Efficiency News

For the fourth year in a row, the Trump administration earlier this week proposed draconian, shortsighted cuts to federal energy efficiency programs.

In the budget for fiscal year 2021, which begins in October, the White House called for cutting the Department of Energy’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) by a whopping 75%, from more than $2.8 billion to $720 million. It also proposed eliminating public funding for one of the most popular government initiatives in recent history – ENERGY STAR – in exchange for a privately funded program.

Of course, Congress holds the power of the purse and, if recent history is any indication, Republicans and Democrats will come together to reject the cuts. These investments have bipartisan support for a simple reason: They work. For a relatively small suite of programs, they have huge environmental and economic impact, and they improve Americans’ lives.

A lot of DOE’s success flies under the radar, so it’s not surprising if some might be asking, “Yeah, why do we do all this stuff?” Here are a few examples of what the department does, and why we should keep it up:

Saving taxpayer dollars: The federal government is the largest energy consumer in the country, spending $6 billion a year on energy for its buildings alone. EERE’s Federal Energy Management Program helps federal agencies reduce that consumption and save taxpayer dollars. Since 1975, it has helped the government reduce its energy use by 49%. Examples include helping the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in San Francisco save more than $500,000 annually through an energy savings performance contract, or demonstrating how the Department of Defense could save approximately $1 million per year in energy costs at six high-performance computing data centers. Not bad for a program with a $40 million budget.

World-class research and development: The Department of Energy operates a network of national labs and research facilities that are the envy of the world. An independent evaluation of R&D spending at EERE in recent years showed that $12 billion in federal spending yielded more than $388 billion in net U.S. economic benefits. This is exactly the kind work the government should do to stimulate innovation and help the U.S. lead the global energy economy.

Saving consumers’ money: Few initiatives – private or public – can match the return on investment of ENERGY STAR. The program, largely housed at EPA, has a budget of just under $40 million and saves consumers and businesses more than $30 billion a year by providing simple, reliable confirmation – in the form of the ENERGY STAR logo - that they’re getting a high-efficiency product. The label is one of the most widely recognized in the country, with a brand recognition of over 90%. This remarkable success story would be in real jeopardy under the administration’s proposal to eliminate public funding and privatize ENERGY STAR.

Protecting consumers from energy guzzling products: EERE’s Building Technologies Office establishes minimum efficiency standards for nearly 60 categories of appliances and equipment, such as air conditioners, refrigerators, and dryers. While many don’t even know these standards exist, they save the typical household $500 a year on utility bills. The standards program is the second-biggest energy-saving initiative in the federal government, sandwiched between two other overachievers – fuel economy standards at No. 1 and ENERGY STAR at No. 3.

This is just a sampling of the federal role in energy efficiency, and we’ve barely scratched the surface of the benefits. For one thing, energy efficiency is widely recognized is the leading solution to climate change, with the International Energy Agency finding that it can account for nearly half of the needed greenhouse gas emissions reductions to meet international climate goals. These federal programs are the foundation for driving energy efficiency throughout our economy, and we have a far more productive, competitive, and sustainable economy thanks to their success.

Congress often resists legislating as an election approaches, but a key deadline looms on September 30th this year: Lawmakers must pass a bill to reauthorize funding for transportation infrastructure for another five years. 

One topic has arisen frequently in the debates around the surface transportation or “highway” bill: To what extent should Congress help Americans be able to transition to electric cars? We believe federal investments enabling more electric vehicle charging stations is simply smart policy that will help nearly all Americans in the coming years and decades. But as the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure gears up to release its highly anticipated bill following a Senate bill from last year, it’s worth addressing some common concerns.

Lawmakers should conduct due diligence before spending public funds supporting early stage technologies. But from the dawn of the oil and gas industries, the build-out of railroads, and the invention of the computer and the internet, government has also provided support for strategic industries that were deemed critical for our country’s future. Those choices helped secure the United States’ leadership in science and innovation, success in international markets, and long periods of economic growth.

Transitioning to electric vehicles would provide enormous benefits for people, automakers, and communities – from lowering the prices of operating a vehicle to reducing air pollution. If we miss the opportunity to lead in this area, other countries will get there first.

It’s hardly too soon. Bloomberg’s 2019 Electric Vehicle (EV) Outlook finds that sales of internal combustion passenger vehicles have already peaked and will likely not recover unless EV growth falters.

Which brings us to another question: if the market is already growing rapidly, why does it need help?

