Redistributed as a Service of the National Library for the Environment*
|
Redistributed as a Service of the National Library for the Environment* |
|
|
|
IB10020: Energy Efficiency: Budget,
Oil Conservation, Fred Sissine July 27, 2001 CONTENTS
Energy security, a major driver of federal energy efficiency programs in the past, came back into play as oil and gas prices rose late in the year 2000. Also, the electricity shortages in California have brought a new emphasis to the role that energy efficiency and energy conservation may play in dampening electricity demand. Also, worldwide emphasis on environmental problems of air and water pollution and global climate change, and the related development of clean energy technologies in western Europe and Japan may remain important influences on energy efficiency policymaking. Concern about technology competitiveness may also remain a factor in debate. In the 107th Congress, debate over energy efficiency programs appears to be taking a focus on budget, oil conservation, and electricity conservation. DOE's FY2002 budget request for the Energy Efficiency Program proposes to cut funding to $755.8 million -- a decrease of $59.6 million, or 7%, below the FY2001 level. This includes $444.8 million for R&D programs, a cut of $180.1 million, or 29%. For grant programs, the request includes $311.0 million, an increase of $120.3 million. All of this increase is for the Weatherization Program, which would grow from $152.7 million to $273.0 million, a 79% addition. The House recommends $940.8 million for Energy Efficiency, including $629.8 million for R&D and $311.0 million for grants. Compared to FY2001, this would be an increase of $4.9 million, or 1%, for R&D and $120.4 million, or 63%, for grants. Relative to the request, this includes an increase of $185 million for R&D and $24 million for State grants and a decrease of $24 million for Weatherization grants. The FY2002 EPA request for Climate Protection Energy Efficiency Programs (CPP) is $145.0 million (see Table 1). This is $1.2 million, or 1%, less than the FY2001 level. Regarding specific programs, the request includes $4.6 million, or 14%, less for Industry, but $0.8 million, or 15%, more for International Capacity Building, and $3.0 million, or 10%, more for Transportation. A recently introduced omnibus energy bill (H.R. 4, Securing America's Future Energy Act of 2001), includes many, if not most, of the recommendations from Bush Administration's National Energy Policy Development Group report. Further, it draws many of these energy efficiency and conservation provisions from H.R. 2436, H.R. 2511, and H.R. 2587, including authorizations for R&D appropriations and energy conservation grants; tax incentives for fuel cells, appliances, home improvements, energy-efficient buildings, and certain vehicles; programs for federal facilities; and increased fuel economy standards for certain light duty vehicles. A recently introduced omnibus energy bill (H.R. 4, Securing America's Future Energy Act of 2001), includes many, if not most, of the recommendations from Bush Administration's National Energy Policy Development Group report. Further, it draws many of these energy efficiency and conservation provisions from H.R. 2436, H.R. 2511, and H.R. 2587, including authorizations for R&D appropriations and energy conservation grants; tax incentives for fuel cells, appliances, home improvements, energy-efficient buildings, and certain vehicles; programs for federal facilities; and increased fuel economy standards for certain light duty vehicles. On June 21, 2001, the House recommended (H.Rept. 107-103; H.R. 2217) $940.8 million for Energy Efficiency, including $629.8 million for R&D and $311.0 million for grants. Compared to FY2001, the this would be an increase of $4.9 million, or 1%, for R&D and $120.4 million, or 63%, for grants. Relative to the request, this includes an increase of $185 million for R&D and $24 million for State grants and a decrease of $24 million for Weatherization grants. On May l4, the Administration issued its revised FY2002 budget request for DOE's Energy Efficiency Program, which proposes to cut funding to $755.8 million -- a decrease of $59.6 million, or 7%, below the FY2001 level. This includes $444.8 million for R&D programs, a cut of $180.1 million, or 29%. It also includes $311.0 million for grant programs, an increase of $120.3 million, all for the Weatherization Program. The FY2002 EPA request for Climate Protection Energy Efficiency Programs (CPP) is $145.0 million (see Table 1). This is $1.2 million, or 1%, less than the FY2001 level. Regarding specific programs, the request includes $4.6 million, or 14%, less for Industry, but $0.8 million, or 15% more for International Capacity Building, and $3.0 million, or 10% more for Transportation. (The DOE FY2002 Budget Request is available on the DOE web site http://www.cfo.doe.gov/budget/02budget/enercons/ec1.pdf; The EPA FY2002 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification