Ireland Owens
Contributor
As corporate media outlets race to cast the Trump administration’s termination of an energy savings program as a net loss for Americans, experts note that the coverage omits several inconvenient facts.
Several news outlets have recently reported that the administration’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is looking to eliminate the Energy Star program, while seeming to gloss over criticism of the program and the fact it received multiple unsatisfactory reports from federal government audits. While Energy Star has reportedly saved American households and businesses over $500 billion in energy costs since 1992, some experts have warned that the program can negatively impact consumers, such as by pushing them to purchase less effective appliances.
“I guess the nicest thing I can say about the Energy Star program is that it’s not as bad as the energy efficiency regulations, because those are mandatory,” Ben Lieberman, a senior fellow who specializes in environmental policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “But, the Energy Star label is at least supposedly voluntary, you don’t have to buy the Energy Star model, but that information is there if you want to.”
“That being said, I think the program has been misused in a variety of ways,” Lieberman added. “Environmental groups tend to pressure the big retailers to only carry Energy Star products, a lot of the tax credits that the government extends for [home] appliances only apply to the energy efficient or Energy Star models. So, it’s not as voluntary as it is made out to be … There’s also concerns that they’re trying to use the Energy Star program to pursue a climate agenda.” (RELATED: ‘Got To Go’: DOE To Cut Off Billions Of Dollars’ Worth Of Biden-Era Green Energy Projects)
“I would not be sad to see the [Energy Star] program go,” Lieberman told the DCNF.
The EPA and the Department of Energy (DOE) launched Energy Star in 1992. The program was created to help consumers and businesses “save money and protect the environment through the adoption of energy-efficient products and practices,” according to the DOE’s website.
A March 2010 report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that Energy Star was “vulnerable to fraud and abuse.” GAO’s report also found that the Energy Star program’s controls that were in place at the time did not ensure that products actually met efficiency guidelines.
“Just the same as we choose many products without a government rating, we can choose our iPhones without a government rating, we can choose our lawnmowers without a government rating,” Diana Furchtgott-Roth, director of the Heritage Foundation’s Center for Energy, Climate and Environment, told the DCNF. “Think about all the appliances we buy every day that do not have a government rating … we do not need a government rating to be able to choose lower-energy use appliances if this is what we want.”
GAO noted in its report that it created a variety of “bogus” products to covertly test if it could obtain Energy Star certifications for them. GAO reported it was able to acquire Energy Star certifications for 15 of the fake products, including a gas-powered alarm clock, while two of the “bogus” products were rejected by the program and three did not receive a response.
“A big part of that that people should understand is if you look at the term ‘energy efficiency,’ the Energy Star program and the DOE’s standards are all about what they said was energy efficiency,” John Kennerly Davis Jr., a senior attorney and former deputy attorney general for the Commonwealth of Virginia, told the DCNF. “If you have to run an energy-efficient dishwasher twice to get the job done, then that’s not efficient.”
“By artificially imposing on the market these products that ‘yeah this dishwasher is more efficient but you have to run it twice,’ that’s the fatal conceptual flaw that people need to understand,” Davis Jr. added. “Energy efficiency is not task efficiency, and that’s why getting rid of this whole program is a very good thing for efficiency.”
Moreover, an October 2009 audit from the DOE’s Office of the Inspector General found that “officials had not … developed a formal quality assurance program” to help ensure that product specifications for Energy Star were adhered to. The audit report stated that the DOE had not “effectively monitored” the use of the Energy Star label to “ensure that only qualifying products were labeled as compliant.”
“In our judgment, the delay in the Department’s planned improvements in its management of the ENERGY STAR Program could reduce consumer confidence in the integrity of the ENERGY STAR label,” the report states. “Such loss of credibility could reduce energy savings, increase consumer risk, and diminish the value of the recent infusion of $300 million for ENERGY STAR rebates under the Recovery Act.”
An August 2007 report from the EPA’s Office of the Inspector General found that there was “little oversight” in using the Energy Star label on products in retail stores.
“We found little oversight in using the ENERGY STAR label in retail stores, which is commonly the purchase point for the consumer,” according to the report. “[The] EPA could not provide documentation related to follow-up actions taken, final results for all retail store assessments, or the resolution status of label inconsistencies. We also found that manufacturers may label and sell products as ENERGY STAR qualified prior to submitting test results to the Agency. Using the label on products that do not meet ENERGY STAR requirements may weaken the value of the label and negatively impact the ENERGY STAR program.”
