ENERGY STAR’s Uncertain Future and What It Signals for Energy Collaboration

ENERGY STAR is one of the most widely recognized energy efficiency labels in North America. It identifies high-performing appliances, equipment, and buildings that use less energy without compromising performance. For over 30 years, it has helped consumers and businesses make more informed purchasing decisions.

The program’s future is now in question. Reports suggest the Trump administration is pushing to eliminate ENERGY STAR as part of a broader EPA restructuring. That would remove the U.S. infrastructure behind the label, including testing, certification, and technical standard-setting, and leave countries like Canada, which relies on U.S. protocols, in an uncertain position.

Despite a modest budget of $32 to $39 million per year, ENERGY STAR has generated an estimated $230 in private investment for every dollar spent. It’s hard to find another government program with that kind of leverage.

If the program is cut, the most immediate consequence will be regulatory confusion. Manufacturers may be forced to comply with different standards across jurisdictions. Canada may need to build parallel testing systems or accept lower-alignment alternatives. Consumers would lose a reliable way to compare products.

But the long-term consequences are more serious.

Without ENERGY STAR, fewer homes and businesses will upgrade to energy-efficient options. That means higher operating costs, slower emissions reductions, and a missed opportunity to scale low-carbon infrastructure through everyday decisions.

Appliance upgrades, commercial retrofits, and building improvements depend on confidence. The label gives owners a reason to invest. If that signal becomes inconsistent or disappears entirely, the pace of adoption slows. Utilities will have to spend more to hit the same energy savings targets. Governments will fall behind on climate objectives that assume market-driven improvements in energy performance.

One of the most overlooked risks is the loss of public trust in energy data. ENERGY STAR was effective not just because of the label itself, but because people didn’t need to second-guess it. It consolidated decades of testing, performance benchmarks, and engineering analysis into a single reference point. That gave buyers confidence without having to do their own due diligence.

Once that disappears, so does the shared knowledge base. Private labels may emerge, but without centralized oversight or consistency, it will become difficult to compare products across categories or track progress across time. Even well-intentioned programs will compete for credibility instead of reinforcing a standard.

For industrial and commercial sectors, it also disrupts benchmarking. ENERGY STAR buildings, for example, often serve as reference points for emissions intensity. Without that standard, it becomes harder to track progress, compare performance, or develop incentive programs that reward better results.

This is not just a technical gap. It undermines the cultural momentum behind energy efficiency.

At 360 Energy, this kind of fragmentation is exactly what we work to avoid. In Hamilton, the HIPE Network is designed to bring industrial businesses together under a shared framework for managing energy and carbon. Our software platform, Envirally, supports this by standardizing utility and emissions data, creating consistency across dozens of organizations.

ENERGY STAR worked for the same reason HIPE works. It created alignment. It didn’t ask every company to develop its own framework. It gave them one to use.

If that framework disappears, we will eventually build something else. But it will take time. And in the meantime, the decisions that matter most, including what to buy, what to install, what to upgrade, will become harder to navigate and easier to delay.

That’s the real cost. Not just policy uncertainty, but lost momentum at the exact moment when speed and clarity matter most. Programs like ENERGY STAR and the HIPE Network are successful because they’re shared. The more aligned we are, the faster we move.

Looking ahead, there’s also an opportunity here. If the ENERGY STAR model is this valuable, why should it be limited to one country’s political will? A global or independent framework maintained by a coalition of countries or neutral organizations could help preserve its technical foundation, avoid future disruptions, and extend its value to emerging markets that are just beginning large-scale energy transitions. North America built it. But the world could benefit from it.

‍