is available on the EPA web site http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/budget/2002/g06final.pdf.) Energy efficiency is increased when an energy conversion device, such as a household appliance, automobile engine, or steam turbine, undergoes a technical change that enables it to provide the same service (lighting, heating, motor drive) while using less energy. The energy-saving result of the efficiency improvement is often called "energy conservation." The energy efficiency of buildings can be improved through the use of certain materials such as attic insulation, components such as insulated windows, and design aspects such as solar orientation and shade tree landscaping. Further, the energy efficiency of communities and cities can be improved through architectural design, transportation system design, and land use planning. Thus, energy efficiency involves all aspects of energy production, distribution, and end-use. These ideas of "efficiency" and "conservation" contrast with energy curtailment, which involves a decrease in output (e.g., turning down the thermostat) or services (e.g., driving less) to curb energy use. That is, energy curtailment occurs when saving energy causes a reduction in services or sacrifice of comfort. Curtailment is often employed as an emergency measure. Energy efficiency is often viewed as a resource option like coal, oil or natural gas. In contrast to supply options, however, energy efficiency puts a downward pressure on energy prices by curbing demand instead of increasing supply. This means that energy efficiency provides additional economic value by preserving the resource base and reducing pollution. From 1974 through 1992, Congress established several complementary programs, primarily at the Department of Energy (DOE), to implement energy saving measures in virtually every sector of societal activity. These energy efficiency and energy conservation programs were created originally in response to national oil import security and economic stability concerns. In the early 1980s, states and utilities took an active role in promoting energy efficiency as a cost-saving "demand-side management" tool for avoiding expensive powerplant construction. Since 1988, national interest in energy efficiency has focused increasingly on energy efficiency as a tool for mitigating environmental problems such as air pollution and global climate change. This aspect spawned new programs at DOE and at several other agencies including the EPA, the Agency for International Development (AID), and the World Bank's Global Environment Facility (GEF). Energy efficiency is increasingly viewed as a critical element of sustainable development and economic growth. The DOE energy efficiency program includes R&D funding,
grants to state and local governments, and a regulatory framework of appliance efficiency
standards and voluntary guidelines for energy-efficient design in buildings. In addition,
its budget supports regulatory programs for energy efficiency goals in federal agencies
and standards for consumer products. (Detailed descriptions of DOE programs appear in
DOE's FY2001 Congressional Budget Request, DOE/CR-0068-5, v. 5, February 2000;
which appears at From FY1973 through FY1998, DOE spent about $8.0 billion in 1999 constant dollars for energy efficiency R&D, which amounts to about 10% of the total federal spending for energy supply R&D during that period. In 1999 constant dollars, energy efficiency R&D funding declined from $745 million in FY1979 to $213 million in FY1988 and then climbed to $521 million in FY1994. For FY1999, $526 million was appropriated, which is $5 million, or 1%, above the FY1994 mark in 1999 constant (real) dollars. Also, in 1999 constant dollars, since FY1973, DOE has spent about $7.4 billion on grants for state and local conservation programs. This spending history can be viewed within the context of DOE spending for the three major energy supply R&D programs: nuclear, fossil, and renewable energy R&D. From FY1948 through FY1972, in 1999 constant dollars, the federal government spent about $22.4 billion for nuclear (fission and fusion) energy R&D and about $5.1 billion for fossil energy R&D. From FY1973 through FY1998, the federal government spent $43.2 billion for nuclear (fission and fusion), $21.1 billion for fossil, $11.7 billion for renewables, and $8.0 billion for energy efficiency. Total energy R&D spending from FY1948-FY1998, in 1999 constant dollars, reached $111.5 billion, including $66 billion, or 59%, for nuclear, $26 billion, or 23%, for fossil, $12 billion, or 11%, for renewables, and $8 billion, or 7%, for energy efficiency. Since 1985, national energy use has climbed about 20 Q (quads -- quadrillion Btus, British thermal units), reaching a record high of 94 Q in 1998. DOE's 1995 report Energy Conservation Trends finds that energy efficiency and conservation activities from 1973 through 1991 curbed the pre-1973 growth trend in