This study investigates the crucial role energy leaders play in driving strategic energy management (SEM) and accelerating cost savings within a manufacturing organization and consequently, the industrial sector. Whereas energy efficiency can be seen as an innovative business practice with irrefutable cost benefits, its effective implementation requires strategic leadership and a structured approach. This research analyzes data collected from 120 participants representing 71 companies attending the Energy Bootcamp events organized by the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Better Plants program. The collected data focused on the state of SEM implementation, the presence and responsibilities of energy leaders, and the formation and function of energy teams. The findings reveal a significant gap between the perceived importance of SEM and its actual adoption, highlighting the need for strong leadership to drive behavioral changes by championing energy efficiency initiatives. Results indicate that effective energy leaders possess a diverse skill set, including the ability to secure top management buy-in, foster a culture of energy consciousness, and collaborate across departments. This study emphasizes the importance of empowering energy leaders with clearly defined roles and responsibilities as well as the authority to build and lead cross-functional energy teams. Furthermore, integrating energy management into existing organizational structures and leveraging readily available resources are identified as key factors for successful implementation. This research underscores how dedicated leadership and effective SEM practices help achieve industrial energy efficiency goals, providing practical insights for organizations seeking to improve performance and contribute to a resilient future.

Energy scarcity and subsequent global fuel market shocks have become a significant concern for the United States. Process heating in industry accounts for over half of all industrial energy usage and is almost entirely (>95%) supplied by natural gas, coal, and byproduct fuels. Many existing alternatives, technologies, and strategies can reduce dependency on this fossil fuel usage to promote energy security and competitiveness. It is expected that adoption of alternatives is limited by capital investment. A working group exploratory exercise was performed to evaluate the current barriers to alternative process heat technology adoption for the manufacturing sector. Although the working group’s findings emphasize electro-technologies due to their emergence as the central topic of discussion, we have contextualized these results by providing a fair and consistent comparison against several alternative thermal technology options. The most reported issue was the lack of financial incentives, with the second key issue for engineers and manufacturing sector decision-makers being the lack of awareness or understanding of available alternatives. This paper aims to provide an analysis of the levelized cost of heating for a variety of alternatives as part of addressing concerns from the emergent patterns reported in the exploratory exercise, as well as provide guidance on barriers to further adoption. Levelized cost of heating analysis considered the capital investment, operations and maintenance, lifespan, and fuel stream costs of various systems delivering heat to the product or process as a generalized cost per megawatt-hour delivered. The analysis indicates that biomass burners, industrial open-loop heat pumps, and central-receiver heliostat fields are at cost parity under average 2024 United States natural gas and electricity prices against well-optimized natural gas burners, though further cost reductions are necessary for consistent adoption.