What's not to love about energy efficiency? It's the paradigmatic win-win scenario -- save money, protect the climate and broader environment, and reduce reliance on unsavory sources of energy, all in one fell swoop.
As efficiency guru Amory Lovins puts it [PDF], "Using energy more efficiently offers an economic bonanza -- not because of the benefits of stopping global warming, but because saving fossil fuel is a lot cheaper than buying it."
But until recently, energy efficiency has had about as much sex appeal as, well, Amory Lovins. While Congress has tacked a smattering of appliance efficiency standards onto omnibus energy bills over the years, it has passed no legislation that would ramp up efficiency across a wide swath of the U.S. economy.
That's why efficiency advocates are cheering the Energy Efficiency Promotion Act, introduced last week in the Senate by national-security strongman Dick Lugar (R-Ind.) and bipartisan power duo Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) and Pete Domenici (R-N.M.), the Senate Energy Committee's chair and ranking member, respectively. The bill, which will get its first hearing today, sets a goal of cutting gasoline use in the U.S. 20 percent over the next decade and 45 percent by 2030; compare that to the 17 percent growth in gasoline consumption the U.S. has seen in the last decade, according to the Energy Information Administration. The legislation would also boost efficiency in everything from vehicles and consumer appliances to buildings and industrial equipment.
"This is not only the broadest energy-efficiency bill that has been introduced in many years, it actually has a good chance of passing," said Lowell Ungar, a senior policy analyst for the D.C.-based Alliance to Save Energy, which advised the bill's sponsors during the drafting process. "It would be a big step forward."
The bill -- an expanded version of one that Bingaman introduced in the last Congress -- would establish or improve efficiency standards for such mundane but energy-slurping items as light fixtures, residential boilers, dehumidifiers, washing machines, dishwashers, and electric motors used in manufacturing. Suppress that yawn! These appliance standards alone would save enough electricity to power 4.8 million typical U.S. households for a year, enough natural gas to heat about 250,000 households a year, 560 million gallons of water per day, and more than $12 billion annually in consumer costs.
The bill would also serve up government loan guarantees to automakers that manufacture fuel-efficient vehicles, help insulate the homes of low-income families, and require the federal government to increase its renewable-energy use by 10 percent of total consumption by 2010.
So what wouldn't it do? Alas, quite a bit, says Bill Prindle, acting executive director of the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, which also helped to shape parts of the bill. "There is plenty to applaud in this legislation, but it doesn't grapple with the two biggest issues -- saving oil and setting industry-wide savings targets for electricity," he said. While it does establish goals for reducing gasoline use, it doesn't include a mandatory or enforceable mechanism for doing so -- for instance, stronger auto fuel-economy standards.
Prindle also would have liked the bill to require utilities to up the efficiency of their facilities and implement programs to reduce demand among their customers under what wonks call an "energy-efficiency resource standard," or EERS. He describes an EERS as a complement to the just-as-compellingly-named renewable portfolio standard, or RPS, which requires utilities to generate a certain percentage of their power from renewable sources. Already, more than half a dozen states have eco-geeked out by implementing both an EERS and an RPS, said Prindle, encouraging utilities to save money by eliminating waste and then drive those savings into building up their renewable capacity.
New York became the latest state to wholeheartedly embrace efficiency last week when Gov. Eliot Spitzer (D) unveiled an aggressive energy plan that aims to cut electricity use in the state 15 percent by 2015 while ramping up clean-energy development. Said Spitzer, "It costs one-third as much to save a given amount of energy through efficiency as it does to produce the same amount of energy by building a new power plant. Energy efficiency makes economic sense."
But while states charge forward with EERSs, Bingaman and crew are holding back. Said Bill Wicker, majority spokesperson for the Senate Energy Committee, the EERS concept "is one that we're familiar with and one that's getting more and more attention, but it wasn't quite ready for prime time." Wicker explained the exclusion of auto fuel-economy standards from the bill by saying they're outside the jurisdiction of Bingaman's committee.
Other legislation now pending in Congress would tackle these omitted issues: EERSs are included in broader climate-change bills from Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), and Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), while provisions to raise CAFE standards 4 percent annually are included in bills from Sens. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) and Larry Craig (R-Idaho), Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), and others.
The Bingaman/Domenici/Lugar bill, with its broad but not overly ambitious scope, has a good chance of passing, its supporters say. It's a relatively noncontroversial bill that addresses the climate problem without saying that it's addressing the climate problem.
"You need several Republicans on board in order to be successful on a bill like this," said Wicker, "and in this case, the breadth and strength of the support from Dems and Republicans bodes very well."
