This follows on a similar bipartisan introduction in the Senate last month, when Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M), Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va) and Sen.Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) introduced S.3177, The Home Star Energy Retrofit Act of 2010.
Home Star is the President's often discussed rebate program for homeowners to make their homes more energy efficient and comfortable. It's designed so that the more energy you save, the larger rebate you receive (on the order of $1,000 to $3,000), to create a tremendous amount of jobs in the ailing construction industry, and with a healthy emphasis on quality assurance and contracting standards. It is supported by over 1000 organizations, representing industry, environmentalists, and labor. NRDC has been involved since the start, and I have blogged about it here and here.
While this development on the Hill certainly doesn’t mean Home Star will become law, it does mean that the proposal is positioned as well as possible to move forward, enjoying support from members of both parties looking to create jobs and slash energy bills at the same time.
Now that there are bills introduced, look for the relevant energy committees to move toward marking up the legislation and considering the opinions of other committee members before the bills can move forward. From that point, the path for Home Star becomes a bit murky, but there certainly are many well positioned members of Congress working to move the bill (the sponsors listed above and several other champions of efficiency that are working behind the scenes). Stay tuned.
]]>All of that was said today and more, during a hearing in the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. The Congressional Research Service, the Department of Energy, and a collection of business, utility, and state advocates all testified today along those lines.
Home Star is a $6 billion proposal that would create incentives for homeowners who choose to make their homes more efficient. Silver Star would offer rebates for individual measures like insulating your attic or installing an efficient new furnace (capped at $3,000 but always requiring at least a 50 percent match from homeowners), while Gold Star creates a performance path where the homeowner and their contractor figure out what measures to undertake, and the size of the incentive is determined by the percent improvement of the home’s efficiency. Gold Star incentives start at $3,000 for a 20 percent improvement and go up $1,000 for each additional 5 percent from there
From the hearing, it sounds like we all emphatically agree – it’s a great idea. We are big supporters of the program and a member of the Home Star Coalition. But the details matter.
And there are details upon details. Arguments about AFUEs, SHGCs, SEERs, and EERs and other esoteric concepts that most people don’t want to know about. But these nasty acronyms are crucial to making sure this program actually saves energy and creates jobs and doesn’t just sell a bunch of stuff with no long term benefit. In other words, we shouldn’t just spin our wheels.
Some of the issues came up during the hearing today are crucially important.
Do we need an incentive for do-it-yourself insulation?
A tough call, since this wouldn’t create jobs in installation, and the insulation, if not installed properly, may not save energy. But, as someone who likes to DIY whenever possible, I understand the appeal. I think we should be able to figure out some way to make sure the DIYers get the installation right and get the energy savings.
Should we lower all the efficiency requirements that equipment must meet to receive incentives in Silver Star to Energy Star?
NO – and I can’t say that emphatically enough. Just based on last year's sales of Energy Star products, free ridership (folks who would have bought these units anyway) would suck $3 billion from the program budget and no additional energy would be saved. That’s almost 90 percent of the proposed Silver Star budget! These products will be purchased, incentive or no incentive. Bad idea.
The levels currently in the bill were negotiated with industry and advocacy groups at the table, and they thread the needle on maximum job creation and energy savings. We should leave them where they are. Cathy Zoi, DOE's Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, said as much in the hearing.
Should we relax the certification requirements for contractors?
I don’t think so. We need good contractors doing the work right to actually save on energy bills. And beyond that, there are safety implications of improper installations. Contractors who aren’t certified but really understand how to improve a home will have no problem getting certified. The extra business they will get as a result of this program will more than outweigh certification costs.
Should states with existing programs play by the same rules?
Everyone wants to see Home Star build on the great work that is happening in the states, largely as a result of the Recovery Act, but we also need to make sure we have consistent standards and quality assurance everywhere. Basically, you should be able to do the work, play by the rules, and get the money whether you are in Ketchikan, Alaska or Miami, Florida.
These are all tricky issues, and we will see how the political process plays out. Home Star is tantalizingly close to being the performance-based program that will create jobs in the ailing construction industry and make American homes much more energy efficient that everyone wants to see. Home Star, in its current form, hits the bulls-eye on job creation and energy savings. It would successfully jumpstart the home retrofit industry and be the bridge to the efficiency programs that accompany comprehensive climate and energy legislation.
