Order Code IB10020
CRS Issue Brief for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Energy Efficiency:
Budget, Oil Conservation, and
Electricity Conservation Issues
Updated August 22, 2005
Fred Sissine
Resources, Science, and Industry
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

CONTENTS
SUMMARY
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
Energy Efficiency Concept
History
DOE’s Strategic and Performance Goals
Energy Efficiency in the 109th Congress
Efficiency Standards for Consumer and Commercial Products
Efficiency Goals for Federal Buildings
Tax Incentives for Efficiency and Conservation
Energy Efficiency Tax Revenue Effect
Housing, Funding Authorizations, and Other Provisions
DOE Budget, FY2006
EPA Budget, FY2006
Energy Security
Electricity Demand-Side Management (DSM) and Distributed Power
Energy Conservation to Curb Natural Gas Demand
Vehicle Fuel Efficiency and Oil Conservation
Climate Change: Energy Efficiency’s Role
Electric Industry Restructuring and Conservation
LEGISLATION
CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS, REPORTS, AND DOCUMENTS
FOR ADDITIONAL READING

---

IB10020
08-22-05
Energy Efficiency: Budget, Oil Conservation,
and Electricity Conservation Issues
SUMMARY
Energy security, a major driver of federal
programs.
energy efficiency programs in the past, came
back into play as oil and gas prices rose late in
Compared with the House-passed bill,
the year 2000. The terrorist attack in 2001
the Senate-passed version of H.R 2419 has
and the Iraq war have led to heightened con-
increases of $32 million for Vehicles and $5
cern for energy security and raised further
million for Weatherization, and it has de-
concerns about the vulnerability of energy
creases of $15 million for Program Direction,
infrastructure and the need for alternative
and $2.4 million for Industrial Technologies.
fuels. Further, the 2001 power shortages in
California, the 2003 northeast-midwest power
Also, the Senate version of H.R. 3057
blackout, and continuing high natural gas and
has $180 million for energy efficiency and
oil prices have brought a renewed emphasis on
clean/renewable energy in developing coun-
energy efficiency and energy conservation to
tries, H.R. 2862 has telecommuting provisions
dampen electricity, oil, and natural gas de-
for federal agencies, and P.L. 109-54 (H.R.
mand.
2361) has $112.5 million for EPA energy
efficiency Climate Protection Programs.
Also, worldwide emphasis on environ-
mental problems of air and water pollution
As enacted, H.R. 6 authorizes or
and global climate change, the related devel-
reauthorizes several energy efficiency and
opment of clean energy technologies in west-
conservation programs. It also establishes
ern Europe and Japan, and technology com-
several new commercial and consumer prod-
petitiveness may remain important influences
uct efficiency standards, sets new goals for
on energy efficiency policymaking.
energy efficiency in federal facilities and
fleets, broadens the Energy Star products
The Bush Administration’s FY2006
program, expands programs for hydrogen fuel
budget request for the Department of Energy’s
cell buses, and extends daylight savings.
(DOE’s) Energy Efficiency Program seeks
However, it does not include Senate-proposed
$846.8 million, $21.4 million less than
provisions for oil conservation and a broader
FY2005. This includes $575.8 million for
range of legislated equipment efficiency
R&D and $271.0 million for grants.
standards.
The House passed H.R. 2419, the Energy
As enacted, H.R. 3 contains several
and Water (E&W) appropriations bill for
provisions for energy conservation and fuel
FY2006, which funds DOE’s Energy Effi-
savings including sections 1121, 1307, 1807,
ciency (Conservation) and Renewable Energy
1808, 1952, 1954, 3005, 3016, 3045, 4149,
programs. A new account structure does not
5301, 5502, 6001, and 9002.
provide a total figure for energy efficiency
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

