Obama’s budget good for energy efficiency

By Elisa Wood

February 16, 2012

President Obama's 2013 budget caused a lot of smiles this week among energy efficiency advocates – even if it is more of a wish list than anything else. Obama calls for about $1.2 billion in spending for energy efficiency.

What’s this mean to the energy efficiency industry?

Kateri Callahan, president of the Alliance to Save Energy, says that Obama’s budget represents a dramatic increase from current efficiency spending. And while the sector won’t receive that kind of money in the final budget, it still should do well, given that the starting point is so high in a time when many budget items begin with cuts.

“The administration's vigorous support for energy efficiency at this stage of the game should help ensure that we get funding almost as robust as we have currently,” she said.

It’s not easy figuring exactly how much the federal government spends on efficiency now, since funding is spread out over several programs and sometimes infused into budgets for defense, science, agriculture, environment and commerce.

By ASE’s count Congress appropriated $811 million in 2012 for energy efficiency programs in DOE’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), and $50 million for Energy Star at the Environmental Protection Agency.

In all, Obama increases the Department of Energy budget by 3.2%, bringing it to $27.2 billion for 2013. He allots $2.3 billion for both the efficiency and renewable energy programs in EERE, and maintains Energy Star spending at the same level. Funding for high-risk research increases 27% and for manufacturing advancement 150%. Obama offers an 80% increase in programs that cut energy use in buildings and factories. He also continues to press Congress to pass the HomeStar bill to reduce household energy use.

Raising spending might sound alarms, given the US deficit. However, spending on efficiency actually decreases society’s energy expenses. Energy efficiency cost about 1.6 to 3.3 cents/kWh for utilities in 14 states studied by the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy. Had those utilities built power plants rather than conserved energy, they would have paid 6 to 14 cents/kWh.

“The President clearly recognizes that energy efficiency is a critical component of our economic future and is the fastest, cleanest and cheapest way to meet growing energy needs,” said Terry Singer, executive director of the National Association of Energy Service Companies.

Obama also cuts $4 billion in fossil fuel subsidies. This is significant because subsidies tend to depress fossil fuel prices and encouage more consumption. The International Energy Agency has been strongly pushing for the kind of fossil fuel subsidy cuts Obama proposed. Here are some of the reasons IEA gives in a report issued late last year.

· Fossil fuel subsidies worldwide totaled $409 billion in 2010, up $110 billion from the previous year

· Without reforms, the subsidies will reach $660 billion or 0.7% of world GDP by 2020

· Poor people don’t benefit from these subsidies. Only 8% of the $409 billion went to the poorest 20%.

· Phasing out fossil fuel subsidies by 2020 would decrease energy consumption by 4.1%

Obama’s tried before to make the fossil fuel cuts, and chances are they are more wish than real, much like the dramatic increases in energy efficiency spending. But the budget news is not all ‘if wishes were horses.’ It signals a general support for energy efficiency at the top of US government. Coupled with the aggressive energy efficiency policies in many states, Obama’s budget suggests a strong year ahead for the energy efficiency industry.

Elisa Wood is a long-time energy writer whose work can be found at RealEnergyWriters.com.

Who gets the EE stimulus money?

By Elisa Wood

February 19, 2009

The ink is dry on President Obama’s signature to the federal stimulus bill and word is out that energy efficiency receives more than $20 billion. How will homeowners and businesses benefit?

Two sources offer an excellent break-down on the incentives: the Alliance to Save Energy and the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, a unit of the US Department of Energy. EERE goes so far as to give the page numbers in the bill that address certain incentives.

Here is a snap shot of where some of the energy efficiency funds will go.

Housing & Buildings

• $5 billion for low-income weatherization assistance, plus an expansion of people who are eligible. An increase in the funding level to $6,500 per home.
• About $4.75 billion to Housing and Urban Development for public, low-income and Native American housing
• Tax credit for existing homes extended and increased to 30 percent of cost, up to $1,500 for 2009 and 2010
• About $8.9 billion for federal buildings, including $4.5 billion for green buildings and $3.6 billion for Department of Defense energy efficiency initiatives

Appliances

• $300 million for the Energy Star Program and for matching grants to states that offer rebates to consumers for buying Energy Star appliances.

Technology

• $4.5 billion for smart grid projects
• Up to $2.3 billion allotted for a 30 percent investment tax credit given to those who manufacture renewable energy, energy storage, energy conservation, efficient transmission, and carbon capture and sequestration items.