Similarly, a separate report from the EPA’s Office of the Inspector General published in 2009 found that the “performance results” of Energy Star and non-Energy Star products “call into question the assumptions used to calculate energy savings and greenhouse gas reductions attributed to this program.” Moreover, a 2010 report from the EPA’s Office of the Inspector General found that the agency’s implementation of the Energy Star program was “inconsistent with the program’s authorized purpose” of achieving “environmental benefits by identifying and promoting energy-efficient products and practices that meet the highest energy conservation standards.” (RELATED: EXCLUSIVE — GOP Rep Unveils Bill To Block Future Presidents From Launching An ‘Assault On Domestic Energy’)
“We believe the ENERGY STAR program has sought to maximize the number of qualified products available at the expense of identifying products and practices that maximize energy efficiency,” the report states.
President Donald Trump has notably prioritized overturning a variety of energy regulations during his second term, as part of his “unleashing American energy” agenda.
A source familiar with the program told the DCNF that Energy Star “is a non-statutory program the private sector can effectuate without taxpayer resources. The U.S. Department of Energy already regulates many of the sources covered by the EnergyStar program which leads to confusion among consumers. If companies falsely advertise their products, then they can be subject to penalties from other regulators further proving that a ‘government seal of approval’ is unnecessary.”
“With respect to all voluntary programs, companies do not need a federal government ribbon at the cost of taxpayers so that they can more easily sell products to consumers,” the source told the DCNF, adding that the cost of the product relative to potential savings over time does not need certification from the federal government.
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
There are also sillyass goals in the program, like water conservation at the expense of not cleaning clothes or dishes.
… because the 70% of the planet’s surface covered with water isn’t enough – we’re using it all up.
…or flushing toilets.
Or toilets that do flush, but leave streaks.
Maybe I’m full of shit, but if you have to flush a toilet three times, you’re not saving water. 🤣
Or showers…
That is the worst … i hate those miserly fine jets that sting and don’t remove soap. A prime example of an inefficient design requiring twice the time and likely more water wasted.
The trouble with some lo-flo designs is that they have a reduced diameter through the “S” bend.
This can lead to significant log-jams.
more bran
Its those big long solid cigar shaped ones that cause the problem.
They can’t get around the narrower bend.
The front-load washer I bought 2 years ago only filled with a 2″ puddle of water in the bottom. Watching it tumble was like watching damp clothes being pounded on rocks at the river’s edge. And they came out smelly and covered with soap scum.
Fortunately I knew how to open it up and change the water level control to an adjustable model. Now my washer fills up with water to almost half way up the door, as God intended. And my clothes are clean.
We don’t need no stinking government!!
God intended you to pound damp clothes on rocks at the river’s edge;
it took an engineer with a lazy nagging wife to invent an efficient washer that fills up with water to almost halfway up the door & give clean clothes !!!
But if you need to be really frugal with water … use a twin-tub.
🙂
Or maybe we just needed a different government?? Just read today;
President Donald Trump signed four bills on Friday to roll back Biden-era regulations on appliances like water heaters, refrigerators, walk-in coolers, and household appliances.
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2025/05/10/trump-signs-four-bills-to-roll-back-biden-era-regulations/
Plus Today;
Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Rescinds Useless Water Pressure Standards
https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/05/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-rescinds-useless-water-pressure-standards/
So now I won’t have to “Field Modify” my next toilet, washer or shower??
Winning!!
In my neck of the woods the water authority merely turns down supply pressure which has the added ‘advantage’ of not busting their century old infrastructure. That also frees up more money for executive bonuses.
I still have a 1978 manufactured top-loader. Plenty of water used 🙂
Had to replace the timer mechanism once, she leaks a bit, but she still goes strong !
Nothing better than getting dressed for work, pulling out a clean shirt and seeing soap marks all over because the Energy Star washer doesn’t actually wash clothes.
and low flow toilets that don’t flush right
Some of the lower priced low flush are just the same old toilet flushing system but with a smaller water tank.
Most higher priced toilets also have the flushing system redesigned to be more efficient.