primary energy use by about 18 Q, an 18% reduction. In 1992, this was saving the economy about $150 billion annually in total U.S. energy expenditures, a one-fourth reduction from the previous trend. Further, assuming fossil and other fuels were displaced in proportion to their actual use in 1992, then energy efficiency and conservation were providing about 300 million metric tons of carbon (MMTC) emission reductions that year. DOE's Strategic and Performance Goals The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA, P.L. 103-62) requires each federal agency to produce and update a strategic plan linked to annual performance plans. DOE's active Strategic Plan was issued in 1997. On February 18, 2000, DOE issued a new Draft Strategic Plan http://www.cfo.doe.gov/stratmgt/plan/doesplan.htm. Energy efficiency objectives and strategies appear under strategic goal #1, "Energy Resources." In the DOE Annual Performance Plan for FY2001, http://www.cfo.doe.gov/budget/01budget/AnPerfPl/app-final.pdf strategic objective ER2 aims to "Promote reliable, affordable electricity supplies that are generated with acceptable environmental impacts." Goals for 2010 are: (1) for electricity, increase distributed power to 20% of new annual capacity additions, (2) for buildings, reduce annual energy use by 2 Q, (3) for federal buildings, increase energy efficiency by 35% relative to 1985, (4) for industry, reduce energy intensity to 25% below its 1990 level by 2010, and (5) for transportation, increase the fuel efficiency of new light vehicles by 5.4 mpg by 2010 and have 10 million vehicles on the road with light weight materials. Also, in April 2000, the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) released its draft strategic plan, Clean Energy for the 21st Century. It reasserts the five goals noted above and offers others for 2010, including (1) double the amount of combined heat and power, and (2) achieve $3 billion in annual export sales of energy efficiency technologies. Related goals for 2001 include: (1) weatherize 75,000 homes, (2) recruit 500 new Energy Star partners, (3) achieve a 22% improvement in federal buildings energy efficiency relative to 1985, (4) conduct 750 industrial energy waste and productivity assessments, and (5) complete test of a fuel-flexible 50-kw fuel cell system for vehicles. Further, in early 2000, the National Academy of Public Administration issued A Review of Management in the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy http://www.napawash.org. In House floor action, language that would have required a 25% state cost-share for Weatherization grants was ruled out of order. Also, the Sanders' and Stearns' amendments to increase funding for Weatherization and State grants were defeated. Subsequently, the House recommended $940.8 million for Energy Efficiency, including $629.8 million for R&D and $311.0 million for grants. Compared to FY2001, the House seeks an increase of $4.9 million, or 1%, for R&D and $120.4 million, or 63%, for grants. Under the Buildings Office there is a cut of $1.9 million for Research & Standards and increases of $96.3 million for Weatherization grants and $24.1 million for State grants. Also, there is a cut of $2.4 million for FEMP. Industry programs would decline by $1.7 million. Under its "crosscutting" programs, there are proposed cuts of $5.1 million for Financial Assistance and $2.0 million for Technical/Program Management Support. Also, under the "specific" programs, there is a cut of $2.8 million for the Aluminum Vision program. Offsetting increases include $5.3 million for Enabling Technologies and $2.2 million for Chemicals Vision program. The Office of Power Technologies is proposed to receive a $16.5 million increase, including $12.0 million for Distributed Generation Technology Development and $4.0 million for End-Use Systems. Under the Transportation Office, there are cuts of $7.5 million for Advanced Combustion Engines, $3.2 million for Hybrid Vehicles R&D, $1.9 million for Electric Vehicles R&D, $1.9 million for Materials Technologies, and $1.9 million for Technology Deployment/Clean Cities. Offsetting increases include $8.5 million for Heavy Vehicles R&D and $2.4 million for Fuels Utilization R&D. The FY2002 budget request document states that, "the Administration's energy efficiency programs produce substantial benefits for the Nation - both now and in the future - in terms of economic growth, increased national security and a cleaner environment through the research and development of energy efficiency and pollution prevention technologies .... These programs are a major component of the Administration's climate change response .... " (Budget Appendix, p. 410). Further, the Administration's FY2002 budget request for Energy Conservation programs at the Department of Energy (DOE) states, " .... The Department's FY2002 request maintains core energy efficiency related research and development (R&D) capabilities until ongoing operations can be evaluated