Energy Efficiency

In his second day appearing before the House, Energy Secretary Chris Wright faced questions about potential avenues for permitting reform and aspects of the Trump administration’s proposed 2027 Energy Department DOE’s proposed budget, like the lack of a line item for the Energy Star program.

A March agreement between the Environmental Protection Agency and DOE transferred administration of the Energy Star program to the latter, but DOE’s budget request to Congress did not request additional funding to support the program, Rep. Paul Tonko, D-N.Y., pointed out during a Thursday hearing held by the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

In EPA’s 2027 budget, the agency only allocated one full-time employee to support the Energy Star program as administered by DOE, Tonko said. “Based on that, it seems that EPA is already preparing to end its responsibilities. Historically, the Energy Star program has required about $35 million annually ... Is DOE seeking that funding as part of its budget request?”

Wright said he would have to get back to Tonko on the details of this issue. He said that when it comes to voluntary labeling for appliances, the administration is “all for that” and “all for data transparency.”

Rep. Scott Peters, D-Calif., said there is “concern around certainty” resulting from some of the administration’s actions, such as issuing stop work orders for “already permitted” offshore wind projects.

Peters also said that while the natural gas industry wants “relief” from the Clean Water Act’s Section 401, which requires state certification that a project such as a pipeline will not violate water quality standards, this “can't be done unless we write down the rules on methane.” 

Due to global demand for clean gas in markets like the EU, “the industry has developed the technology it needs to be able to abide by methane restrictions. We need to write those down,” Peters said. “Do you think you would be able to work with us to get a congressional deal this year?”

“I do believe so,” Wright said. “I think you raised a number of the key issues, and I do believe that there is room for a bipartisan agreement that addresses all of the issues you raised. And I would like to see that happen, and I'd like to work with you on it.”

Wright also said that the idea of creating parity between permitting pipelines and permitting transmission lines, with more efficient transmission permitting paired with reforms to environmental laws, was “very worthy of discussion.”

“We really need your help to help kick this committee into gear on the House side,” Peters said. “If you and President Trump can indicate, yeah, you want permitting reform, and transmission planning has got to be part of it, I think we could come to a deal.” 

“That's great to hear,” Wright said. “I look forward to those dialogues moving forward in the next few weeks, I hope.”

Public funding for energy efficiency faces an uncertain future in the Southeast, further pressuring residential and commercial customers in a region where electricity bills exceed the national average, officials from the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy said on Feb. 11.

Most Southern states have suspended or delayed energy-efficiency rebate programs authorized by the Inflation Reduction Act as the U.S. Department of Energy slow-walks disbursements of already-obligated funding, the environmental nonprofit said last month in its seventh annual report on energy efficiency in the region.

Duke Energy remains the Southeast’s “leader by default” with its Carolinas subsidiaries achieving annual efficiency savings near the 0.7% average of large U.S. investor-owned utilities, SACE said. The Tennessee Valley Authority, Southern Company and other large utility companies in the region lag far behind despite abundant, cost-effective opportunities for home weatherization, HVAC upgrades and industrial efficiency.

SACE’s analysis focused on the performance of utility-led energy efficiency programs rather than efficiency gains enabled by federal programs like Energy Star, SACE research director Maggie Shober told a webinar audience last week.

Nationally, the top-performing large utilities offset about 1.5% of annual retail sales through energy-efficiency programming, according to SACE’s analysis. Some do even better: DTE Energy (1.65%), Pacific Gas & Electric (1.7%) and Commonwealth Edison (3.02%) all exceeded that benchmark.

In contrast, SACE said that with the exception of Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress, utilities across the Southeastern Electric Reliability Corporation’s seven-state territory fall far short. Its figures show Georgia Power (0.39%), Dominion South Carolina (0.23%), TVA (0.14%), Duke Energy Florida (0.10%) and Florida Power & Light (0.05%) well below the national average.

“Our best performer regionally is an average performer nationally,” said Eddy Moore, SACE’s decarbonization director.

Moore and Shober said the contrast between Duke’s North Carolina and Florida operations shows the real-world impact of state energy efficiency regulation. Along with Georgia, North Carolina has a modern regulatory framework that pushes utilities to invest in energy savings, Moore said. With a weak resource planning process and a statutory efficiency framework that hasn’t been meaningfully updated since the 1980s, Florida is by contrast an “energy efficiency desert,” Shober said.