IB10020
08-22-05
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
On August 8, 2005, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (H.R. 6, H.Rept. 109-190) was
enacted. It authorizes or reauthorizes several energy efficiency and conservation programs.
It also establishes several new commercial and consumer product efficiency standards, sets
new goals for energy efficiency in federal facilities and fleets, broadens the Energy Star
products program, expands programs for hydrogen fuel cell buses, and extends daylight
savings. However, it does not include Senate-proposed provisions for oil conservation and
a broader range of legislated equipment efficiency standards. (Key provisions of H.R. 6 are
described in CRS Issue Brief IB10143, Energy Policy: Comprehensive Energy Legislation
(H.R. 6) in the 109th Congress; the energy efficiency and conservation provisions in H.R.
6 and other bills of the 109th Congress are discussed in “Energy Efficiency in the 109th
Congress,” below.)
On July 1, the Senate passed the FY2006 Energy and Water Appropriations bill (H.R.
2419), which funds DOE’s Energy Efficiency (Conservation) and Renewable Energy
programs. Compared with the House-passed bill, the Senate version of H.R 2419 has
increases of $32 million for Vehicle Technologies and $5 million for Weatherization, and
it has decreases of $15 million for Program Direction, and $2.4 million for Industrial
Technologies. (For more details, see “DOE Budget, FY2006,” and Table 3.) The FY2006
enacted appropriation (P.L. 109-54, H.R. 2361) for EPA’s Climate Protection (Energy
Efficiency) Programs is $112.5 million, which is $2.6 million higher than the FY2005 level.
(For more details, see “EPA Budget, FY2006,” and Table 2.) Also, the Senate version of
H.R. 3057 has $180 million for energy efficiency and renewable/clean energy in developing
countries and H.R. 2862 has telecommuting provisions for federal agencies.
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
Energy Efficiency Concept
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 “curtailment,” which
decreases 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.
CRS-1

---

IB10020
08-22-05
Energy efficiency is often viewed as a resource option like coal, oil, or natural gas. In
contrast to supply options, however, the downward pressure on energy prices created by
energy efficiency comes from demand reductions instead of increased supply. As a result,
energy efficiency can reduce resource use and environmental impacts. (See CRS Report
RL31188, Energy Efficiency and the Rebound Effect.)
History
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 Environmental Protection Agency (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 FY2006
Congressional Budget Request, DOE/ME-0052, vol. 7, February 2005, available at
[http://www.cfo.doe.gov/budget/06budget/Start.htm].)
From FY1973 through FY2002, DOE spent about $11.7 billion in 2003 constant dollars
for energy efficiency R&D, which amounts to about 9% of the total federal spending for
energy supply R&D during that period. In 2003 constant (real) dollars, energy efficiency
R&D funding declined from $795 million in FY1979 to $227 million in FY1988 and then
climbed to $556 million in FY1994. For FY2003, $612 million was appropriated, which was
$56 million, or 9%, above the FY1994 mark in 2003 constant dollars. Also, in 2003 constant
dollars, since FY1973, DOE has spent about $7.7 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 2003 constant dollars, the federal government spent about $24.3
billion for nuclear (fission and fusion) R&D and about $5.5 billion for fossil energy R&D.
From FY1973 through FY2003, the federal government spent $49.1 billion for nuclear
(fission and fusion), $24.8 billion for fossil, $14.6 billion for renewables, and $11.7 billion
for energy efficiency. Total energy R&D spending from FY1948 to FY1998, in 2003
constant dollars, reached $131.2 billion, including $74.0 billion, or 56%, for nuclear, $30.9
billion, or 24%, for fossil, $14.6 billion, or 11%, for renewables, and $11.7 billion, or 9%,
for energy efficiency.
CRS-2