Of course, a whole lot more work has to be done by Congress to make sure that the program mechanics are right and the work can start as soon as possible, and that is significant. Congress, President Obama, and the broad based Home Star Coalition have worked incredibly hard to get it this far and we will all keep pushing it forward towards the finish line.
]]>
The Senate Energy and Natural Resources committee will hold a hearing today to discuss how Recovery Act funds are being spent, with an emphasis on the weatherization assistance program (WAP). The hearing is in response to a report from the Department of Energy Inspector General that found only 8 percent of the WAP funds had been spent as of last December. Some very negative media reports followed the report.
A little background – WAP is run by state energy offices that weatherize (seal, caulk and insulate) low-income owned homes. This is a good investment by the feds, because low income homeowners spend a larger percentage of their total income on energy and many of those homes’ energy bills are paid through a federal program called LIHEAP (the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program). The full cost of the improvements is covered under WAP, up to $6,500 per home, and the program was provided with $5 billion in the Recovery Act.
(Now, this is completely different from the President’s proposed Home Star program, which would provide a rebate to homeowners who invest in an energy efficiency retrofit that will include similar weatherization measures. Home Star incentives would cover a portion of the cost based on how much energy the retrofit saves.)
The media criticism has been a bit off the mark. After all, the Recovery Act funding hasn’t been squandered – it just hasn’t been spent yet. While it makes sense to be disappointed in how long it has taken these programs to get up and running, there is certainly no reason to overreact and attack the program now what most of the growing pains are behind us..
Political opportunists have seized on the program’s difficulties to blame their favorite bogeymen - David-Bacon living wage requirements, in-state hiring freezes, phantom environmental regulations, etc, but the real issue is much simpler:
You can’t attach a garden hose to a fire hydrant.
Of course it is going to be difficult to carry out $5 billion worth of weatherization work nationwide! There have to be skilled people available to do the work, government infrastructure to pay them, and enough people throughout the supply chain to keep the process moving. None of this will happen overnight when a program goes from $450 million to $5 billion! In fact we didn’t expect it to: an April 2009 report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) estimated that only 1% of Recovery Act spending in FY 2009 would be on energy.
The least astute observers have even used this opportunity to criticize energy efficiency generally, but there is no basis for ignoring our fastest, cleanest, and cheapest energy resource (efficiency) because of the difficulties of one program. I am sure those same folks would prefer to give that money to rich oil and gas companies rather than use it to slash energy bills and stimulate the ailing construction industry anyway.
Certainly we wish more could have been done by now, but it is not the time to cut and run. Remember, 92 percent of the remaining funds will soon be used to retrofit homes, save energy, and create jobs. Hopefully the public, the media, and lawmakers will remember that jobs and energy savings are the goals, and they can’t be achieved if we quit when we just got the ball rolling.
An oldie, but a goodie. And like many of these, based on some truth - compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs) do indeed have some mercury. Most bulbs have around 4 milligrams, but low mercury models can have as little as 1 milligram. For comparison, an old mercury thermometer had 500 milligrams of mercury. Remember where people used to stick those? The folks trying to scare you away from CFLs aren't really worried about your mercury exposure.
In reality, you should avoid breaking fluorescent lights over your head like a pro wrestler. If you do accidently break one, leave the room and open a window to ventilate the area. Come back in 15 minutes or so and clean it up. And make sure you recycle! There are plenty of recycling points for CFLs and the number is growing. Use them.
Just remember that more mercury is emitted by the energy wasted from a pear shaped incandescent than is in a CFL. Doomsday projections about everyone simultaneously smashing every CFL in the world are a waste of time.
Don't. You are wasting money every day. You are wasting energy every day. Change them now.
Oh really? Well you must be superman (or woman) because modern fluorescents flicker at a speed that is impossible for us mere mortals to detect. Can I have your autograph?
CFLs flicker at 20,000 cycles per second. The most sensitive among us can detect 60 cycles per second. Big difference.