Perhaps the biggest barrier is the market’s chicken-and-egg problem: consumers hesitate to purchase EVs without widespread charging infrastructure, but utilities and charging companies hesitate to install charging stations without a more robust market. Finding a solution to it will be paramount to propelling the market, as range anxiety – the fear of a battery running out of power before reaching a charging station – remains one of the top reasons why Americans do not purchase EVs. The federal government can help by supporting the construction of electrical vehicle charging stations, particularly along frequently travelled corridors.  

Some opponents argue that EV-related infrastructure investment would only benefit rich constituents who purchase super expensive EVs. Just a few years ago, nearly all EVs were far pricier than other vehicles, but now, several new EV models are sold for well below $30,000 (when including federal and state tax credits).

In America’s used car market – which is more than twice the size of the new car market – EVs are a competitive option. According to Consumer Reports, a three-year-old Nissan Leaf can be purchased for around $10,000. That affordability is important since studies show that most low and middle-class Americans cannot afford the average price of a new car, whether gas or electric.

In just the next few years, EVs will provide better value to consumers on a total cost of ownership basis. It costs less than half as much to fuel a vehicle with electricity than gas for the same distance of travel, based on today’s prices. As EVs grow in popularity, these savings will have a huge impact on American purses, as households spend roughly $2000 annually, on average, on transportation fuel.

America’s cities and denser suburbs were first movers on EV adoption, in part because early batteries had much shorter lifespans, which did not bode well for rural communities. But battery capacities continue to improve, and more than half of all vehicle trips taken by Americas are under 10 miles.  

It’s not just about range: the types and sizes of electric vehicles available are expanding rapidly, too, making them a possible choice for more and more Americans. Several manufacturers, including GM and Ford, have announced the development of electric pickups, for instance, with models likely made available in the next several years.

Electric vehicle charging is a great opportunity to reinvest in rural communities that have been overlooked and underfunded for decades. The Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage Development (BUILD) (formerly TIGER) grant program, for instance, could be leveraged to provide charging infrastructure in rural communities. Under President Trump, the Department of Transportation has announced that 50% of BUILD grant funding will be directed to projects located in rural areas.

The federal government supports various technologies; for instance, despite oil and gas being mature industries, conservative estimates find that the government still provides $20 billion in subsidies to the fossil fuel industry per year. The U.S. also spends roughly $46 billion on highway building and maintenance currently. Wider investments in EV charging would not be an aberration. A comparatively modest investment could make an enormous difference in enabling wider use of electric vehicles.

The Alliance’s 50x50 Commission on U.S. Transportation Sector Efficiency, a diverse coalition of automakers, utilities, product manufacturers, public officials, and public interest groups released a series of recommendations of provisions for Congress to consider as it pieces together a reauthorization bill. The policies include reinstating the Section 30C Alternative Fuel Vehicle Refueling Property tax credit, establishing a grant program for the installation of charging infrastructure along the National Highway System, and increasing funding to promote R&D in battery technologies.

This is a rare opportunity to shape the next century of American mobility. Lawmakers should take it.

Recent climate data show that the 2010s were the warmest decade on record, with an acceleration of temperature increases in the past five years.

As Kate Marvel, a research scientist at NASA and Columbia University, said in a recent Washington Post article, “The planet is statistically, detectably warmer than before the Industrial Revolution. We know why. We know what it means. And we can do something about it.” Indeed we can. It’s called energy efficiency.

The 2018 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report found that if limiting global temperature increases to 1.5˚C is to be achieved, “investments in low-carbon energy technologies and energy efficiency [will need to be] upscaled by roughly a factor of six” by 2050 compared to 2015 levels. The International Energy Agency (IEA) says that energy efficiency can provide up to 40 percent of carbon emission reductions necessary to meet climate goals without new technology and with a positive return on investment. Despite these compelling analyses, recent investment in energy efficiency is failing to grow substantially and annual efficiency improvement rates have decreased. 

There are currently 1,340 jurisdictions in 26 countries – representing populations of more than 800 million citizens – that have declared a climate emergency. Given that increased energy efficiency is the lowest cost, highest impact, and fastest-to-implement climate solution, we are not giving it the urgency it deserves. We need to declare an efficiency emergency to address the global climate crisis.

To help spur collaboration to address the emergency, the Alliance launched the Energy Efficiency Global Alliance (EEGA) in 2019. The EEGA is an international coalition of government, corporate, and NGO leaders that champions faster and deeper implementation of energy efficiency solutions, uniting the voice of efficiency. It provides a unified platform for partners to influence global political discussions on energy and climate, and to advance energy efficiency policy, innovation, and investment.