Transportation

• $400 million to encourage the use of plug-in hybrids
• $17.7 billion for public transportation and rail
• $2 billion for the manufacture of advanced batteries

Other

• $3.1 billion for state energy programs and $3.2 billion in block grants for local governments
• $500 million to prepare workers for jobs in renewable energy and energy efficiency
• $9.75 billion for public safety and other government services, including renovation to “green” schools

Further details are available at http://ase.org/content/article/detail/5388 and http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/news/enn.cfm

Visit Elisa Wood at www.realenergywriters.com and pick up her free Energy Efficiency Markets podcast and newsletter.

Federal stimulus: Pork or real energy policy?

By Elisa Wood

February 5, 2009

Two recent gestures by President Obama indicate that he is serious about clean energy and will pursue it differently than any of his predecessors.

First, he made history in using his inaugural speech to promote renewable energy – something never done before by a US President, according to Department of Energy’s EERE News Network. http://www.eere.energy.gov/

Second, on February 5 Obama drilled down to the nitty-gritty of energy efficiency policy. In a presidential memorandum, he called for the DOE to establish higher standards for common household appliances.

“We’ll save through these simple steps over the next thirty years the amount of energy produced over a two-year period by all the coal-fired power plants in America,” he said in remarks at the DOE.

The American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy says the memorandum marks the first time Obama has made efficiency standards a top priority in his domestic energy policy. Obama seeks legal deadlines to set standards, “an important break from his predecessors who fell behind on updates for some 22 standards,” according to ACEEE. http://www.aceee.org/

Both of these gestures were important, and indicate he will fulfill – or at least try – his energy campaign promises. But the true test of his ability to revamp US energy policy comes as he tries to sell the $50 billion for energy in the federal stimulus package. Critics are slamming some of the provisions, such as plans to upgrade federal buildings and improve the federal transportation fleet.

“They call it pork,” Obama said. “You know the truth. It will not only save the government significant money over time, it will not only create jobs manufacturing those vehicles, it will set a standard for private industry to match. And so when you hear these attacks deriding something of such obvious importance as this, you have to ask yourself – is it any wonder we haven’t had a real energy policy in this country?”

Obama – and the clean energy industry – clearly have an education effort ahead in a world where pork and fuel efficient vehicles are seen as one in the same.

Visit Elisa Wood at www.realenergywriters.com and pick up her free Energy Efficiency Markets podcast and newsletter.

Retire the clunker?

By Elisa Wood

January 15, 2009

What would it take to convince you to get rid of your gas-guzzling old clunker? Would $5,500 do?

Some members of Congress think this is the magic figure. Under a bill introduced in the House and Senate today, Uncle Sam would give you a credit of up to $5,500 to scrap your old car. You could spend the credit on a new, fuel efficient vehicle or mass transportation.

The proposal makes a lot of sense and has won support from the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy.

Why the incentive? Because the rush for hybrids and other fuel-efficient autos is largely an upper- income trend. Nearly half of the nation’s $100,000/year-plus earners own cars that are less than four years old. But only about a quarter of the $40,000-$45,000 set have such young vehicles, says an ACEEE whitepaper. http://aceee.org/transportation/Crusher%20white%20paper%20fin.pdf.

The credit would bring middle-income families into the market to buy new and cleaner cars. Greater sales of these cars should reduce the cost of their advanced technologies.

Equally important, the credit helps fill a hole in the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standard passed in 2007. The CAFÉ standard requires a 40% improvement in fuel economy for new vehicles by 2020. Nice idea, but not enough people buy new cars for the standard to significantly lower our oil use. In fact, about 70% of today’s auto purchases involve used vehicles.

Called the Accelerated Retirement of Inefficient Vehicles Retirement Act of 2009 (ARIVA), the bill would apply to used cars that get less than 18 miles/gallon and would be in effect from 2009 to 2012. ACEEE estimates consumers would retire 575,000 vehicles annually and save 46,000 barrels per day of oil by 2013.

I think I’d take the deal. But will Congress and the Obama administration? Stay tuned.

Visit Elisa Wood at www.realenergywriters.com and pick up her free Energy Efficiency Markets podcast and newsletter.

Will support for efficiency hold in 2009?

By Elisa Wood
December 18, 2008

The stars are aligned to make 2009 a good year for energy efficiency — or at least, most of the stars.

President-Elect Barack Obama has assembled an energy team that supports clean technologies. Most notably, Obama named Steven Chu as energy secretary on December 15. Chu is a Nobel Prize winner and director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, a leader in bringing energy efficiency technologies to market, such as the compact fluorescent light bulb. http://www.lbl.gov/

Obama also is in the process of putting together an economic recovery package that places high priority on energy, including investment in efficiency. The goal is to quickly create jobs by giving ‘shovel-ready’ projects a boost in the sluggish economy. Efficiency projects more easily qualify as ‘shovel-ready’ — set for quick development – than most energy undertakings. Efficiency measures rarely require the kind of time-consuming permitting, engineering and financing of power plant or transmission construction.

So what star is out of place in the sky? The star that governs oil prices. It costs far less to fill up the gas tank now than it did last summer. That is a good thing. The problem is that the US consumer tends to be short-sighted. If gasoline is cheap today, who cares about tomorrow? Energy efficiency falls out of favor.

Joe Loper, senior vice president for the Alliance to Save Energy, warned about this “cycle of complacency” in testimony before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources December 10. Loper recommended $15 billion in economic stimulus money for energy efficiency to keep the nation’s energy goals on track. Investing in efficiency will not only create jobs, but also will foster continued use of technologies that have already proven their worth. “A silent partner” in meeting the nation’s energy needs, efficiency has reduced America’s energy bill and related carbon emissions by 50% since 1973, he said.

Obama, himself, is worried that declining gas prices may erode support for his aggressive energy agenda. He told Time magazine that lower oil prices make “the politics of it tougher than it might have been six months ago.” http://change.gov/newsroom/entry/the_president-elect_on_his_goals_and_agenda_in_a_time_of_crisis/

We’ll see in the next several weeks if support continues for an overhaul of the nation’s energy portfolio, or if the public follows the wrong star in the sky.

Visit Elisa Wood at www.realenergywriters.com and pick up her free Energy Efficiency Markets podcast and newsletter.

The Ghost of High Energy Prices Past

By Elisa Wood

Oct. 9, 2008

Halloween is still a few weeks away, but a ghost is already making an appearance, this one floating over the presidential campaigns. His name is Conservation.

I first heard the specter of sacrifice evoked by Sen. Barack Obama in the Oct. 7 debate. The next day Gov. Sarah Palin repeated the term several times in a television interview. Conservation, she said, is part of Senator John McCain’s “all-of-the-above” energy policy.

Wait a minute. Isn’t this the Jimmy Carter approach – the turn-down-the thermostat and put on the sweater – that proved fruitless?

I’m not saying conservation is a bad idea; I am saying it is ineffective over the long term. Americans will conserve only as long as money is tight. Once energy prices drop or personal income rises, the house heats up again.

For that reason, today’s energy efficiency movement has distanced itself from the idea of self sacrifice. Instead, advocates define energy efficiency as doing more with less, not doing less. While conservation is a 1970s notion, efficiency is a child of the Internet age, a series of advanced technologies that allow our factories, data centers, homes and appliances to function better while using less energy (with some good old-fashioned insulation thrown in.)

I can only guess that the candidates are using the term “conservation” freely again because polls indicate the American consumer is ready for a period of self-sacrifice – not surprising given all of the bad economic news that seems to stem from a certain amount of financial hubris. But what the polls giveth the polls taketh away. Energy policy based on conservation offers us a fleeting green alternative.

Better that we stay with the efficiency theme.

To that end, it was encouraging this week to see the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy announced state progress in pursuing efficiency policies. (See ACEEE’s “2008 State Energy Efficiency Scorecard” http://aceee.org/pubs/e086.pdf?CFID=17536&CFTOKEN=51038700.) State policy is important because states invest two to three times more money than the federal government in efficiency.

Moreover, efficiency frees up money for investment in other clean energy projects. As ACEEE points out, “Energy efficiency is the only resource that can help states actually reduce energy consumption to combat rising energy demand and create a hedge against skyrocketing energy prices – making efficiency the ‘first fuel’ states can use to balance their energy portfolios.”

Thus, states, utilities and businesses can use money saved through efficiency to build renewable generation and a smart grid. These are solid things that keep saving energy even after the ghosts of Halloween (and election seasons) vanish.

Visit Elisa Wood at www.realenergywriters.com and pick up her free Energy Efficiency Markets podcast and newsletter.

Energy Tax Credits and the Devil in Congress

By Elisa Wood

October 2, 2008

It is difficult to get beyond the hyperbole of the election season to uncover a candidate’s true position. The non-partisan Pew Center on Global Climate Change performed a service with a recently released just-the-facts guide on the energy platforms of the presidential contenders http://www.pewclimate.org/voter-guide.

What is remarkable about this year’s election, Pew says, is that “both major party candidates for the presidency are deeply concerned about global climate change and publicly support a mandatory, economy-wide cap-and-trade system for reducing the U.S. greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.”

What does this mean in a practical sense for energy efficiency markets? “Both candidates recognize that improving energy efficiency across the economy can be a powerful tool for reducing GHG emissions,” Pew says.

Sen. John McCain says he would create higher efficiency standards for new or retrofitted buildings leased or purchased by the federal government, the largest energy consumer in the world. McCain also promotes investments to upgrade and smarten the national electricity grid.

Sen. Barrack Obama would set national standards to reduce demand by 15%; make new buildings carbon-neutral or zero-emission by 2030; improve new building efficiency by 50% and existing building efficiency by 25%; improve efficiency in all new federal buildings by 40%; and make federal buildings zero-emitting by 2025.

The policies of both candidates sound positive. Of course, the devil is always in the details.

The devil also appears to be in Congress. One wonders if these policies would make it through Congress, given lawmakers’ treatment this year of the all-important tax incentives for efficiency and clean energy. Most lawmakers claim to support the tax credits, many of which expire at the end of this year or already have expired. Yet Congress wrangled all year over the incentives without extending them, mostly for reasons that had little to do with the credits and their merits. Now, at the 11th hour, just before recessing, the Senate has approved the ‘tax-extenders bill’ as part of the credit-crisis bail-out package. The House reportedly will take up the bill Friday, Oct. 3.

Long-time energy lobbyist Scott Sklar has watched Congress’ shenanigans from a front row seat and explains why he is “hopping mad” about treatment of the tax incentives in an insightful Renewable Energy Weekly column, “Fuming in D.C.” http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/recolumnists/story?id=53711

Why is the tax-extender bill important to energy efficiency markets? The Senate bill includes tax incentives for consumers and building owners who install energy-efficient products, builders of energy-efficient new homes and commercial buildings, and manufacturers of certain energy-efficient appliances, according to the Alliance to Save Energy. The bill also includes incentives for combined heat and power.

“Congress is preparing to pass one of the largest pieces of legislation in a century to bail out Wall Street and, with that in mind, it is unthinkable that Congress would adjourn before providing critical tax incentives to ‘Main Street’ to help consumers facing a lagging economy and growing energy costs and the nascent clean energy industry, so that it can create new jobs and help to build a new ‘green’ economy,” said Kateri Callahan, ASE president.

Unthinkable, yes. Improbable? We’ll know after Friday.

Visit energy writer Lisa Wood and pick up her free Energy Efficiency Markets newsletter and podcast by clicking on www.realenergywriters.com.

A Green Apple for the Teacher

By news accounts Barack Obama is all the rage on college campuses these days. But there is another less reported campus movement that could considerably boost the energy efficiency industry.

College students nationwide have mounted a serious campaign to clean up the nation’s energy supply. And they are starting in their own backyards – or rather dorm rooms. Nudged by these students, college administrations are installing co-generation, switching to more efficient lighting, and undertaking other initiatives to reduce energy use.

Students are not just organizing on their own college campuses, but are forming coalitions of several schools to improve their clout. One of the most interesting organizations is the Energy Action Coalition, comprised of 50 student groups.

Energy Action brings some fun to the otherwise staid energy industry. For example, on Valentine’s Day, group members in Michigan sent love notes to legislators to push a green energy agenda. Among other things, the students sought a 2% annual increase in energy efficiency through 2015.

Next the group plans to revamp the sometimes decadent spring-break-at-the-beach tradition. Energy Action is organizing trips to coal states where members will learn more about the industry, help in river clean-up and engage in some good-old fashion college fun – protests. In particular, they plan to take on planned coal-fired projects.

College administrators at several schools say that student action is influencing their energy decisions. Indeed, college presidents themselves are becoming a force in the climate change movement. About one-quarter of the nation’s colleges have signed on to the American College & University Presidents Cli­mate Commitment. The program requires that campuses create a plan to become carbon neutral within a specified time. Many are finding that efficiency is the cheapest and quickest way to reach the goal.

The Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education has set up a rating system to judge college green achievements. This time it is the colleges who are being graded – and the students are watching just how well they will do.

Visit energy writer Elisa Wood at www.realenergywriters.com and pick up her free Energy Efficiency Markets newsletter.