Shober said targeted demand reduction is all the more important in a region expected to see upwards of 2% annual load growth over the next several years. 

If the Southeast’s current energy-efficiency trajectory holds, “these savings goals are just a tiny drop in the bucket compared to the load growth we are seeing,” she said.

Regional utilities expect data centers and other large industrial loads to drive much of the projected increase. They largely plan to meet new demand with capital-intensive investments in transmission, gas-fired generation and energy storage. Southern Company, for example, said in October that it sees more than 50 GW of possible large-load additions in Georgia, Alabama and Mississippi over the next 10 years. Georgia Power alone will need five new combined-cycle gas plants and 11 grid-scale battery installations totaling 10 GW, it said.

Under a July settlement with state regulators, Georgia Power’s authorized retail rate of return on equity will remain between 9.5% and 11.9% through 2028.

In its report last month, SACE said that settlement also saw Georgia Power backslide on a previous commitment to target 0.75% energy efficiency savings. The efficiency component of its 2025 integrated resource plan featured what SACE said was an excessive amount of customer rebates for a relatively modest efficiency gain. Regulators ultimately accepted a slimmed-down plan “that had never been shown to stakeholders and that largely maintained the status quo for energy savings,” SACE said.

Moore and Shober said utilities elsewhere in the United States provide a roadmap for their Southeastern counterparts, should they choose to follow it.

Weatherizing homes and sealing HVAC duct leaks could significantly boost energy efficiency at modest cost, SERC said. Entergy Arkansas — in a comparable climate zone just outside SERC’s territory — weatherizes about 7,000 homes per year, a potential harbinger of success for Dominion Energy South Carolina’s nascent low-income weatherization program.

And with residential and commercial customers carrying most of the energy-efficiency load across SERC, Moore said it’s time for southern utilities to end broad program exemptions for industrial customers.

“We are sort of fighting [with one hand] because we’ve left out the biggest energy users with some of the cheapest savings available,” he said.

Georgia Power and Duke Florida didn’t immediately comment.

Sponsored content

By Mantis Innovation

The federal incentive landscape for commercial building efficiency is changing fast. Under updated federal law, Section 179D will no longer apply to property whose construction begins after June 30, 2026. That matters because 179D has been one of the most valuable tax deductions available for qualifying lighting, HVAC, hot water and building envelope improvements in commercial buildings. For facility and finance leaders, the issue is not whether every project should be rushed. It is how to identify the right projects, move early enough to preserve eligibility and avoid making poor capital decisions under deadline pressure.

What the 2026 deadline means

The key point is timing. The Department of Energy notes that Section 179D does not apply to property whose construction begins after June 30, 2026 and IRS guidance continues to define eligibility around qualifying building improvements and project timing. In practice, that means organizations need to determine now which projects can realistically establish a qualifying construction start before the deadline. For many portfolios, missing that window could mean losing a material tax benefit, even if the project is otherwise sound.

Where the best opportunities are

179D can apply to both new construction and retrofit work, which makes it relevant across a broad range of commercial portfolios. The strongest opportunities usually sit in larger, energy-intensive facilities or in buildings with aging systems where lighting, HVAC, controls or envelope upgrades already make operational sense. That is why this should not be viewed only as a tax exercise. The best candidates are projects that already reduce energy use, improve asset performance, or address end-of-life equipment. The deduction can strengthen the economics, but it should not be the only reason a project moves forward.

Why timing is the real risk

The biggest risk is usually not technical eligibility. It is failing to establish a qualifying construction start in time. Common industry guidance points to two familiar ways projects may demonstrate that construction has begun: significant physical work or meeting a 5% cost threshold, supported by documentation. Whether a project ultimately qualifies depends on the facts and professional tax guidance, but the practical lesson is clear: internal approvals, engineering, procurement and contractor coordination all need to happen earlier than many teams expect.

How to prioritize now

Not every project should be accelerated. A disciplined approach is to start with initiatives that already have a strong business case and a realistic path to qualifying before the deadline. In most organizations, those are projects that improve operating performance, address aging assets and can move without forcing rushed design or procurement decisions. If engineering is incomplete or the timeline is weak, phasing may create more value than trying to push the entire scope through at once.

• Would the project still make sense without the incentive?
• Does 179D materially improve the return?
• Can the team realistically document a qualifying construction start before June 30, 2026?