In turn, the EEGA has joined with the IEA, Sustainable Energy for All (SEforAll) and other international partners to launch the Three Percent Club, a collaboration of governments and supporting organizations working together to put the world on a path to 3% annual efficiency improvement. IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol said, “There is no excuse for inaction: ambitious [energy efficiency] policies need to be put in place to spur investment and put the necessary technologies to work on a global scale.”

Now is our chance to address the climate emergency. That’s why I’m inviting you to join us on April 28-29 in Washington, DC, at the EE Global Forum 2020, where we will focus on raising awareness of the efficiency emergency as a means to drive greater ambition and climate action. Together, we can indeed do something about it.

President Trump has recently launched a crusade against newer and more energy and water-efficient appliances and plumbing products, claiming that they do not perform as well as their energy-intensive predecessors.

Appliance and plumbing fixture standards have cumulatively saved consumers billions of dollars on energy and water utility bills. But do these energy and cost savings come at the expense of performance? Or is this false nostalgia? Here’s a look at the evolution of three common items the president likes to discuss.

At a roundtable on small businesses and regulation in December, the president took a pot shot at modern toilets, lamenting that people need to flush them “10 times, 15 times, as opposed to once.”

Since 1994, new toilets have been subject to the standards mandated in the Energy Policy Act of 1992, a landmark bill signed by President George H.W. Bush that included water efficiency standards for a number of fixtures. When the standards went into effect, the low-flow toilet became commonplace.

It’s true that the first generation of low-flow toilets – which flush waste using 1.6 gallons of water instead of the pre-1994 norm of 3.5 gallons – worked poorly and often required multiple flushes. But that’s because toilet manufacturers merely reduced the size of the tank to comply with the water reduction mandates without making any other design alterations to accommodate for the reduction in water used per flush. After widespread consumer backlash, toilet manufacturers stepped up to make low-flow toilets that better usher waste out of sight.

The current toilets fall into two different types: gravity-feed and pressure-assisted. Both have passed the plumbing industry’s unofficial toilet efficacy test (flushing a mixture of soybean paste) and even perform better than old models. The bottom line? Low-flow toilets restore power – and money – to the people.

President Trump also promised to restore “full shower flow” to all Americans. But judging by the reviews, Americans are very happy with today’s models – including ones that use even less water than the federal standard of 2.5 gallons per minute.

The standard, which hasn’t been updated since 1994, elicited consumer concerns that water flow would not be as satisfying or effective at rinsing off. But Amazon reviews of the top five water-efficient showerheads indicate that performance is not an issue. And, after testing more than 100 showers with a dozen different showerheads, Wirecutter determined that a model that uses even less water (1.75 gallons per minute) than the federal requirement was the highest-performing and most satisfying.  

People can feel a lot better about staying in the shower knowing that their money isn’t pouring down the drain along with soapsuds.

In a December rally in Michigan, President Trump told a crowd of supporters that recent models “give you like four drops of water” and have to be run “12 times.”  

Relative to other appliances and fixtures, dishwashers have a long history of regulation. The average energy use of dishwashers has decreased by about 50 percent since 1987, when Congress established the first national standard for the products. Today, standard-size dishwashers are required to use no more than 307 kWh per year and 5.0 gallons of water per cycle. But does this compromise cleanliness?

To ensure that machines could clean dishes with less water, manufacturers altered the arrangement of dish racks to optimally expose dishes to spouts of water and lengthened the cycles. Consumer Reports’ top-rated dishwasher in one recent test uses only four gallons of water per wash. Numerous other models, all of which must meet the federal standards, received ‘Excellent’ ratings.

While some individuals report finding dirty dishes after a cycle, experts have identified the top culprits, and they’re generally in the hands of the user to fix. Fixes include periodically cleaning the filter, skipping gel detergents that lack enzymes, and avoiding nesting dishes.

While dishwashers use a fraction of the energy and water they used to (saving costs every day), the average price of buying one – measured in real terms – has decreased by about 30 percent.

It’s natural for manufacturers to have some growing pains while they adjust to new regulations or market trends. But the examples above illustrate that manufacturers can produce products that not only work just as well as energy hogs, but in most cases even better.

