As of last week, over 1,000 businesses and organizations signed a letter that urges the United States Congress to defend and strengthen the Energy Star program. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency runs the Energy Star labeling initiative, which awards the Energy Star label to efficient appliances.
The Energy Star initiative was originally started under President George H.W. Bush, and is considered one of the few successful public-private partnerships in U.S. history. More than 16,000 companies have partnered with the government through this program since its inception. Through the program, the EPA can certify a broad assortment of products as “efficient.” These products range from appliances to electronics to entire buildings and manufacturing facilities. The program itself is widely known, boasting more than 90% brand recognition, by the small blue “energy star” logo that appears on products sold throughout the country that the EPA has deemed energy efficient.
Those who are vocally supporting the defense of the initiative have been organized by the Alliance to Save Energy. According to them the program saves consumers more than $34 billion per year in reduced energy costs.
The original budget proposal from President Trump would have eliminated funding for Energy Star, a voluntary program that has an annual budget of $50 million. That rendition of Trump’s budget also included a 31% cut to the EPA’s overall budget – however, Congress recently approved a budget that only cut EPA funding by 1%.
Energy Star is one of the few potential victims of the Trump Administration that seems out of place. It is a voluntary program that has garnered bipartisan support, with a very small budget. More importantly, pretty much everyone has acknowledged that it works.
CNN has an interesting proposal concerning the target placed on Energy Star by Trump’s team. According to the news agency, Trump properties tend to score poorly according to Energy Star ratings. Scores from 2015 showed that 11 out of 15 Trump properties in major cities are “less efficient” than “comparable buildings.”
The Trump condominiums at 610 Park Avenue, for example, were rated a 1 by Energy Star – the lowest possible energy rating, CNN said.
As a result, over 1,000 businesses, organizations, national and regional chains, universities, hospitals, and even the Habitat for Humanity are putting pressure on lawmakers to fight on behalf of the program. Some have gone as far as to call it the “model for successful collaboration between the public and private sectors.”
The coalition is convinced that because the program has been so successful thus far, it should be strengthened, not weakened. They believe it provides too many important benefits to the public with regards to meeting energy and environmental goals. Thus, shutting it down would hurt American businesses, consumers, and the overall economy. From these positions comes the pressure on the administration to reconsider the budget proposal.
Fortunately for the group, the budget passed by the White House did not cut the EPA budget by nearly as much as originally stated.
Some of the more notable companies who did sign off on the letter included United Technologies Corp., Seattle City Light, and A.O. Smith, the largest manufacturer of residential and commercial water heaters in North America.