Bottom line

The June 30, 2026, cutoff is best understood as a strategic decision point. Organizations that ignore it may leave significant value on the table. Organizations that overreact may create avoidable execution risk. The strongest approach is to evaluate the portfolio now, identify projects with sound fundamentals, confirm which ones can realistically meet the timing requirements and align facilities, finance, tax and project teams early. Even after incentives become less reliable, energy efficiency can still deliver durable returns through lower operating costs, stronger asset performance and better long-term capital planning.

If your team is weighing efficiency upgrades ahead of the 2026 deadline, now is the time to review your portfolio, confirm which projects have a realistic path to qualification and align internal stakeholders before options narrow. A structured assessment today can help you capture available incentives without compromising long-term capital planning.

There is sufficient energy efficiency and demand flexibility in the U.S. grid to affordably offset demand from AI data centers and other growing sources of load, according to a February analysis from the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy.

The largest utility programs provide energy efficiency for a median cost of about $21/MWh, while new combined-cycle gas plants have a levelized cost of energy ranging from $45-$108/MWh, ACEEE said. And only about 6% of U.S. energy consumers participated in a retail demand response program in 2024, “demonstrating the massive opportunity to expand the resource,” according to the report

ACEEE’s Feb. 4 report recommended lawmakers consider mandating performance incentive mechanisms that encourage utilities to adopt demand side management approaches, while regulators should set load flexibility goals and require utility market studies that consider DSM potential.

By 2040, energy efficiency improvements could reduce U.S. energy demand by about 70 GW, according to ACEEE’s report. And deploying load shifting flexibility over the next decade, including for electric vehicle charging or water heating, could reduce peak demand by 60-200 GW, “an amount up to double the most aggressive projections of total U.S. data center capacity by 2030.”

Energy efficiency and demand flexibility programs can both be scaled up within months when they receive strong policy and financial support, ACEEE said. “In contrast, new gas plants and grid upgrades currently take five years or more because of permitting, equipment backlogs, and interconnection delays.”

Data center developers are looking to bring projects on as quickly as possible. Computing facilities representing about 30% of all planned U.S. data center capacity plan to power their operations with behind-the-meter resources, according to energy research firm Cleanview. 

While on-site solar-plus-storage projects can be built within two years, interconnection delays can add an additional five or more years, analysts at BofA Securities said last week. Behind-the-meter gas-fired solutions, despite higher costs, can offer faster deployment timelines, while batteries can sit between the data center and grid, smoothing demand.

But demand-side measures are faster and cheaper to deploy than new generation, Mike Specian, utility research manager at ACEEE and lead author of the report, said in a statement. “The first-line approach should be tapping into our massive reserve of energy efficiency and load flexibility, not spending billions on new power plants.”

ACEEE’s report recommends:

• Utilities develop procedures for large load customers to bring their own demand-side management capacity;
• Regulators require utilities to consider both supply- and demand-side resources in an integrated fashion before approving investments to meet load growth;
• Lawmakers introduce or strengthen state energy efficiency resource standards and decouple utility profits from revenues to eliminate incentives to maximize sales; and,
• Regulators should require utilities to share data necessary for third-party aggregators to propose optimized DSM solutions and require utilities to evaluate virtual power plants as part of their resource planning.

“Our power system needs to meet rapidly growing electric demand while ensuring reliability and affordability,” Specian said. Efficiency resources and demand flexibility “can be targeted to specific locations to defer or avoid the need to build new infrastructure, saving families and businesses money in the process.”

New York City on Jan. 17 enacted the NYC Existing Building Code and Energy Conservation Code that together will require mandatory air-leakage testing for all buildings, enhance requirements for backup electric heating and eliminate obstacles to rehabilitating existing buildings. 

Adoption of the 2025 New York City Energy Conservation Code, or NYCECC, helps the city align its code to the state, which has adopted the 2025 Energy Conservation Construction Code. The codes are aimed at promoting energy efficiency, reliability and long-term cost savings.

The NYCECC will also enhance requirements for backup electric heating to support resilience during extreme weather events, mandate air-leak testing for all buildings and place demand response requirements for commercial water heating and lighting to help maximize efficiency and savings. 

The NYC Existing Building Code, based on the International Existing Building Code, is intended to give building operators flexible compliance options, the International Code Council said in a release. The council is a nonprofit dedicated to promoting model codes and standards for buildings. 