I had to replace an old toilet that was leaking. I replaced it with a lower priced toilet.
Had to often flush two times or more.
A few years later I replaced with a higher priced toilet. It works fine.
They might not have looked ‘sleek’, but the old overhead tank and a pull chain worked every time.
They worked very well but everyone else in the building was also aware. Quiet they were not.😉😃
I would trust independent organizations like Consumer Reports and UL Solutions infinitely more than any government run programs which always seem to become corrupted right after being authorized.
And even those programs are subject to influence since people are involved and it only takes one to change some data. I do think we need oversight however. I’m not a Pollyanna. We need limits on microwave radiation levels coming from microwave ovens, home natural gas furnace requirements, building design and a whole host of other things in our lives.
I gave up on Consumer Reports after they endorsed Obamacare. The reporting became very pro-goverment, pro-regulation. The magazine didn’t truly believe in empowering consumers.
IIRC, John Stossel became a small government libertarian after he began working as a consumer affairs reporter. Stossel noted the failure of government to protect consumers and that changed his thinking.
Although I agree with you about the tilt of CR, I do think they are responsible for many dishwashers and washing machines actually being able to clean in one cycle, since CR rates on cleaning ability. Unfortunately, being able to clean with an Energy Star certification means 3-hour dishwasher cycles instead of an hour with more water usage. Clothes washers exhibit similar cycle time increases.
I purchased a Maytag front load washer in the 2000’s based on CR glowing review.
Just before the warranty went out, the control system failed. I had to fight with Maytag for 2 months to get them to replace the part under warranty. Control replacement cost was over $400. I kept it for another 3 years. I had added Sears repair coverage when I purchased the washer, I was the best decision I could have made on that machine.
It kept breaking and I finally gave up on it. It was junk.
I never renew my subscription to CR after that. CR is irrelevant.
Company’s have to pay for the right to bear the UL label. The companies only do this because consumers value the label.
If the people were to lose trust in the company behind the label, then companies would no longer pay money for the label and UL would go out of business.
Have you eve taken a non-UL approved device apart and seen the sloppy unsafe way they are assembled/designed? I have. China made things come to mind.
China will simply reproduce the UL label and you’ll be none the wiser.
They can safely cut their costs and lower my price as far as I’m concerned. I don’t place any value on a UL logo, never mind an EnergyStar. If it’s not an EnergyStar, I figure it might work.
We NEED oxygen, water, food, shelter from exposure, protection from predators.
You WANT those other things that many of us judge to cause more harm than good.
A decade or so ago Consumer Reports began to include “environmental impact” (or something like that) in their rating system. They used to be only about the cost and quality compared to other products. If your going to use CR, dig a bit deeper than just their final rating.
I don’t know about about UL Solutions. My impression has always been that they are mainly concerned with the safety of the product rather the cost and/or quality of the product.
Consumers wouldn’t have to “save money” on energy by using less if its price hadn’t been artificially increased by Government policy driven by maniacs in the environmentalism racket.
I don’t know about you, but when I buy something, I want to know if it is cost-efficient, in comparison to other similar products. Is it well-made? A lot of times something cheaper costs more in the long run. Saving energy might save some money too, but it is not the most important factor.
Also a lot of things that are more expensive but supposedly greener represent very bad value. When I last bought a fridge and freezer there were models with lots of extra insulation for a 60% premium price saving supposedly ~30kWh a year that would take well over any lifetime of the appliance to pay off. Plus they had less internal space, so either you would need an additional appliance or you would need to shop more frequently involving more time and energy going to the supermarket.
Many believe that simply doubling insulation cuts heat loss in half. In fact, the effect is non linear producing diminishing returns, just like the greenhouse effect.
Mr. Cobb, I recently had such an experience. My expensive GE Profile refrigerator/freezer died of compressor failure after ~10 years of satisfactory service. The tech I called said it would be more expensive to replace the compressor than buy a new competent refrigerator. I asked should I by a high end or not. He replied that there is little or no difference between the mechanics of a $1,000 machine or a $3,000 machine. He recommended buying a on-sale new machine from an established manufacturer along with a 5 year warranty. I did so, a Whirlpool with the same features as the Profile (ice maker, ice and cold water dispenser, side by side fridge/freezer, no notable difference in electricity consumption on sale for $1,000 and the 5-year warranty for $179. It fit in the same hole as the Profile but has more room inside and is working fine. So far, so good.