---

IB10020
08-22-05
DOE’s FY2004 energy efficiency R&D funding totaled $559.7 million, or about 24%
of DOE’s energy R&D appropriation. Renewable energy R&D received $439.4 million
(19%), fossil energy received $672.8 million (29%), and fission and fusion were appropriated
$667.4 million (29%).
Since 1985, national energy use has climbed about 20 Q (quads — quadrillion Btus,
British thermal units), reaching a record high of 99 Q in 2000. DOE’s 1995 report Energy
Conservation Trends found that energy efficiency and conservation activities from 1973
through 1991 curbed the pre-1973 growth trend in annual 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.
DOE’s Strategic and Performance Goals
In 2004, a National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) study found dramatic
improvement in the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) after a
major reorganization that included new offices for FreedomCAR and Vehicle Technologies
and for Hydrogen, Fuel Cells, and Infrastructure. Information about the new management
structure and other aspects of EERE are available on the DOE website at [http://www.
eere.energy.gov/office_eere/]. The study is available on the NAPA website at [http://www.
napawash.org/Pubs/EERE%20NAPA%20Rpt%20Sept%2004.htm].
A National Research Council report, Energy Research at DOE: Was it Worth It?, found
that from 1978 to 2000 an investment of about $8 billion in DOE’s Energy Efficiency
Programs produced an economic return of at least $30 billion. Areas found short of expected
benefits lacked incentives needed for private-sector adoption.
A 2004 Resources for the Future (RFF) report, The Effectiveness and Cost of Energy
Efficiency Programs, reviews a broad range of studies about DOE and EPA programs. The
report estimates that a selected range of non-transportation programs saves four Q of energy
per year and estimates carbon and air pollution emission savings. The full report is available
on the RFF website at [http://www.rff.org/Documents/RFF-DP-04-19REV.pdf].
The President’s Management Agenda set out the Bush Administration’s framework for
performance management based on human capital, competitive sourcing, financial
performance, electronic government, and integration of budget with performance. 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.
In DOE’s Strategic Plan of September 2000, energy efficiency objectives and strategies
appear under strategic goal #1, “Energy Resources.” In the DOE Annual Performance Plan
(APP) for FY2004, energy efficiency is addressed under the revised strategic goal #2,
“Energy Conservation and the Environment,” which states: “Energy use and greenhouse gas
emissions versus the gross domestic product (GDP) are reduced by 40% by 2025 compared
to 2000 and the growth versus the U.S. population stops by 2025.” In support of Goal 2, the
APP lists five strategic performance goals. ER1-1 says that relative to the 1985 baseline,
DOE’s Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) will support federal agency efforts to
reduce energy intensity by 30% in 2005 and 35% by 2010. ER 1-2 says that from 1991 to
2010, the Industries Program will reduce energy intensity by 20-25%. ER 1-3 says the
CRS-3

---

IB10020
08-22-05
FreedomCAR and Vehicle Technologies Program will achieve several specific vehicle
technical and cost goals through 2010. ER 1-4 says that the Buildings Program will achieve
several specific goals to improve building efficiency through 2009. ER 3-1 puts forth
specific output goals through 2010 for weatherization grants, state grants, Rebuild America,
Energy Star, Clean Cities, and for other programs.
Energy Efficiency in the 109th Congress
Efficiency Standards for Consumer and Commercial Products
DOE currently sets minimum energy efficiency standards for several consumer and
commercial products, including household appliances such as clothes washers and
refrigerators. As enacted, H.R. 6 (§135 and §136) sets a variety of energy efficiency
standards for consumer appliances and commercial equipment. As the table below shows,
most of the standards are set by law, but some are at the discretion of a DOE rulemaking.
The American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) estimates that these new
standards will save more energy than any other efficiency provisions in the bill. Further,
§141 requires that DOE report regularly to Congress when efficiency standard rulemakings
are behind schedule, including steps being taken to get back on schedule. The table below
indicates which standards would be set by law and which would be set by DOE rulemaking.
Standard set:
H.R. 6 (Conference)
By law (16 products)
exit signs, traffic signals, building transformers, torchiere
lighting fixtures, compact fluorescent lamps, commercial unit
heaters, residential dehumidifiers, commercial refrigerators
and freezers, large commercial air conditioners, commercial
ice makers, commercial clothes washers, pedestrian crossing
signals, mercury vapor lamp ballasts, fluorescent lamp ballasts,
pre-rinse spray valves (used in restaurants), and residential
ceiling fan light kits.
By rule (3 products)
external power supplies, battery chargers, refrigerated
beverage vending machines
Efficiency Goals for Federal Buildings
The purpose of federal efficiency goals is to lead by example in saving energy, reducing
costs, and helping transform markets for new equipment. The past goal had called for a 20%
reduction in federal buildings’ energy use, measured in energy use per square foot (sf), from
1985 to 2000. This goal was exceeded, slightly. As enacted, H.R. 6 (§102) sets a goal for
further energy efficiency in federal facilities. Compared to the baseline year energy use in
2003, the goal is a 20% energy reduction over a 10-year period from 2006 to 2015. Also,
DOE is required to review results by the end of the 10-year period and recommend further
goals for an additional decade. Most of the other provisions for federal programs are
administrative measures that would help agencies achieve the above-described goal.
The historical record shows that congressional buildings have had less focus on energy
efficiency goals than those in the executive branch. To address this, H.R. 6 (§101) calls for
the implementation of a plan for congressional buildings to meet the energy efficiency goal
CRS-4

