The potential end of ENERGY STAR could disrupt market infrastructure, leaving consumers without a trusted standard for energy-efficient products.
Without a unified national standard, the market risks fragmenting into state-specific programs, complicating consumer choices and utility operations.
Mark Wilhelm warns that removing ENERGY STAR may lead manufacturers to prioritize cost-cutting over innovation, threatening U.S. leadership in energy-efficient R&D.
People are trained to seek feedback and benchmark their performance—did you get an A, B, or C? We’re all looking for the next top 10 list to help make decisions. It’s short-sighted to delete a proven benchmark, especially when its financial benefits far outweigh the costs.
Efficiency is only half the battle. With energy costs climbing and choices multiplying, American consumers don’t just need efficient products; they need a trusted signal to find them. Without a trusted signal like ENERGY STAR, consumers are left guessing and manufacturers lose a shared standard.
For Mark Wilhelm, a 35-year veteran of climate strategy and Director of Climate and Clean Energy at Tierra Resource Consultants, the possible end of ENERGY STAR isn’t just a policy shift. It’s a direct hit to the market infrastructure he’s spent decades helping to build.
Benchmark blues: “People are trained to seek feedback and benchmark their performance—did you get an A, B, or C? We’re all looking for the next top 10 list to help make decisions. It’s short-sighted to delete a proven benchmark, especially when its financial benefits far outweigh the costs,” Wilhelm says.
For him, ENERGY STAR’s power lies in meeting a universal need for clarity. It’s not just about policy, it’s about how humans process decisions in a noisy, high-stakes market. And that clarity stems from balance. Effective energy strategy, he says, “requires a strong approach that includes both regulatory and market realities.”
Schematic scramble: ENERGY STAR isn’t an optional add-on; it’s embedded in the product development process. Wilhelm likens its role to a technical schematic. ENERGY STAR has a key position on the flowchart for getting an efficient product to market,” he explains. “If you eliminate it, how will people vet claims being made? Without a trusted source in the market, how will people know which claims are true?”
ENERGY STAR has a key position on the flowchart for getting an efficient product to market. If you eliminate it, how will people vet claims being made? Without a trusted source in the market, how will people know which claims are true?
Fragment nation: Without a unified national standard, he warns, the market would quickly fracture into a confusing mess. “You’ll see states like California and New York lay out their own programs, but they aren’t nationally coordinated,” Wilhelm explains. “For all the utilities that leverage ENERGY STAR to help their customers, it’ll just be a mess without that single, trusted stamp of approval.”
He is also skeptical that companies, freed from certification costs, would pass any savings on to consumers. “The price of coffee never went back down to a quarter, right? Let’s be real.” The larger fear is that the primary driver for manufacturers will become cost-cutting, not innovation, which erodes the country’s leadership in energy-efficient R&D.
The path forward: For Wilhelm, the biggest gains in energy efficiency will come from the buildings we live and work in. “The fight for efficiency will be won—or lost—in the built environment,” he says. “That’s an accumulation of all the equipment that goes into it.” From lighting to HVAC systems every component matters, and ENERGY STAR, he argues, is essential to getting it right. “I can see ENERGY STAR being an important aspect of that going forward. It’s a valuable tool in the box.”
He’s also clear on who should lead that effort. “It would be good to see utilities step forward—Americans still turn to them for information,” he says. “The universities, too. We need some good direction.”