I would suggest ending the conversation if protests are made, because arguing with someone whose basic premise is their own inherent superiority is unlikely to get you anywhere.
How very unfortunate for you. Perhaps you should not buy CFLs. But why do you have to use a space heater to light your house? Why not Halogens, HIRs, LEDs, or even the coming super efficient incandescents?
There are a tremendous amount of choices when it comes to lamps, not just CFLs and incandescents. Traditional bulbs are so bad that almost anything is better. Remember, they literally are little space heaters that also happen to put out a tiny bit of light.
Why would those with a medical condition align themselves with the advocates of inefficiency, new coal power plants, and billions of dollars of waste? Come join the good guys.
Even if you don't get a rash, you don't have to buy CFLs! There are lots of more efficient options. And, now they make CFLs in a variety of color temperatures. Most folks won't even be able to tell the difference in a room if all the lights are changed at once.
The average CFL will not work with a dimmer switch but they do make CFLs that work with dimmers. And again, it's not an either-or decision! You have other options that are dimmable and more efficient.
Anything can be made poorly. One bad CFL does not mean all CFLs are bad. Look for Energy Star labeled models that have met quality standards requiring a 2 year warranty.
That heat is not going where you will feel it, so you will still reach for the thermostat. And you can add the cost of running the AC to get the waste heat out of the house in the summer. You will pay much more.
Why not use a heater that was designed for heating and a light that was designed for lighting instead of a terrible lamp that stinks at both?
Do you also enjoy kicking puppies and punching baby ducks in the face? How about children's asthma, coal slurries, and destroying mountains in Appalachia? Electricity price increases? Nuclear waste?
Your choices affect more than just your monthly power bill. Is using ancient light bulb technology really that important to you?
]]>
These savings are the reasons you should care,
Mind blowing numbers.
We issued an action alert to our online activists, asking them to weigh in last week. Maybe you haven't signed up for the alerts yet. (Why not? Do it here.) Maybe you just forgot, so this is your reminder.
You need to tell DOE what you think, because they are listening. Our new Secretary of Energy is a Nobel Prize winning physicist who understands the value of efficiency. How's this for clear,
"If I were emperor, I would put the pedal to the floor on energy efficiency and conservation."
Yea, he really said that.
So go here, and tell him you agree. Tell him this standard is too important to let the flawed conclusions of the previous administration stand.
Some folks have written in about their concerns about mercury in fluorescent bulbs. First of all, thanks for reading and thinking about these issues. You concerns are understandable, but you need not worry.
There are two standards being set in this rulemaking, one for tube shaped fluorescent lamps and one for incandescent reflector lamps. We are asking you to tell DOE to strengthen both proposals. Doing so will keep a gigantic amount of mercury from being emitted by electricity generation. I blogged about it here and this is the most important consideration if you are worried about mercury.
Tube fluorescent lamps contain mercury in vapor form, but increasing the standard will actually reduce the amount of mercury most bulbs. This is because the more efficient bulbs tend to be smaller. This means the same amount of light but less glass, less phosphors, and yes, less mercury. T12s are the older style, larger bulbs that could be phased out with this standard in favor of more efficient T8s and T5s. The number corresponds to the diameter, in 8ths of an inch (so T12 = 12/8 or 1.5 inches, T5 = 5/8ths of an inch).
So, increasing the standard will actually help reduce the amount of mercury in the average bulb. Increasing the standard won't drive folks from incandescent to fluorescent, as these sockets are not interchangeable. If you care about mercury in the air and in bulbs then you need to tell DOE is set a better standard.
Incandescent reflector lamps do not contain any mercury, but they use a lot of energy. Compact Fluorescent Reflector Lamps do exist (and they contain mercury) but they are not covered by this rulemaking. No requirement to shift to CFL will result from this rule. What will happen is the bulbs will be required to be more efficient and a loophole will hopefully be closed, thereby keeping mercury out of the air from emissions while having no impact on the amount of mercury in homes or bulbs.
Bottom line, mercury considerations are important and we should all take care to understand our policies, but for this rulemaking strengthening the standards will absolutely reduce mercury in the air and in the home.
]]>