against the outcome and priorities that will flow from the Vice President's National Energy Policy Development Group. The request will finish promising R&D projects where investment installments are nearly complete, maximize cost-sharing opportunities, and industry participation, while supporting the Administration's overall deficit reduction and tax relief objectives." (DOE Budget Highlights, p. 106) The Administration's FY2002 request for DOE's Energy Efficiency Program proposes to cut funding to $795.0 million -- a decrease of $20.5 million, or 3%, below the FY2001 level. This includes $484.0 million for R&D programs, a cut of $140.9 million, or 23%. The R&D cut includes $48.4 million less for Buildings Research and Standards programs, $12.4 million less for Federal Energy Management Programs (FEMP), $60.9 million less for Industry Programs, $16.0 million less for Transportation Programs, and $3.2 million less for Policy and Management. However, the Administration indicates that a forthcoming budget amendment will further decrease R&D funding by $39.2 million. More specifically, transportation funding will be reduced, offset by increases in Buildings Research and Standards (Equipment), Policy & Management, and the Energy Supply Account. For grant programs, the request includes $311.0 million, an increase of $120.3 million. All of this increase for the Weatherization Program, which would grow from $152.7 million to $273.0 million, a 79% addition. For the Buildings Office, there are proposed cuts of $21 million for Equipment, $9.6 million for Community Partnerships, $6.7 million for Residential and Commercial Buildings, and $6.0 million for Technology Roadmaps. However, as noted above, the forthcoming budget amendment may increase the amount requested for the Equipment Program. Under the Industry Office, there is a proposed cut of $29.8 million for Industries of the Future (Cross-Cutting). This includes decreases of $15.7 million for Enabling Technologies, $7.0 million for Technical Assistance, and $5.0 million for Financial Assistance. There is also a proposed cut of $26.0 million for Industries of the Future (Specific). This includes decreases of $6.3 million for the Aluminum Industry, $4.8 million for the Chemicals Industry, $4.0 million for the Steel Industry, and $2.8 million to eliminate the Petroleum Industry Program. Cooperative Programs with States and the Energy Efficiency Science Initiative would be eliminated. Also, the distributed generation that was under the Industry Office has been reorganized into a new Office of Power Technologies, for which the request seeks the same funding as in FY2001. For the Transportation Office, there are proposed cuts of $5.5 million for Vehicle Technology R&D and $4.8 million for Technology Deployment. Also, Cooperative Programs with States and the Energy Efficiency Science Initiative would be eliminated. Further, the forthcoming budget amendment is expected to cut an additional $39.2 million or more from the Transportation Office. For FY2001, P.L. 106-291 appropriated $815.4 million for DOE's Energy Efficiency Program. For further information on the Energy Conservation Budget, see the Web site at http://www.cfo.doe.gov/budget/02budget/index.htm. For further information on Energy Conservation Programs, see the Web site at http://www.eren.doe.gov/. The FY2002 EPA request for Climate Protection Energy Efficiency Programs (CPP) is $145.0 million. (See Table 1.) This is $1.2 million, or 1% less than the FY2001 level. Regarding specific programs, the request includes $4.6 million, or 14% less for Industry, but $0.8 million, or 15% more for International Capacity Building, and $3.0 million, or 10% more for Transportation. EPA conducts its CPP programs under the Office of Environmental Programs and Management (EPM) and the Office of Science and Technology (S&T). EPA's CPP programs are focused primarily on deploying energy-efficient technologies. These programs include Green Lights, Energy Star Buildings, Energy Star Products, Climate Wise, and Transportation Partners. They involve public-private partnerships that promote energy-efficient lighting, buildings, and office equipment. Efforts also include information dissemination and other activities to overcome market barriers. The FY2001 conference report (H.Rept. 106-988) noted that none of the funds appropriated shall be used to issue rules, regulations, or other orders to implement the Kyoto Protocol. However, it noted further that this restriction shall not apply to the "conduct of education activities and seminars" nor to climate change-related activities that contribute to national energy security, energy efficiency, cost savings, environmental assessments, and general emission improvements. Table 1. EPA Funding for Climate
Protection Energy Efficiency Programs