This code aims to simplify the city’s complex regulatory structure, provide guidance to operators filing alteration applications, eliminate obstacles to rehabilitating buildings and make codes easier to navigate, the ICC said.

Alteration and maintenance of existing buildings will continue to be regulated by the Administrative Code of the City of New York and 2022 New York City Construction Codes until the EBC becomes effective on July 17, 2027, the NYC Department of Buildings says on its website. 

“New York City is making history with the adoptions of the 2025 NYC Energy Conservation Code and the NYC Existing Building Code,” Dottie Mazzarella, vice president of government relations at the ICC, said in a statement. “These adoptions will modernize the City’s building regulatory framework and strengthen protection for its residents. It has been an honor to contribute to advancing public safety for the people of this great City.”

The city is expected to begin enforcing the new NYCECC code on March 30, when updated compliance software is available, according to the Urban Green Council, a nonprofit focused on decarbonizing buildings in New York City.

NYCECC energy filings for new construction, additions and renovations submitted before that date must comply with the 2020 NYC Energy Code, according to a NYC DOB service notice. Owners and operators can verify the status of applications and what requirements need to be met before construction begins by using the city’s building information system search tool, per the city Department of Buildings. 

The NYCECC adopts the statewide baseline set by the new Energy Conservation Construction Code of New York State, or ECCCNYS, which incorporates the 2024 IECC and ASHRAE 90.1-2022, “which are respectively estimated to provide … 9.8 percent commercial site energy savings on a national basis,” UGC said. 

“The State Energy Code includes measures that advance energy efficiency with improved building envelope performance — through stronger insulation and air sealing, lower U-factors for windows, and provisions for mitigating thermal bridges — updated testing and inspection procedures, and enhanced lighting efficiencies,” said UGC. 

Like the state’s energy code, NYCECC limits electric resistance heating systems and applies guardrails on the use of backup electric resistance to supplement heat pump systems, according to UGC. But the NYCECC also includes energy efficiency measures that go beyond the statewide baseline, including commercial requirements for the documentation and inspection of air barrier commissions as part of construction documentation. 

“Updates to the NYC Energy Code are designed with smart electrification in mind,” UGC said. “NYC’s code includes further restrictions on the use of electric resistance backup heating systems, capping their capacity at 25% of total design load and permitting their use only when temperatures drop below 17F.”

The NYCECC also establishes demand response requirements for commercial water heating and lighting to help maximize efficiency and savings, according to UGC. 

The NYC DOB is also expected to begin developing code improvements through the design of performance-based compliance pathways, as required by Local Law 32, passed in 2018. The law requires DOB to propose “predicted energy use targets” that would enable eligible buildings over 25,000 square feet to meet energy codes by designing to a performance target based on their forecasted annual energy use, UGC said. 

Owners of many buildings in the city must already meet greenhouse gas emission limits through Local Law 97 and energy thresholds in the All-Electric Buildings Law, passed in July. The law requires most new buildings and commercial buildings over 100,000 square feet in New York to use electric heat and appliances. That law was scheduled to take effect this month, but Gov. Kathy Hochul has paused it temporarily. 

“With enforcement scheduled for 2026, owners and design teams should begin evaluating how upcoming filings may be impacted by the new code,” Milrose Consultants said in a blog post. “Understanding submission status, anticipated filing dates, and potential design changes will help avoid delays or rework once enforcement begins.” 

Congress has fully funded the Energy Star program through fiscal year 2026 as part of a funding bill that President Trump signed into law Jan. 23. The administration tried to zero-out the program in early 2025.

“The funding is a huge win,” Sabine Rogers, federal policy manager at the U.S. Green Building Council, said in a blog post.

A provision in the fiscal 2026 appropriations bill that funds the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and several other federal agencies, H.R. 6938, mandates that the administration provide at least $33 million to carry out the program through the fiscal year ending Sept. 30 — a modest increase over the $32 million provided in FY2024, the most recent year where program funding data is available.

The provision includes a directive from Congress that the administration not take actions to reduce the amount.

“[This is] the very first time that Congress has stipulated a mandatory annual spending level for Energy Star,” Rogers said, “placing a clear and binding legal requirement on the administration.”

More than 1,200 organizations lobbied Congress last year to save Energy Star after the Trump administration in May proposed eliminating EPA’s Office of Atmospheric Protection, which oversees the program. In letters calling for the EPA to continue the program, organizations said its elimination would damage the real estate sector at a time when it is already facing significant uncertainty. 