---

IB10020
08-22-05
for federal agencies noted above. It also calls for a study of the potential for energy
efficiency and renewables to increase reliability during a power outage.
Tax Incentives for Efficiency and Conservation
Since the late 1970s, there have been some tax incentives to promote fuel switching and
alternative fuels as a way to conserve gasoline and reduce oil import dependence. In
contrast, tax incentives for energy efficiency and for electricity conservation have been rare
and generally short-lived. As enacted, H.R. 6 includes new tax credits for energy efficiency.
In commercial property, new home construction, existing home improvements, appliances,
residential fuel cells, and business fuel cells.
Energy Efficiency Tax Revenue Effect. Table 1, below, compares the estimated
10-year revenue effect of energy efficiency and conservation tax provisions in the House,
Senate, and Conference versions of H.R. 6.
Table 1. H.R. 6, Tax Revenue Effect
($ billions)
House
Senate
Conference
Energy Efficiency and Conservation Measures
$0.397
$3.733
$1.260
(§1312 and §1317 in House bill, excluding
diesel fuels, alternative fuels, and solar credit)
Hybrid and Fuel Cell Vehicles
——
$1.686
——
Total, Energy Efficiency and Conservation
$0.397
$5.419
$1.260
Gross Total, All Tax Provisions
$8.090
$18.421
$14.553
Energy Efficiency and Conservation Share of Total
4.9%
29.4%
8.7%
Source: Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT), Estimated Budget Effects of the Conference Agreement for Title
XIII of H.R. 6, July 27, 2005 (JCX-59-05); Estimated Revenue Effects of the Chairman’s Amendment in the
Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 1541, Scheduled for Markup by the Committee on Ways and Means, April 13,
2005 (JCX-17-05); Estimated Revenue Effects of the Chairman’s Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to
the “Energy Policy Tax Incentives Act of 2005,” Scheduled for Markup by the Committee on Finance, June
16, 2005 (JCX-47-05).
Housing, Funding Authorizations, and Other Provisions
H.R. 6 has several provisions (§ 151-154) for energy efficiency in public housing. Also,
Section 121 authorizes funding for energy assistance (e.g., Low-Income Home Energy
Assistance Program, LIHEAP), and Sections 122 and 123 authorize grant programs (e.g.,
DOE Weatherization Program and State Energy Program). Several other energy efficiency
programs are authorized in Title I and Title IX.
DOE Budget, FY2006
The Department of Energy (DOE) request seeks $846.8 million for energy efficiency,
which is $21.4 million, or 2%, less than the FY2005 appropriation (excluding inflation). The
main increases are for Biofuels/Biorefinery ($14.5 million) and Fuel Cells ($8.7 million).
The main cuts are for Industrial programs (-$18.3 million), Advanced Combustion Vehicles
CRS-5

---

IB10020
08-22-05
(-$8.7 million), Buildings (-$7.5 million), Clean Cities (-$4.1 million), and State Energy
Program (-$3.2 million).
The FY2006 budget request (Appendix, p. 402) notes that the “Administration’s energy
efficiency programs have the potential to produce substantial benefits for the nation — both
now and in the future — in terms of economic growth, increased energy security and a
cleaner environment.” In particular, the request aims to “accelerate” the development of
hydrogen-powered fuel cell vehicles. The Hydrogen program aims to facilitate industry
commercialization of infrastructure for those vehicles by 2015. Goals for other energy end-
use and production technologies generally seek to improve energy efficiency and
performance while reducing costs. The request also proposes funding tax credits, including
an investment tax credit for combined heat and power (CHP) through the end of 2009, an
extension of the hybrid vehicle tax credit through the end of 2008, and a tax credit for fuel
cell vehicles purchased through the end of 2012.
For further information on the Energy Conservation Budget, see [http://www.cfo.doe.
gov/budget/06budget/Start.htm]. For further information on Energy Conservation Programs,
see [http://www.eere.energy.gov/].
EPA Budget, FY2006
The FY2006 request for EPA’s Climate Protection Programs (CPPs) is $112.5 million,
which is $2.6 million more than FY2005 appropriation. This includes $2.6 million more
under the Office of Environmental Programs and Management (EPM) and no change under
the Office of Science and Technology (S&T).
EPA conducts its CPP programs under the Office of Atmospheric Programs, with
funding from appropriation accounts for EPM and S&T. EPM programs cover the areas of
buildings, industry, state and local government, international, and sequestration. S&T
programs mainly cover transportation. CPP programs focus mainly on voluntary energy
efficiency activities. These programs include Green Lights, Energy Star Buildings, Energy
Star Products, Climate Wise, and Transportation Partners. They involve public-private
partnerships that promote energy-efficient lighting, buildings, and office equipment. Efforts
also include labeling, information dissemination, and other activities to overcome market
barriers.
Table 2. EPA Funding for Climate Protection
Energy Efficiency Programs (CPP)
($ millions current)
FY2004
FY2005
FY2006
FY2006
FY2006
FY2006
Diff.
Enacted
Enacted
Request
House
Senate
Conf.
Environ. Programs
88.5
90.9
95.5
91.5
94.5
93.5
2.6
& Management
Science &
21.8
19.0
17.7
20.0
17.7
19.0
0.0
Technology
TOTAL
110.3
109.9
113.2
111.5
112.2
112.5
2.6
Source: EPA FY2006 Congressional Justification of Appropriation Estimates (EPA-205/R-05-001), Feb. 2005,
[http://www.epa.gov/ocfo], pp. S&T-6, EPM-29, Appendix-75; H.Rept. 109-80; S.Rept. 109-80; H.Rept. 109-
188.
CRS-6