Source: EPA FY2002 Congressional Justification, p. VI-25 to VI-26. During the 106th Congress, on March 9, 2000, the House Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Energy and Power held a hearing on Price Fluctuations in Oil Markets. Dr. John Cook of EIA testified that during the past year, crude oil prices rose from $12 per barrel to $34 per barrel, but noted that the historic high in 1981 reached $70 per barrel. Also, he noted that net oil imports supplied about 52% of U.S. oil use in 1998. Mr. Mark Mazur of DOE testified that the Clinton Administration relied primarily on market forces to manage long-term energy prices, but noted several program and policy actions DOE has taken in response to the recent increase in oil prices - including requests for increased funding for the Weatherization Grants Program. Further, he noted that DOE has several R&D programs that aim to cut long-term oil use, such as the Partnership for a new Generation of Vehicles (PNGV), recent initiatives to increase the fuel economy of light trucks and heavy trucks, and tax credits for hybrid electric vehicles. The U.S. consumes about 17.2 million barrels of oil per day (mb/d), of which about 11.5 mb/d is used for transportation and about 3.8 mb/d is used in cars and 2.5 mb/d is used in light trucks. Corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standard sets an efficiency requirement for new cars at 27.5 miles per gallon (mpg). (For more on CAFE standards, see CRS Issue Brief IB90122, Automobile and Light Truck Fuel Economy: Is CAFE up to Standards? ) However, the national fleet fuel economy for cars has been very flat, moving only from 21.2 mpg in 1991 to 21.4 mpg in 1998. Short-term conservation measures that could reduce oil use in transportation include increased use of public transit, carpooling and ridesharing, and telecommuting. Long-term efficiency measures that could reduce transportation oil use include the PNGV program to develop an 80 mpg car and a variety of other DOE vehicle R&D programs. In a 1996 report, Energy Security: Evaluating U.S. Vulnerability to Oil Supply Disruptions and Options for Mitigating Their Effects, the General Accounting Office (GAO) cites DOE estimates that a variety of transportation and industry R&D programs could reduce oil use by 2.1 mb/d by 2010. According to the March 14 Washington Post, President Bush has abandoned a campaign pledge and has decided not to seek reductions in the carbon dioxide emissions of the nation's power plants. The article reports that the President said he is concerned that the action could increase already heightened energy prices. After the FY2001 appropriations were enacted, DOE released Scenarios for a Clean Energy Future, a study that shows the potential for advanced energy efficiency and other measures to reduce U.S. carbon emissions to the 1990 level by 2010. At COP-6 in late November 2000, the United States was accused of trying to avoid making real efforts - for example, through greatly increased energy efficiency efforts - to reduce emissions in order to address the Kyoto Protocol. Just days before COP-6, DOE released "Scenarios for a Clean Energy Future," a study that shows the potential for advanced energy efficiency and other measures to reduce U.S. carbon emissions to the 1990 level by 2010. At the 1998 Fourth Conference of Parties (COP-4) in Buenos Aires, the Clinton Administration signed the United Nations' Kyoto Protocol on climate change. It calls upon the United States to cut greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 7% below the 1990 level during the period from 2008 to 2012. DOE's 1995 report, Energy Conservation Trends, shows that energy efficiency due to both high energy prices and federal programs has reduced long-term rates of fossil energy use and thereby curbed emissions of CO2 significantly. Based on this finding, the Clinton Administration repeatedly sought increased funding for energy efficiency as a strategy to further reduce emissions and help combat climate change. Assuming no major future policy actions, the Business-As-Usual scenario in the EIA's Annual Energy Outlook 2000 projected a large growth in CO2 emissions by 2010. Because CO2 contributes the largest share of greenhouse gas emission impact, it has been the focus of studies of the potential for reducing emissions through energy efficiency and other means. A DOE report by five national laboratories entitled Scenarios of U.S. Carbon Reductions: Potential Impacts of Energy Technologies by 2010 and Beyond, also known as the Five-Lab Study, projected that emissions would reach 1,730 MMTC in 2010 -- an increase of about 384 MMTC, or 29%. The Five-Lab Study anticipated that energy efficiency would be the single largest contributor, accounting for 50% to 90% of the projected emissions reduction in 2010. However, in a 1998 report, Impacts of the Kyoto Protocol on U.S. Energy Markets and Economic Activity, EIA found problems with several key assumptions in the Five-Lab Study about the use of new energy-efficient technologies to reduce emissions. (For more details about the potential for energy efficiency to reduce CO2 