The Energy Star program has saved consumers and organizations some 5.2 trillion kilowatt-hours of energy and more than $500 billion in costs since it was created in 1992, according to the program website.

“Energy Star has grown to become the international standard for energy efficiency and one of the most successful voluntary U.S. government programs in history,” the site says. 

Energy Star Portfolio Manager, a free tool that allows commercial building operators and municipalities to track their energy and resource usage, is used in about 25% of all commercial building space in the U.S. and is the basis for building energy requirements in seven states, 48 local governments and two Canadian provinces, according to Energy Star. The tool contributes more than one-third of the Energy Star program’s savings, according to the Institute for Market Transformation. 

”The ENERGY STAR Program provides critical infrastructure for organizations to benchmark their building performance, as well as comply with state and local laws that require building owners to disclose their energy and water consumption,” Craig Walter, principal energy advisor at Engie Impact, said in an email. “While use of the funding and next steps are to be determined, approval of the line item funding with bipartisan support is a celebrated win for corporate efficiency programs and the long-term outlook of the program.”

Energy Star funding levels have historically been left to the discretion of the administration, resulting in steady decreases over the past 10 years, so Congress’ mandate that no less than $33 million go to the program is a milestone, Rogers said. But the program still faces challenges, she said

“[It’s] currently operating with limited staff and function because of reorganization efforts within the EPA, as well as the loss of many longtime ENERGY STAR staff members in 2025 through federal buyouts, early retirements and layoffs,” she said. 

In addition to feeling the loss of Energy Star staff, energy-efficiency supporters will have to deal with other federal-level challenges, Cliff Majersik, senior advisor at the Institute for Market Transformation, wrote in a LinkedIn post.

“Sadly, there are spending cuts elsewhere in the package that will hurt energy and environmental programs,” he said.

Those include a cut of 10% to the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, a 13% cut to the Building Technologies Office and a more than 40% cut to the Federal Energy Management Program, according to USGBC. 

“Unfortunately, a significant portion of the FY26 funding for EERE — $1.15 billion — is taken from remaining unspent dollars for programs created under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law,” it said.

This likely means that the final rounds of funding for IIJA programs like Renew America’s Schools and the Resilient and Efficient Codes Implementation program are likely to be taken back, Rogers said. 

“In the months to come, USGBC will be watching closely how the administration administers the ENERGY STAR program with this new funding,” Rogers said.

The Northeast and Mid-Atlantic regions are ripe for modern rate design as utilities struggle with affordability concerns and challenges posed by data center growth and rising electric heating loads, the nonprofit Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships said in a report issued last month.

Regulators, utilities, state policy officials and other stakeholders should use rates to encourage energy efficiency and demand flexibility, according to the report, “Modern Rate Design in the Northeast.” They should align rate policy with “new usage patterns” for electric technologies, as well as energy equity and affordability goals, said authors Erin Cosgrove, Luke Miller and Abigail Brown.

The authors said regulators and policymakers can make progress on those goals by making time-of-use rates opt-out rather than opt-in, among other reforms. That’s despite low adoption of advanced metering infrastructure limiting the types of rates that can be implemented in some states, they said.

While rising electricity costs have dominated headlines nationwide, recent research from the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory shows the increases are most extreme in California, New England and the Mid-Atlantic regions. 

The reasons are complex and geographically-dependent, and researchers and industry leaders are split over the influence of large loads like artificial intelligence data centers. NEEP, which was founded more than 30 years ago to advocate energy efficiency, said in its report that data centers have begun to drive up electric bills in the Mid-Atlantic, even if the long-range price impact remains unclear. 

Meanwhile, the Northeast is witnessing a transition from mostly gas to electric space heating, spurred in part by state and utility electrification incentives and volatile gas prices. As that shift gathers pace, NEEP said the Northeast grid could shift from summer to winter peaking in the next 10 to 20 years.

The report looked to states inside and outside NEEP’s coverage area for examples of model policies that could be replicated. 

For example, seasonal rates like those implemented by Xcel Energy in Minnesota and several investor-owned utilities in Massachusetts can mitigate the bill impacts of increased heat pump loads while more accurately reflecting lower winter electricity delivery costs, NEEP said. 

Other efficiency-minded groups have reached similar conclusions. 