---

IB10020
08-22-05
Energy Security
The September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks focused national attention on developing a
strategy to address the vulnerabilities of energy systems and other essential services. The
Department of Homeland Security (DHS, P.L. 107-296) includes offices and programs
(Infrastructure Protection, Energy Security and Assurance) responsible for measures to
protect energy infrastructure, including power plants, transmission lines, oil refineries, oil
storage tanks, oil and natural gas pipelines, and other energy infrastructure. By reducing the
demand for fuels and electricity, energy efficiency measures may contribute to energy
security by slowing growth in the number of energy facilities and amount of other energy
infrastructure. It can also reduce the risk of oil shortages, energy price shocks, and attendant
impacts on the national economy. Some of the possible ways that energy efficiency can
improve energy security are described in DOE’s report Homeland Security: Safeguarding
America’s Future with Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Technologies and in U.S.
Energy Security Facts (available at [http://www.rmi.org/images/other/EnergySecurity/
S03-04_USESFtext.pdf]).
Electricity Demand-Side Management (DSM)
and Distributed Power
The August 2003 electric power blackout that affected several states and Canadian
provinces rekindled interest in energy efficiency, energy conservation/demand response
measures, and distributed power generation. The use of energy-efficient appliances and other
end-use equipment can reduce electricity demand, which drives the need for new power
plants. Further, the development of small, modular “distributed energy” systems (also
referred to as distributed generation and distributed power) under DOE’s program may help
reduce the security risk by decentralizing energy facilities and establishing some facilities
off-grid. Also, the “response and recovery” element in the President’s DHS proposal called
for it to “ensure rapid restoration of transportation systems, energy production, transmission,
and distribution systems....” The deployment of smaller, highly mobile distributed energy
equipment may help address this aspect of energy security. H.R. 6 has provisions (§126,
§932) for distributed energy. (For more on distributed energy, see the DOE website at
[http://www.eere.energy.gov/EE/power_distributed_generation.html] and at [http://www.
eere.energy.gov/de/].)
Energy Conservation to Curb Natural Gas Demand
The Secretary of Energy requested that the National Petroleum Council (NPC) report
on policy options to address the problem of high natural gas prices. The report, Balancing
Natural Gas Policy, says gas prices could average from $5 to $7 per thousand cubic feet for
years to come, and it concludes, among other options, that energy conservation and greater
energy efficiency have the biggest immediate potential to hold down prices. The report
recommends updating building codes and equipment standards, promoting Energy Star
equipment, using the most efficient power plants, deploying distributed energy, installing
smart controls, and employing best practices for low-income weatherization. The Alliance
to Save Energy and the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE)
applaud the NPC recommendations but stress that many other measures — including tax
incentives, utility performance standards, federal buildings improvements, and regulations
CRS-7