Since Dubyah himself proposed a 20 percent reduction in gasoline use over the next decade in his last State of the Union address, maybe he would even sign it. To quote Lovins again [PDF], "preventable energy waste costs Americans hundreds of billions of dollars and the global economy more than $1 trillion a year, destabilizing the climate while producing no value." That should make it an enemy Bush, Congress, and the whole country could agree to fight.
Making buildings more efficient: rationalizing retrofit markets
Obama administration may (finally) offer greenhouse-gas targets
Making buildings more efficient: looking beyond price
Comments
View as Threaded
inkedbuddha Posted 6:53 am
23 Apr 2007
But why the fun at Lovins' expense? Twice (caption and text) you act like he isn't sexy for more than his brain. Ha! He may be some people's dreamboat!
Other than this very rude and seemingly unprovoked mockery, I do love love love my Grist. :)
Permalink
Lisa Hymas Posted 8:22 am
23 Apr 2007
Permalink
radrerun Posted 1:57 am
24 Apr 2007
"Other legislation now pending in Congress would tackle these omitted issues: EERSs are included in broader climate-change bills from Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Bernie Sanders (D-Vt.)..."
He's an independent.
I'm a stickler on this issue because everybody and their mother (I thought) knew that. Bernie rocks.
Permalink
waltww Posted 5:19 am
24 Apr 2007
Walt
Permalink
Lisa Hymas Posted 8:49 am
24 Apr 2007
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 5:10 pm
03 May 2007
The trick is that the reflective roofing must be cheaper to the roofing contractor making the bid than all other options. Virtually all of the nations roofing will be replaced by 2050 due to standard 30-40 year roof life cycles.
Encourage (demand?) that rental properties below a median value install geoexchange HVAC unless given a specific waiver. That cuts another 25% to 40% off the grid. There are many, many rental properties with 30 year old AC units sitting on black roofs. The government already pays for power bill assistance; let's cut the waste.
Swapping out 10 year old water heaters in my area is prudent due to hard water. I've seen many 15 to 20 year old water heaters in service running at very low efficiencies. Have power companies certify all thermal appliances are within efficiency standards no less than 10 years old in order to provide service.
Demand 40% summer shading of all parking lots in order to maintain business licences. Google: "heat island effect".
One of the effects of our capitalist society is that while these improvements are usually cost effective on paper the cost of the project gets paid up front and the savings comes later.
Further in cases where there are landlord/tenant relationships or houses purchased with the expectation of short occupancy the person who pays the power bills may not be the person who pays for roofing, HVAC system installation or building maintenance.
A financial vehicle needs to be created to finance solid improvments to a building through the power bills. System cost plus financing should be less than the expected cost of power reduced. The building occupant should get a reduced bill after installation with the improvement still financed.
Somebody help me on this finance stuff; please.
Permalink
RemyC Posted 10:28 pm
04 May 2007
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 10:20 am
05 May 2007
Fact 1) Us electric power infrastructure is in poor shape and getting worse. Despite several alarming reports and even more alarming blackouts no major repairs or upgrades are scheduled. Your home system need not be disrupted by grid outages.
Fact 2) Electric rates show a historic trend of rising ahead of inflation. http://www.aaes.biz/
Fact 3)Once you've installed your solar system it produces power at a fixed rate. Nuclear powered utilities have had a notorious reputation for raising rates after installing nuclear plants.
Fact 4) Solar systems becoming available are capable of providing combined heat and power services.
As more home system are installed it will become more obvious to everybody that owning a solar system is like being able to print $100 every month. Everybody wants to do that.
Permalink
dayve311 Posted 7:59 am
30 May 2007
I have often felt that one of the major problems this country faces is that of the privatized energy giants like PG&E etc. Water is usually in most areas at least a public utility protected and provided by state, local and federal laws/ agencies. No doubt, someone is getting rich off of our water use, but not as rich as those that provide our energy.
When private energy giants send us those little pamphlets that tell us how to save energy in our home, they certainly are not telling us that because they want to bill us less. In fact, even though our bills may shrink a bit, they will be minute in comparison to how much the power companies bills will be reduced if we all reduce our usage. Maybe they will loose a buck or 2 a month from every home on the grid, but overall....in the grand scheme, they are benefititting far more.
The only way to really control the situation is to promote the use and purchase of "in home" energy such as solar and wind power. Several individuals have been able to go "off the grid" doing this. If enough people who have the means, cared to do it, that would force the hands of the power companies to provide accept making less profit. The longterm goal would be for them to sell their company back to the government where it can be operated without the worries of shareholders and profit margins. Energy should not be run like a liqour store.
Permalink
planetthoughts Posted 9:17 pm
06 Jun 2007
Permalink
flabob Posted 11:58 pm
26 Jun 2007
Permalink