emissions, see CRS Report RL30414, Global Climate Change: The Role for Energy Efficiency.) Electric Industry Restructuring Bills intended to ensure a continuing role for energy efficiency were introduced in the 106th Congress that included a public benefits fund (PBF), incentives for home energy efficiency, and/or an information disclosure requirement that identifies the sources of power for consumers. Some states and electric utility companies have already instituted such measures. Debate was focused on whether there should be a federal role in restructuring generally and in creating incentives for energy efficiency specifically. The Clinton Administration's bill, "Comprehensive Electricity Competition Act," introduced by request as S. 1047 and H.R. 1828, included a public benefits fund that supports energy efficiency and other elements of the policies mentioned above. Also, H.R. 2050 and S. 1369 set some provisions for energy efficiency support. In recent years, state restructuring actions have reduced both state and utility support for energy efficiency programs. Under traditional regulation, electric company profit incentives link directly to increasing sales volume rather than lowering customer bills, which worked against energy efficiency improvements that shrink demand. Nevertheless, in response to rising powerplant construction costs and environmental concerns, many states and electric utility companies created demand-side management (DSM) programs during the 1980s to promote energy efficiency and other activities as a less costly alternative to new supply. DSM became a significant part of the nation's energy efficiency effort. DOE data show DSM energy savings peaked in 1996 at 61 billion kilowatt-hours, which is about 0.66 Q, or the equivalent of the output from 12 one-gigawatt powerplants. Utility DSM spending peaked in 1994 at $2.7 billion, about 1% of total electric utility operating expenses. However, after California issued its first proposal for electric industry restructuring in 1994, utilities began downsizing DSM efforts. By 1998, DSM spending fell to about $1.4 billion, a 48% (or 51% real) drop from the 1994 level. There are concerns that a federal initiative to restructure the industry could cause DSM efforts to decline further, because DSM will no longer earn a rate of return in a market-based industry. Some note that the most appropriate way to promote energy efficiency is to build the environmental costs of energy supply sources into their power costs. This approach was debated in the early 1990s, but never implemented comprehensively. With restructuring now underway, the environmental cost dimension were redirected toward the creation of public benefit funds to support energy efficiency, renewable energy, and other broad purposes. At least 24 states have implemented some form of electric industry restructuring. Some of these states, such as California, include provisions for energy efficiency and conservation. California's law (A.B. 1890, Article 7) places a charge on all electricity bills from 1998 through 2001 that would provide $872 million for "cost effective" energy efficiency and conservation programs. Other states, such as Pennsylvania, have few if any provisions for energy efficiency. Some representatives of states with restructuring policy in place prefer that their policy remain undisturbed and hoped that 106th Congress would not set any federal policy requirements. Environmental groups and some energy producers raised concerns that federal efforts to restructure the electric industry could lead to reduced use of "clean" energy resources and increased pollution. They cited the recent drop in utility spending for energy efficiency and demand-side management in anticipation of state-based retail competition and other restructuring policies. This is noted in Federal Research: Changes in Electricity-Related R&D Funding, where GAO reported that spending on energy efficiency R&D by states and utilities had dropped rapidly. Second, they also observed that the environmental costs of pollution from supply sources are not included in the price of electric power. In contrast to the environmentalists' view, a report by the Heritage Foundation, Energizing America: A Blueprint for Deregulating the Electricity Market, suggested that restructuring the industry by itself would help the environment because "deregulation forces power companies to meet higher standards of efficiency and cleanliness to ensure that local communities are provided the power they want without increased pollution." Further, some were opposed to utility bill charges to create a "public benefit" fund that supports a broad variety of purposes, which often include energy efficiency. They argued that such charges are taxes in disguise or that more market-oriented solutions should be pursued. EPA's March 1997 position paper contended that "the new market must support and recognize the economic and environmental benefits of energy efficiency and demand side management." EPA also called for the use of emission caps to "internalize the cost of pollution" from the electric sector. This provision, it said, would address both air pollution and carbon dioxide emissions. Some in 106th Congress believed that state policy actions would create such an uneven regulatory patchwork or other inequities that a federal policy role was justified. (For a discussion of broader electricity restructuring issues, see CRS Electronic Briefing Book on Electricity Restructuring and CRS Issue Brief IB10006, Electricity: The Road Toward Restructuring.) H.R. 381 (Stearns)
