FROM THE FIELD
August 2007
Help Energy Star Help Foodservice

It's not like there are no dragons to slay. Minimum wages are up. Raw materials prices are out of sight and climbing. We have energy and greenhouse gas problems.

So wouldn't you assume your Congressional representatives—Senate and House—were hard at work on a variety of fixes to help you forge ahead, make money, save money and resources, employ people and so on? You know—build society? Wouldn't you at least think some kind of meaningful energy plan was taking shape?

If your answer was yes, change it. In fact, one of the great ironies of our time is that the Environmental Protection Agency and its Energy Star program—one of few tangible proofs that the Federal government can do something good for foodservice—are both getting less money, not more, these days.

Consider the slow slide of the EPA first. In 2001, for example, according to the EPA's Web site, its budget was $7.9 billion. It climbed slowly, not quite keeping up with inflation, until it peaked in '04 at $8.4 billion. The next year, it slid to $8 billion. By the current budget year, it was down to $7.3 billion. And for '08? The latest figure is $7.2 billion.

In raw, nominal figures, the EPA budget shrank 8.8% over seven years. That doesn't sound too bad. But if you correct for inflation and do nothing else, that $7.9 billion in  01would be $9.5 billion next year, not $7.2 billion.

And what of Energy Star? It's been in the same kind of free fall.

"In real terms, Energy Star has lost 40% of its budget since 2004."

By mid-decade, the program had already created energy standards for solid-door reach-ins, fryers, hot holding cabinets and steamers. But then development stagnated, and everyone generally acknowledged it was a budget issue. One year, in particular, Energy Star lost a bunch of money that appeared on the budget but was later cancelled. Budgets have always been wobbly, and Energy Star is an easy piggybank to rob when times are tough.

Then the current budget, the '07 budget, took a big hit. At $50 million, it represented a 9% unadjusted decline. For the coming year, the '08 budget cuts Energy Star another 11%, to $44 million. Now, these things happen a little at a time, and people who are paid well to minimize bad news do a good job of it. A few points here and there, and who has time to think about it? But keep in mind that $55 million in the '04 budget would be more than $62 million in '08 dollars—so the real, adjusted cut is something like 40%.

So these are not small cuts that we're talking about. They're big ones. And not to get anyone's ideological dander up, but we can assume we know where the money is going, and that everyone feels he has a sound reason for moving the money around.

But this Energy Star program offers a huge payback in both the consumer and business-to-business markets, and especially so in foodservice, where we are so energy intensive. We need the kinds of standards and incentives provided by Energy Star. Those of you who've done the homework on Energy Star products know the utility savings.

Programs like Energy Star drive advancements and competition, even when buyers might be tempted to pay less and worry about operating costs later. Programs like these raise the bar. And programs like Energy Star are what prod the market in the right direction even when cash-strapped buyers and suppliers would rather just look the other way and worry about operating costs later.

So get after your Federal representatives. Tell them your company and your industry need more Energy Star, not less. Lobby hard. Get your associations involved. Tell Washington you want more funding for the program. Then go back to your office and spec Energy Star standards.

This industry really can't afford to idly stand by.

Brian Ward
Chief Editor