Smart move!
Yuh, a 5 year warranty is about all you can get now on a frig. My parents’ frig (bought in the 40s) lasted about 40 years and was still working but it had to be turned off to melt the ice buildup, so they bought a new one. They were built to last a lifetime.
Back in the early ’80s I worked in a “Mom and Pop” small appliance repair shop for close to 3 years.
The “Pop” told of reading an article in a trade magazine where the CEO of large manufacturer of small appliances (Toast Master, Hamilton-Beach, Sunbeam?) said that they decided to cheapen their products because they reasoned that if people were willing to buy a new car every 5 years, they could also buy a new toaster every 5 years.
There’s a reason “They don’t make ’em like they used too.”
I can attest to the fact that small appliances like toasters and kettles rarely last 3 years regardless of price.
I’ve mentioned before that I found an old toaster that someone was throwing out. I replaced the cord (with one with a ground) and adjusted it.
The date stamp was November 1955. It finally died around 2015 or later.
One of the nichrome wire elements burnt out and I had no access to part. I mean, who makes toaster elements that are nichrome wire wrapped around mica insulators anymore?
(It worked long enough that my daughter wanted me to save it so she could make it into a planter!)
The local mechanic bought a metal lath made in 1943. Thing was made with 1/2″ cast iron plates, numerous oil and grease fittings, plenty of power. They were used on battleships.
Just needs new belts and a few new tweaks. Built to last like a brick sh* house. Absolutely amazing.
Like the auto stop/start “feature”?
Infuriating to have your engine (and ac compressor) stop and then start a second later because you came to a stop sign.
If your AS/S is activating while the A/C compressor is running, it is malfunctioning. AS/S is not supposed to activate under a number of different conditions, one of which is the compressor running.
Everything from the corporate media is a lie. Half the lie is what they tell you and half the lie is what they don’t.
The Misleadia
Lamestream Misleadia.
I do not believe this program “saved” $500 billion. Government programs are run by inveterate liars. And having dealt with Energy Star tagged appliances I know for a fact they are not better. Much shorter operational life and not as effective as older appliances. As for “low flow” toilets and showers, they use more water, not less because you have to flush multiple times and run shower longer. Same for washing machines. Strip government out of it and consumers and manufacturers will achieve higher efficiency through the market.
It’s like the fuel mileage stickers that come on new cars.
Particularly EVs.
A few years ago I had my German sports car performance tuned and whilst the performance boost was impressive, the fuel efficiency improvement was a mind a boggling +40%.
We bought a low flow toilet about 3 years ago, and have actually been very satisfied with it. You have to watch scale build up and scrape it off, perhaps once a year, but that’s true of any toilet. We have used a low flow shower head for many years, and are perfectly happy with it. There are are a lot of myths out there about these products.
“You get what you pay for” comes to mind.
Some cheap low flow things just deliver less water. Some were redesigned to use less water but still be efficient.
If you live in an area where water bills are high, pay a bit more for your devices to save money in the long run.
(But such decisions should be up to the consumer, not the Government.)
“Low flow” working properly depends greatly on the quality of water and the pressure supply. Where the concept fails is home wells and pumps. People off public supply have suffered the most. The extreme variance with public vs domestic supply is quite large and never taken into account.
True to a point.
The “pressure” for a flush depends on the water in the tank and it’s design.
The supply pressure would mainly be involved in how quickly the tank refills.
(I don’t mean to come off as an expert on toilets.)
Not myths, facts. As for newer lowflow crap, the restrictors used are not as narrow as in first years, still lowflow crap.
“While Energy Star has reportedly saved American households and businesses over $500 billion in energy costs since 1992, some experts have warned that the program can negatively impact consumers, such as by pushing them to purchase less effective appliances.”
500 B? That’s absurd. The energy efficient appliances are junk and I’ve been told that by appliance salesmen! They won’t last nearly as long- so they’ll need to be replaced- how about adding that cost to the formula.
Also add in the higher electricity cost caused by “The Green Dream”.
