Let me ask you a couple of questions.  If you spent 25 years creating a nationally recognized and well-respected brand, would you eliminate it? If you had a business proposition where you spent $60 million a year to save $31 BILLION a year, would you say “no, this doesn’t make sense”? If there were no major company or trade group opposed to your brand, would you shut it down?

If you haven’t already guessed, I am talking about Energy Star. There has been a lot written about Energy Star lately. There are probably articles that say Energy Star is a waste and it should be eliminated. But I haven’t found any. In fact, I cannot find a major company that is for shutting down the Energy Star program.

From my perspective, Energy Star has really challenged our industry – and many other industries — to become better and more energy efficient. Energy Star is almost like a “seal of approval.” Consumers look for Energy Star on most electronics and appliances.  The logo and brand is recognized nationally – and in fact, there is 85 percent public awareness that the Energy Star label is a symbol of energy efficiency.

The leader of the Trump administration’s transition team at the Environmental Protection Agency, which runs Energy Star, has come out and said, “if your industry and others that participate in Energy Star think it’s a good program, then I think you should pay for it and run it.” Understand, I am not admonishing the administration – there are many politically paid pundits who can do this. What I am saying is this: if you have built a brand up for 25 years, why eliminate it? Is this the right place to start with cutting the budget?  Shouldn’t we embrace providing consumers with savings by purchasing more efficient products, thermostats, air conditioners, windows, etc.? And Energy Star is doing this, according to Noah Horowitz, who said consumers received $5 billion in rebates last year alone.

Personally, I believe the Energy Star program is a value to our industry. It has challenged us to become better and strive for more energy-efficient products. I think we need to rally around Energy Star as it is good for our industry, good for consumers and although it may sound trite, it’s good for our country, our environment and our economy.

Great Selling!

1 Comment

  1. It always amazes me how we (or at least, some of us) can be for lower taxes and smaller government, until it affects us personally. The argument here isn’t whether or not Energy Star is respected. Nor is it about spending $60 million to save $31 billion (a specious argument at best). It is all about who should pay for it. As a window manufacturer, there was a time when Energy Star had validity and standing in the market. That’s when it was run by the DOE. Since the EPA has taken over, it’s lost a good deal of credibility. Some of it has to do with the incompetence of the agency itself, some of it is self-inflicted, as when they honored an internal combustion alarm clock with the designation.

    Myron Ebell was absolutely correct in his assessment. If the program is so valuable (to you), why should expect us to pay for it? I pointed out several weeks ago in a similar response, why is NFRC able to survive without government intervention, and Energy Star is not? Does not the EPA, in fact, take the lazy way out and merely refer back to the most basic of NFRC testing for achieving the designation? If so, then what value dles the program add, except a label?

    Most of you are too young to remember when Energy Star first came upon the scene. I recall the meeting when it was presented to the North East Window Association. At that time, it was, by the presenter’s own statements, a marketing program still in search of how it would be implemented for windows. This was when the only marginally “thermal testing” conducted was air infiltration. Everything else subsequent, including NFRC, came from the industry, not from government. Why would you think we’re incapable of doing a much better job than it currently being displayed?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *