Letter of Support: Funding for Energy Efficiency in FY 2010

April 3, 2009

Dear Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member:

We the undersigned represent a broad-based coalition of energy efficiency and environmental organizations, public interest organizations, states, and small and large businesses.  We write today to ask your support for key energy efficiency programs within the Department of Energy.  These programs provide the foundation for the clean energy provisions of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) and will ensure the long-term optimization of energy use in the United States.  While some of these programs received substantial support from ARRA, resources are still needed in order to ensure programmatic and administrative support to implement these programs effectively and provide funding for critical programs not funded as part of ARRA.

Energy efficiency is our cheapest, fastest, and cleanest energy resource and a necessary solution to address energy prices, energy security, air pollution, and global warming.  Energy efficiency already is the nation’s greatest energy resource—since 1973, we now save more energy each year from efficiency measures than we get from any single energy source, including oil.  The following FY10 funding recommendations build on past successes and provide additional support for provisions funded as part of ARRA. 

Our coalition recommends the following FY10 funding priorities:

• Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP): We recommend the Committee fund the WAP program at no less than $300 million.  Each year this program, which helps low-income families, the elderly, and the disabled, exceeds its target and weatherizes approximately 100,000 homes.   By doing so, it saves American families money for other necessities, while reducing our nation’s energy demands by the equivalent of 18 million barrels of oil each year. 
• State Energy Program (SEP): We recommend the Committee fund the SEP program at no less than $75 million.  The SEP program improves the energy efficiency of schools, hospitals, small businesses, farms, homes, and industries, providing enormous savings in energy costs.  According to Oak Ridge National Laboratories, for every dollar invested in this program, $7.22 is saved in total energy costs (based on 2002 data, when energy prices were lower).  SEP also leverages $10.71 in non-federal funding for every federal dollar spent and provides hundreds of millions of dollars in direct energy cost savings annually.
• Energy Information Administration (EIA) Energy Consumption Surveys: We recommend the Committee fund this program at no less than $145 million.  EIA’s Energy Consumption Surveys provide unique and invaluable data to policy makers, industry, and researchers.  In order for our federal and state leaders to make informed decisions, they must be provided with the tools necessary to prepare and respond to national emergencies and have timely energy consumption and production data available. 
• Industrial Technologies Program (ITP): We recommend the Committee fund the ITP program at no less than $150 million, which is an increase of $60 million over FY09 funding.  The program includes Best Practices, Industrial Assessment Centers, Industries of the Future (Specific) initiatives and Distributed Generation.

During this economic downturn, it is essential that we provide the tools necessary to secure the United State’s manufacturing base.   The U.S. manufacturing sector currently accounts for a third of U.S. energy consumption and 36 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.  ITP plays a critical role in the research, development, deployment and support of technologies and management practices that can address industry’s pressing energy challenges without compromising productivity and growth.  During times of economic hardship, supporting energy efficiency in American industry is integral to the recovery of the U.S. economy.

• Building Technologies Program: We recommend the Committee fund the Building Technologies Program at no less than $175 million.  This request is an increase of $35 million over the FY09 appropriated level and would provide adequate funding for programs including the Energy Star Program, Commercial Buildings Initiative, residential energy efficiency programs, the Building Energy Codes Training and Assistance Program, and Building America.   This funding is necessary to provide the resources to improve the efficiency of all aspects of buildings and building equipment across our economy.  Buildings currently account for 40 percent of US energy use and 39 percent of carbon emissions, so investing in building technology is a necessary step to secure our economic and environmental future.   In addition, while states are working to upgrade energy efficiency building codes, funding is needed to train local building inspectors, code officials, contractors, builders, utility personnel and architects to accomplish required upgrades.
• Equipment Standards and Analysis: We recommend the Committee fund this program at no less than $35 million.  This additional funding is needed outside of appropriations allocated to the Building Technologies program in order for DOE to fully implement new standards and analysis for appliances.  Appliance standards for energy efficiency will reduce U.S. electricity use by about 10% in 2010. These programs are deployed all at minimal cost to the federal government while saving consumers billions of dollars in their energy bills.  Despite the demonstrated energy savings from energy efficiency standards, the Department of Energy has lacked the funding or support to fully capitalize on energy efficiency opportunities for more than 20 products and the ability to upgrade test procedures for implementation and enforcement.  
• Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP):  We recommend the Committee fund FEMP at no less than $30 million.  From 1985-2001, FEMP was able to decrease federal building energy use by 24 percent, a reduction that now saves federal taxpayers roughly $1 billion each year in reduced energy costs.  In order for federal agencies to meet the demands and requirements of EPACT05, Executive Order 13423, and EISA, FEMP will need to be given the maximum resources available to help federal agencies fully meet their energy savings goals. 
• Public Information Initiative: We recommend the Committee fund this program at no less than $45 million.  Consumer education is the most effective means of reducing energy demand.  EPACT05 authorizes $90 million per year for this program to provide consumers the information necessary to reduce energy use.  DOE has contributed small amounts of funding to effective education campaigns, but due to the recent economic downturn, funding is now urgently needed to help American families find and learn ways to reduce their monthly energy bills, saving them money and energy.
• Energy Sustainability and Efficiency Grants and Loans for Institutions (EISA Sec. 471): We recommend the Committee fund this program, authorized in Section 471 of EISA, at no less than $250 million for grants and $500 million in loans for FY2010.  This program received strong support from both the House and Senate and has yet to be funded at the authorized level.  The program will support investment in clean energy infrastructure for institutional entities, including institutions of higher education, local governments, municipal utilities, and public school districts by providing cost-shared funding for sustainable energy projects such as district energy systems, renewable energy, combined heat and power, waste heat recycling and natural sources of thermal energy such as deep water cooling.
• Industrial Energy Efficiency (EISA Sec. 451 &453): We recommend these programs be funded at no less than $200 million for grants and $1 million for the registry.  As part of EISA, Congress authorized programs that would encourage energy efficiency through the recycling of waste heat and provide a survey and quantification of the opportunities that waste heat recovery could provide.  These programs would provide $10 per Mw/h of recovered energy.  Funding of these programs would enable the recycling of waste heat that might otherwise be lost. We are particularly interested in the results of a study on Combined Heat and Power that indicates a 66% reduction in GHG growth with 20% market penetration. 

We commend the Subcommittee’s past support for key energy efficiency programs and we would be pleased to respond with additional information or data to support our Coalition requests.  Thank you for your continued support and we appreciate your consideration of our requests.

Sincerely,

• Affordable Comfort, Inc.
• Alliance to Save Energy
• American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE)
• American Institute of Architects
• American Gas Association
• American Public Power Association
• Association of State Energy Research & Technology Transfer Institutions (ASERTTI)
• Business Council for Sustainable Energy (BCSE)
• Conservation Law Foundation
• Conservation Services Group
• The Dow Chemical Company
• Environmental and Energy Study Institute (EESI)
• Federal Performance Contracting Coalition
• Federation of American Scientists
• Green Building Initiative
• Honeywell International, Inc.
• Energy Federation, Inc.
• Integrated Building and Construction Solutions
• International District Energy Association (IDEA)
• National Association of Energy Service Companies (NAESCO)
• National Association of State Energy Officials (NASEO)
• National Association for State Community Services Programs (NASCSP)
• National SAVE Energy Coalition
• Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
• North American Insulation Manufacturers Association (NAIMA)
• Northeast Energy Efficiency Council
• Polyisocyanurate Insulation Manufacturers Association (PIMA)
• Recycled Energy Development
• Schneider Electric
• Serious Materials, Inc.
• The Stella Group, Ltd.
• U.S. Green Building Council
• Whirlpool Corporation