I have a woodgas boiler with the star sticker like these==>
https://www.ebay.com/itm/276683211204?_skw=Energy+Star+Sticker+19+X+19.5mm+Badge+Logo+Label&itmmeta=01JTXHG4YHS7KWF08A2HYQPKF0&hash=item406b9ac1c4:g:Zu8AAOSwCfpnCrjM
We have close to 20 yrs on it and would buy one again. I would not get a batch burner unit but one that uses pellets..
https://woodstoves.net/econoburn/EBW200-170-indoor-wood-boiler.htm
Story tip: Not giving up.
Miliband plots surge in wind farm subsidies to rescue net zero
Electricity bills at risk of rising under plans to bankroll thousands of extra turbines
Miliband is plotting a surge in the wind farm subsidies added to electricity bills to prop up his ailing green power target…
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/05/10/miliband-plots-surge-in-wind-farm-subsidies-rescue-net-zero/
So much for that fabled manifesto promise of a £300 reduction. Joker.
You just don’t understand economics in a communist country. The government plans the amount that the wind will blow, and how many bird shredders will be put up. It plans on 99.99% availability (because even Soviet workers and Soviet-planned winds can’t be perfect). The government then sets the price of electricity to what is affordable and fair, which involves complicated subsidies and crony kickbacks. Everybody pretends to work, and the government pretends to pay them.
Often times there will be uninterrupted electricity for days at a stretch. Dozens of hours in any case.
Hope that clears things up for you!
The EPA/DOE EnergyStar program was poorly designed and run from the get-go. In many cases is was either useless or counter productive.
Initially it allowed EnergyStar labeling for products in the top 30% in efficiency for the various product categories covered. But once that efficiency level was set it didn’t take long for virtually all competitors to achieve the required level – often by simply copying design details. There was no provision for reevaluation of the “top 30%” so the ES label no longer meant much. If every TV has an EnergyStar label it has no value to the manufacturer or consumer.
Secondly, once the qualification mark was set, there was no incentive for manufacturers to pursue further efficiency improvement.
Another major issue was many areas allowed manufacturers to test their own products and self certify efficiency. The GAO covert investigation mentioned in the post demonstrated how easily fraudulent claims good get through the system. In many cases test methods used were poorly constructed and easily manipulated.
Eventually EPA required testing to be conducted by EPA recognized accredited 3rd-party laboratories. They could have just required third party certification by any of the private sector 3rd-party testing and certification bodies already certifying most all of the covered products for compliance with safety and performance standards (e.g. UL, ETL, CSA, WHI, ANSI). But they insisted on maintaining final control adding complexity and confusion.
Finally, the EnergyStar program is strictly based on energy efficiency and neglects performance features that may be more important to many consumers. For example some consumers may be fine with trading off a few percentage points in efficiency for a shorter dishwasher cycle time or higher temperatures for more reliable sanitization.
All that is really needed is fair and honest competition through sound test methods, clear reporting of results and a mechanism for independent verification. This is routinely done in many areas including life safety concerns voluntarily in the private sector.
Democrats believe that if they mandate something to happen it will happen, even if it’s impossible.
Energy efficiency is pretty much meaningless. I could spray my car off with a garden hose, that would be far more energy efficient than taking it to a car wash or me hand washing it. Hand washing it can give excellent results or not depending on who does it and is far less energy efficient than the hose. Taking the car to the car wash is the least energy efficient and most expensive. All most all car washes do a better than satisfactory job and if they don’t I expect another wash for free and have gotten it. Plus they wash things I wouldn’t wash like the underside and they wax it and they hand dry it and I can use their vacuum for free. No sir I want things that actually work and that is almost never the most energy efficient choice.
half the water, but three times the flushes
Boost Your Strategic Planning with Blue Sky Thinking Techniques
https://commercestheories.com/2025/01/10/boost-your-strategic-planning-with-blue-sky-thinking-techniques/
Strategic planning is essential for successful businesses, serving as their guiding roadmap. However, traditional methods can restrict creativity. Blue sky thinking encourages free and unconventional brainstorming, allowing organizations to challenge existing assumptions and uncover transformative strategies. It fuels innovation, fosters collaboration, and helps companies adapt in an ever-changing environment. To implement this approach, organizations should create dedicated time and space for brainstorming, encourage diverse participation, and document all ideas without immediate judgment. Ultimately, incorporating blue sky thinking enhances strategic planning, leading to innovative solutions that promote long-term growth and competitiveness in the marketplace.