Nearly 40% of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States come from our energy use in residential and commercial buildings – from office towers and malls to apartment buildings and single-family houses. To live and work comfortably, we need heat and air conditioning, hot water, lighting, and a range of appliances and electronics, all of which require energy. But many buildings are poorly designed or insulated, or use inefficient equipment, and use far more energy than necessary, which in turn increases emissions from furnaces and boilers and from the power plants providing electricity.

It’s clear from the inclusion of building efficiency in their climate plans that the candidates running in the Democratic presidential primary each seem to recognize the opportunities here. So without aiming to make a direct evaluation between the candidates’ plans or endorsing one, we pulled together some of the key pledges from each of the proposals:

Michael Bennet says he would “collaborate with the private sector to improve energy efficiency in buildings and vehicles” while prioritizing “opportunities to cut waste in communities that have been most harmed by pollution.” He’d seek to “cut energy bills for struggling families” through measures including retrofits and requiring “new federally subsidized housing to be energy efficient.”

Joe Biden’s plan calls for “creating incentives for deep retrofits” and offsetting upfront costs with a program targeting a “package of affordable energy efficiency retrofits in American homes.” He pledges to “accelerate new efficiency standards for household appliances and equipment” and to “repair and accelerate the building code process and create a new funding mechanism for states and cities to adopt strict building codes and train builders and inspectors.”

Mike Bloomberg wants to “incentivize cities and states to adopt energy efficiency standards for existing buildings that require owners of large buildings to gradually reduce pollution and improve energy performance.” He says he’d use “rebates, tax credits, and low-cost financing for both appliances and building renovation” and “design incentives to specifically work for low-income households, including encouraging Pay as You Save programs.” He pledges to “ramp up appliance efficiency standards.”

Pete Buttigieg seeks to “double Weatherization Assistance Program funding” and to develop an “energy efficiency rebate to cover 30% of the cost of the improvements for residential homes and apartment buildings” and a commercial building efficiency credit “to make significant building and appliance upgrades to meet LEED Gold or Platinum standards.” He pledges to “support mayors and governors who improve building codes so new single-family and multi-family homes and commercial buildings are energy efficient.”

John Delaney proposes a “Climate Corps” in which recent high school graduates would work “in low-income urban and rural communities” to support a “transition to a green economy.” The Corps would assist in “improving building efficiency” and “provide information and support to families about sustainability, energy efficiency, and renewable energy.”

Tulsi Gabbard’s climate plan centers around her OFF Fossil Fuels Act, which includes funding the Weatherization Assistance Program at $1.5 billion each year, nearly a five-fold increase over current funding levels.

Amy Klobuchar wants to “retrofit existing buildings to reduce their emissions through grants and tax credits that support insulation, weatherization improvements, upgrades to heating and cooling systems, and other energy saving upgrades.” She would “support the development of the next generation of low-emission buildings through model building energy codes and benchmarking and transparency programs” and would “ensure that all federal housing programs put strong standards in place to reduce carbon emissions.”

Deval Patrick has not yet released his full climate plan, but his climate page calls for “decreasing our energy consumption while increasing our capacity for clean energy.”

Bernie Sanders pledges to provide “$2.18 trillion for sliding-scale grants for low- and moderate-income families and small businesses to invest in weatherizing and retrofitting their homes and businesses” in a program that prioritizes “the oldest, leakiest and least energy efficient homes and the homes of seniors, people with disabilities, and low-income families first.” He says a “federal mandate through the Department of Energy will ensure that new and existing commercial buildings and wealthy homeowners meet our energy retrofit goals.”

Tom Steyer aims to dedicate over $3 trillion in total for “energy, industry, and building upgrades and pollution reduction projects,” including residential and commercial building upgrades. He calls for “100% zero-carbon new commercial and residential buildings by 2030” and “100% zero-carbon retrofits for all buildings nationwide by 2045.”

Elizabeth Warren seeks to “link energy and pollution standards to federal support for new construction projects” and “provide incentives for local governments to adopt more aggressive standards.” She’d offer “tax credits, generous and inclusive financing, and direct federal funding to put Americans to work reducing the carbon output of existing homes and businesses” and “work with utilities to increase on-bill investment in energy efficiency solutions.” She pledges to refurbish “4% of houses and buildings every year until the job is done.”

Andrew Yang’s plan calls for setting “sustainable infrastructure standards for all new buildings” and basing “any infrastructure spending on meeting these standards.” He commits to “equipping and powering all federal buildings with American-made efficiency and clean energy technology.”

Responding to the climate challenge will be even more urgent in the next presidential term, so it’s great to see these candidates all understanding the importance of including building efficiency as part of the solution.