Imagine the scenario where you’re out shopping for a new refrigerator. You stumble upon a few models that match the dimensions of your old fridge. One has an ice maker, which could be pretty handy. Another one boasts an interior water dispenser, adding to the convenience factor. Then there’s a third option with an ice maker and the trusty blue Energy Star label. Feeling a bit overwhelmed with all the features, you decide to go with the third one, knowing it’ll help you save money on your electricity bills.
Decisions like this are being made hundreds of times per minute. It’s estimated that more than a million Energy Star-certified products are sold each day. These products range from refrigerators (models with an Energy Star label are about nine per cent more efficient than those that just meet the minimum federal standard) to dryers (where Energy Star models are about twenty per cent more efficient) to air-conditioners, dishwashers, pool pumps, commercial water heaters, vending machines, and the list goes on. The Energy Star rating system, in existence since 1992, is jointly run by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Energy. It has been hailed as “one of the most successful voluntary U.S. government programs in history.” Energy Star has managed to reduce electricity demand by five trillion kilowatt-hours and cut greenhouse-gas emissions by four billion metric tons over the past thirty-three years.
Last week, rumors started circulating that the Trump Administration was considering axing the Energy Star program as part of its reorganization of the EPA. According to attendees of a briefing on the matter and a slide shown during the meeting, the Administration plans to eliminate the entire Office of Atmospheric Protection, which oversees Energy Star among other programs. The EPA has neither confirmed nor denied these reports. When asked about its plans for the office, the EPA has only mentioned delivering organizational improvements to benefit the American people and advance the agency’s core mission. As with many of the Administration’s actions, there are doubts about the legality of scrapping the Energy Star program. Congress, in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, directed the heads of the EPA and DOE to “preserve the integrity of the Energy Star label.” It’s hard to maintain that integrity if there’s no label to begin with. Additionally, there’s uncertainty about whether lawmakers will approve changes to the program, which has broad support from both consumers and industry. Over a thousand companies, municipalities, and organizations have urged the EPA administrator to maintain full funding and staffing levels for the program, citing its cost-effectiveness and benefits to American households.
Not really sure why this matters, but considering that Energy Star costs so little to administer, has widespread support, and is entirely voluntary, one may wonder why the Administration is contemplating getting rid of it. One possibility could be a lack of understanding of the program’s benefits. Paula Glover, president of the Alliance to Save Energy, pointed out that the program aligns with the President’s priorities of reducing energy costs. Another possibility is that it’s part of the Administration’s broader attack on initiatives aimed at curbing greenhouse gas emissions. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse labeled it as “economic sabotage” to benefit fossil-fuel donors. The Trump Administration’s track record on climate protection has been likened to the Visigoths’ impact on Rome. They have taken numerous steps to roll back federal support for emissions reductions and climate adaptation, signaling a clear disregard for environmental concerns. The White House’s aggressive stance extends to undermining state and local climate initiatives, with lawsuits filed against states planning to hold fossil-fuel companies accountable for climate damages.
In the grand scheme of things, the Energy Star program could be seen as just another potential casualty of the Administration’s anti-climate agenda. Despite its popularity and effectiveness, it seems to be on the chopping block for reasons that remain unclear. Maybe it’s just me, but it’s baffling to see a program that saves American households billions annually on energy bills being targeted for elimination. Ignoring the importance of energy efficiency and climate protection won’t make environmental issues disappear. The Trump Administration’s stance on climate initiatives raises concerns about the long-term impact on our planet and future generations.
