Energy Star aids consumers. So why get rid of it?
The familiar blue label that catches the eye of appliance shoppers has a reassuring quality. The Energy Star logo tells buyers that a refrigerator, washing machine or dishwasher runs efficiently, saves money in the long run and — for those mindful of the climate — reduces their carbon footprint.
The Energy Star program, which has been around for 25 years, is a relatively small idea with a huge payoff. In a federal government that spends $4 trillion a year, Energy Star costs between $50 million and $60 million. And the Environmental Protection Agency, which runs the program, estimates it saves consumers and businesses $34 billion in energy costs each year.
In an “Energy Week” speech Thursday to showcase U.S. production efforts, President Trump said America is “on the cusp of a new energy revolution.” Crucial to such a revolution is not just the production of energy but efforts not to waste it — exactly what Energy Star accomplishes.
So things that aren’t broke don’t need fixing — or abandonment. Right? Yet the Trump administration’s budget proposal for 2018 calls for zeroing out funding for Energy Star.
The administration claims that its other environmental rollbacks — pulling out of the Paris climate agreement, easing vehicle fuel ef- ficiency standards and slashing the EPA budget — will create jobs and help the economy.
But Energy Star, created in 1992 under Republican President George H.W. Bush, represents government at its least intrusive. It’s voluntary, and it imposes no regulatory burden. It boosts product sales and cites only success stories in its public ratings.
And it’s popular. More than 90% of American households recognize the blue label and say they base purchasing decisions on it. There are similar private-sector programs, but they don’t have the long-term name recognition of Energy Star.
The program was dinged by a government investigation in 2010 for lax reviews, but responded with tighter certification procedures. “It’s very cost-effective, it’s a very small investment for taxpayers, and it’s a huge consumersavings benefit,” says Shannon Baker-Branstetter, an analyst with Consumer Reports. So what’s not to like? Well, some real estate developers might have a bone to pick. In addition to rating the efficiency of appliances, Energy Star scores the energy usage of hotels, condominiums and office buildings on a scale of 1 to 100. The program releases only results for properties that do well. But some municipalities — including Chicago, New York and San Francisco — require full disclosure of Energy Star results, particularly for larger structures.
The numbers can be embarrassing, as they were for a certain New York real estate magnate who mounted a successful campaign to be president of the United States. According to a CNN report, 11 of 15 Trump skyscrapers in New York, San Francisco and Chicago scored poorly under Energy Star standards in 2015, the most recent data available.
Now Energy Star is on the chopping block, without any good reason for its demise. Conserving energy makes America’s supplies last longer and protects the environment. It should be an easy call for Congress to keep Energy Star shining.