In a paper published last winter, the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy called heat pump-specific rate plans “commonsense” for both efficiency and equity. Pairing heat pump installations and building envelope upgrades further strengthens the case for such rates, ACEEE added.

And unlike some specialized tariffs, seasonal rates don’t require advanced metering infrastructure — a benefit in New England states with relatively low AMI penetration, NEEP said.

Time-of-use rates can likewise shape load, reducing grid stress and electricity delivery costs during peak periods, NEEP said. But regulators need to ensure adequate protections for “vulnerable customers who are low-income, homebound, rely on medical equipment, or have other nondiscretionary use [and] cannot lower or shift usage,” it added.

Even if customers can’t or won’t adapt their energy consumption habits, NEEP said time-of-use rates “can remove an inherent cross-subsidy from the market” by accurately reflecting the actual cost to deliver power at any given time. 

“Electricity prices at off-peak times would no longer be artificially inflated to keep the volumetric rate flat across all hours of the year,” the group said. “Therefore, customers’ bills have the potential to decrease even without behavior modifications.”

NEEP also advised regulators to consider a simple tweak that may significantly improve time-of-use rate adoption: making customers opt out rather than opt in. Of the 13 time-of-use rates included in the group’s analysis, nine saw fewer than 1% of customers enrolled. In contrast, an opt-out peak-time rebate program from Delmarva Power, which serves parts of Maryland and Delaware, reached 93% of the utility’s customers, NEEP said.

Amazon reduced energy use in its grocery fulfillment centers by nearly 15% as part of a pilot program at three facilities with climate technology firm Trane Technologies, according to a Dec. 1 press release.  

The e-commerce giant deployed Trane Technologies’ BrainBox AI tool, in conjunction with Amazon Web Services, at three grocery fulfillment sites in North America. The BrainBox system autonomously adjusts temperature control and ventilation systems to reduce energy consumption and carbon emissions.

Following the pilot, Amazon now plans to deploy the platform across more than 30 sites within its grocery fulfillment and distribution network in the U.S. and install the tool in stores in 2026, per the release.

Amazon is leveraging new technology to support a deeper push into the grocery space while pursuing sustainability targets. 

“At Amazon, we’re continually looking for data-driven, scalable solutions to reduce our carbon footprint while maintaining operational excellence,” said Christina Minardi, VP of worldwide grocery stores real estate and store development at Amazon, in the release. 

The company is targeting carbon neutrality across its operations by 2040, according to its website. However, its carbon emissions increased 6% year over year in 2024, per its most recent sustainability report. The hike came after Amazon recorded a 3% YoY reduction in 2023. 

“By working with Trane Technologies and the BrainBox AI team, we’re turning our buildings into intelligent systems that learn and adapt, helping us meet both our sustainability and performance goals in real time,” Minardi said. 

Meanwhile, the company is piloting the use of an in-store micro-fulfillment center within a Whole Foods Market store in Plymouth Meeting, Pennsylvania, further entangling the e-commerce giant’s overall business with its grocery arm’s operations. 

The company is also leaning on its logistics network to provide more grocery shipping options for shoppers, including expanding same-delivery for perishable items to more than 1,000 cities and towns earlier this year.

Out of the top 25 highest energy-consuming countries, the United States now ranks 11th in energy efficiency policy and performance, according to the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy’s 2025 assessment.

ACEEE previously ranked the U.S. 10th in its 2018 and 2022 International Energy Efficiency Scorecards. The slip in rankings is “despite a slight increase (3 points) in overall score,” ACEEE said in its report, “due to larger point gains among the top performers.”

The four categories the group scores are national efforts, buildings, industry and transportation. Countries can earn up to 25 points in each section for a total of 100 points in subcategories such as fuel economy and emission standards or residential and commercial building codes.

The U.S. in 2022 scored 16.5 points in national efforts, 17 in buildings, 12 in industry and 8.5 in transportation. In 2025 it scored 21 in national efforts, 17 in buildings, 13 in industry and 6 in transportation.

Since 2022, “countries have made incremental progress in improving energy efficiency in buildings and industry,” ACEEE said. “However, even the top-performing countries have substantial room for improvement in advancing transportation efficiency.”

“Nearly every country could work to significantly reduce travel from personal vehicles,” the report said.

China improved its ranking from 9th in 2022 to sharing 5th place with Spain in this year’s report, thanks in part to its global leadership in public transit use and its national targets for reducing energy consumption and energy intensity.