H.R. 416 (Andrews)
H.R. 683 (Markey)
H.R. 778 (Cunningham)
H.R. 1129 (Udall)
H.R. 1275 (Johnson)/S. 828 (Lieberman)
H.R. 1479 (Knollenberg)
H.R. 1647 (Barton)
H.R. 1830 (Larson)
H.R. 2217 (Skeen)
H.R. 2460 (Boehlert)
H.R. 2511 (McCrery)
H.R. 2587 (Tauzin)
S.Res. 26 (Kerry)
S. 72 (Bingaman) S. 95 (Kohl) S. 196 (Boxer) S. 207 (Smith) S. 293 (Harkin) S. 352 (Bingaman) S. 388/S. 389 (Murkowski)
S. 420 (Grassley) S. 556 (Jeffords) S. 596 (Bingaman) S. 597 (Bingaman) S. 671 (Schumer) S. 968 (Clinton) CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS, REPORTS, AND DOCUMENTS U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Energy and Commerce. Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality. National Energy Policy: Conservation and Energy Efficiency. Hearing held June 22, 2001. U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Science. The Nation's Energy Future: Role of Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency. Hearing held February 28, 2001. American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy. Proceedings from the ACEEE 2000 Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings. Washington, August 2000. (10 v.) ---- Green Guide to Cars and Trucks: Model Year 2001. 2000. 113 p. Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). Selling Customers on Energy Efficiency. EPRI Journal, v. 23, November/December 1998. p. 8-17. General Accounting Office (GAO). Cooperative Research: Results of U.S. - Industry Partnership to Develop a New Generation of Vehicles. (GAO/RCED -00-81) March 2000. 50 p. International Energy Program Evaluation Conference. Evaluation in Transition: Working in a Competitive Energy Industry Environment. Ninth International Conference. Evanston, IL, August 1999. 968 p. U.S. Department of Energy. Interlaboratory Working Group. Scenarios
for a Clean Energy Future. (ORNL/CON-476) November 2000. 350 p. ------- Scenarios of U.S. Carbon Reductions: Potential Impacts of Energy-efficiency and Low-carbon Technologies by 2010 and Beyond. ["Five-Lab Study"] September 1997. ---- Energy Information Administration. Measuring Energy Efficiency in the United States' Economy: A Beginning. (DOE/EIA-0555[95]/2) October 1995. 91 p. http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/efficiency/contents.html ---- U.S. Electric Utility Demand-side Management 1996.
(DOE/EIA-0589[96]) December 1997. 102 p. More recent data for 1997 and 1998 available at U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Energy Star and Related Programs 1997 Annual Report. March 1998. (430-R-98-002) 37 p. U.S. Executive Office of the President. President's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology. Powerful Partnerships: The Federal Role in International Cooperation on Energy Innovation. June 1999. CRS Reports CRS Report RL30414. Global Climate Change: The Role for Energy Efficiency, by Fred Sissine. CRS Report 96-191. The Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV), by Fred Sissine. Web Sites American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE). Extensive listing of web sites on energy efficiency. http://www.aceee.org/ CRS electronic briefing book on Electricity Restructuring. http://www.congress.gov/brbk/html/ebele1.html CRS electronic briefing book on Global Climate Change. http://www.congress.gov/brbk/html/ebgcc1.html National Association of State Energy Offices. http://www.naseo.org/ U.S. Council for Automotive Research (USCAR). Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles. http://www.uscar.org/pngv/index.htm U.S. Department of Energy. Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy Network. U.S. Department of Energy. FY2001 Congressional Budget
Request. U.S. Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory. Center for Building
Science. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. FY2001 Budget Justification (Goal 6, Climate Change, p. VI-19). http://www.epa.gov/ocfopage/budget/2001/2001bib.pdf U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Energy Star Programs.
Table 4. DOE Energy Efficiency Budget for
FY2000-FY2002
Sources: H.Rept. 107-103; DOE FY2002 Cong. Bud. Request, April 2001. Return to CONTENTS section of this Issue Brief. |
CRS Reports Home
|
|||
|
|||
 |
National Council for Science and the Environment 1725 K Street, Suite 212 - Washington, DC 20006 202-530-5810 - info@NCSEonline.org |
 |
|