and resources to run such a large and important program?”
To Sandler, one of the biggest strengths of the Energy Star program was voluntary participation, a difference in a regulatory world that requires facility managers to adhere to building codes and other standards in their jobs.
That so many facilities and individuals have voluntarily embraced Energy Star over more than 30 years inspires Sandler, who maintains hope that the program can be saved.
“Voluntary programs encourage market leaders to go beyond minimum required performance to gain such benefits as good publicity, new markets and employee attraction and retention,” he says.
Dave Lubach is the executive editor of the facility market. He has more than a decade of experience writing about facility management and maintenance issues.