In 2025, the top four countries in order are France, Germany, the United Kingdom and Italy. France also ranked first in 2022. 

ACEEE cites France’s 2024 commitment of €800 million, or $932.9 billion, “to building retrofits ... with additional investments in low-carbon transportation,” and its 2023 release of a “national water saving plan to cut water use by 10% by 2030, primarily through tracking leakage rates.” 

“Most notably, France runs multiple programs for helping residents access energy efficiency benefits,” ACEEE said. 

The report said the U.S. commitment to energy efficiency was bolstered by Inflation Reduction Act spending which provided financial incentives for “retrofitting buildings, decarbonizing industry, and purchasing electric vehicles.” 

ACEEE also said the U.S. was a leader in the region, ranking third overall in the national efforts category “due to significant reductions in energy intensity and substantial investments in energy efficiency, particularly low-income energy efficiency and associated research and development.”

The U.S.’s “model energy codes are among the most advanced globally,” the report said. “These codes include a comprehensive set of design and performance requirements for building envelopes and energy systems, and they are projected to deliver $138 billion in energy cost savings and avoid 900 million metric tons of CO2 emissions cumulatively from 2010 to 2040.”

However, the U.S. did not receive full points in the residential and commercial building code category because those codes are adopted at state and local levels, ACEEE said. The report recommended the U.S. adopt “mandatory building codes nationwide and [implement] a mandatory building energy performance labeling system, as the current Energy Star certification remains voluntary.”

The Trump administration sought to defund the popular Energy Star program in August, but Congress pushed back, opting to cut funding for the program to $32 million but maintain its existence.

Energy efficiency efforts in six New England states and New York are saving customers billions of dollars on utility bills and reducing peak demand on the region’s electric grid, according to analysis published Monday by Acadia Center.

The report comes at a time when the federal government is cutting investment in energy efficiency and electricity demand is rising. That confluence has sharpened the need for energy savings measures, experts say.

A September report from conservation advocate CLASP highlighted the potential for efficiency to help meet global emissions targets, particularly appliance efficiency where improvements could deliver about 20% of the total reduction in energy demand required to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050.

Acadia’s report focuses on investment levels and projected benefits from efficiency programs in Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont. And it calls for improvements to efficiency data reporting that could unlock further energy savings.

“It is more important than ever for policymakers, advocates, program administrators, and consumers to understand the value and evolving role of energy efficiency resource acquisition and shape the future trajectories of the programs to meet the emerging needs of the region,” Jamie Dickerson, senior director of climate and clean energy programs at Acadia, said in a statement.

The report examines data in each state’s three-year energy efficiency plan, annual program reports and other filings. Acadia’s analysis shows the seven states are poised to invest almost $10 billion in efficiency overall, with New England programs alone generating an estimated $19.3 billion in lifetime benefits. New England and New York expect to realize 700 trillion Btu in lifetime savings across all fuels, including 20 TWh of lifetime electricity savings from efficiency investments in New England.

“Electric savings will help the region continue meeting a substantial portion of annual electric load via energy efficiency,” Acadia said. “Combining both electricity and combustible fuel savings, the New England states are projected to avoid 368 TBtu of lifetime energy use, and this projected total rises to 703 TBtu with the inclusion of New York State.”

Despite the savings, Acadia warned efficiency investment is under pressure.

“State energy efficiency programs make a major contribution to the energy system as a low-cost resource, yet face a pivotal juncture in the northeast region,” Dickerson said. “Consumer affordability is front of mind for consumers and policymakers with rising energy prices. Other energy resources are rising in cost, yet cuts to ratepayer funded programs — which reduce system costs — have been threatened and implemented by leading states.”

Massachusetts will lose out on $1.49 billion in lifetime benefits following a February decision to cut $500 million from efficiency program budgets, Acadia said. Similarly, Rhode Island efficiency programs face possible cuts of 30% that would lose the state about $92 million in benefits, according to the report.

Looking ahead, Acadia recommended that the New England states and New York “come together to better standardize metrics utilized for program measurement, evaluation, and reporting.”

“Major differences in reporting data persist, and the overall power and impact of energy efficiency in the northeast is limited without that alignment,” according to the report. “With more universal reporting methodologies and benefit cost tests, programs in the region would collectively be more powerful, the ability to understand the value and design of programs would be substantially improved, and new opportunities for states to learn from one another would be unlocked.