---

IB10020
08-22-05
to make energy conservation profitable for utilities — were not in the report and should be
considered. Also, a 2005 report by ACEEE, Impacts of Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy on Natural Gas Markets: Updated and Expanded Analysis, says that in one year, a
massive energy efficiency effort could be put in place that would reduce gas use by 1% and
cut prices by 37%. (The NPC report is at [http://www.npc.org/] and the ACEEE report is at
[http://www.aceee.org/press/0504eerespond.htm].)
On January 24, 2005, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee held a
natural gas conference. Some participants described the potential for energy efficiency to
reduce gas demand and prices. See [http://energy.senate.gov/conference/conference.cfm].
Some statements refer to a recent DOE study, Easing the Natural Gas Crisis: Reducing
Natural Gas Prices through Increased Deployment of Renewable Energy and Energy
Efficiency, available at [http://eetd.lbl.gov/ea/ems/reports/56756.pdf].
Vehicle Fuel Efficiency and Oil Conservation
Energy efficiency measures to curb oil demand, and other oil conservation measures,
may help address energy security, economic issues such as high gasoline prices and oil
import dependence, and environmental issues such as air pollution, climate change, and the
proposal to develop oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).
For the ANWR issue, technology-driven improvements to the fuel economy of cars and
light trucks — without any change to the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standard
— might save more fuel than would likely be produced by oil drilling in ANWR, although
the two options are not mutually exclusive. The Energy Information Administration (EIA)
says that a technology-driven projection for cars and light trucks could increase fuel economy
by 3.6 mpg by 2020. Through the first 20 years, this increase would generate oil savings
equivalent to four times the low case and three-fourths of the high case projected for ANWR
oil production. Extended through 50 years, the fuel economy savings would range from 10
times the low case to more than double the high case for ANWR. (For more information on
this issue, see CRS Report RL31033, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Fuel
Equivalents to Potential Oil Production from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge).
CAFE is a key federal regulatory policy that had instituted a gradual ramp-up of fuel
efficiency for newly manufactured cars and light trucks. The present CAFE standard for new
cars is 27.5 mpg. The national fleet fuel economy for cars peaked at 21.1 mpg in 1991,
declined slightly, and then climbed to 22.3 mpg in 2003. Similarly, light trucks peaked at
17.4 mpg in 1993, declined slightly, and then reached 17.7 in 2003. A floor amendment
(H.Amdt. 73) to H.R. 6 to raise fuel economy standards failed to pass. H.Amdt. 75 was
passed, requiring EPA to revise its adjustment factors to increase the accuracy of fuel
economy labels. (For more on CAFE standards, see CRS Issue Brief IB90122, Automobile
and Light Truck Fuel Economy: Is CAFE up to Standards?)
A report by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), The Economic Costs of Fuel
Economy Standards Versus a Gasoline Tax, found that a 46-cent-per-gallon gasoline tax
increase would achieve a 10% reduction in fuel use at a cost that is 3% less than the cost of
creating a higher CAFE standard with or without credit trading.
CRS-8

---

IB10020
08-22-05
The Bush Administration’s hydrogen fuel initiative seeks to accelerate the use of fuel
cells for transportation and power generation. Fuel cells can reduce gasoline (hence oil) use
due to the ability to employ hydrogen-rich fuels, such as natural gas and alcohol fuels. The
initiative builds on the Administration’s Freedom Cooperative Automobile Research
(FreedomCAR) Program. FreedomCAR creates a partnership with the auto industry to
develop a fuel-cell-powered vehicle that would attain commercial use during 2010 to 2020.
This program is funded primarily by DOE’s Fuel Cell Technologies Program (see Table 3)
but includes some funding from other agencies. (For more details on FreedomCAR see CRS
Report RS21442, Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Vehicle R&D: FreedomCAR and the President’s
Hydrogen Fuel Initiative.)
Oil use for gasoline, home heating, and other applications makes it important to the
transportation and production sectors of the nation’s economy. Thus, fluctuating oil prices
and dependence on imported sources can create economic vulnerabilities. Also, oil use has
important environmental impacts. Its extraction and transport can lead to spills that pollute
land and water. Further, oil-based fuels, such as gasoline, generate sulphur dioxide and other
air pollutants as well as large amounts of carbon dioxide that contribute to climate change.
U.S. oil use accounts for about 25% (2003) of the world’s oil consumption and about
40% (2003) of total U.S. energy use. The nation uses (2003) about 20.1 million barrels of
oil per day (mb/d), of which about 13.2 mb/d is used for transportation, including about 5.0
mb/d for cars and 3.7 mb/d for light trucks (includes pickups, minivans, and sport utility
vehicles).

Oil use in transportation can also be reduced through short-term conservation measures
such as increased use of public transit, carpooling and ridesharing, and telecommuting; and
through curtailment (e.g., driving less) and substitution of alternative fuels. Other measures
can help reduce non-transportation oil uses. For example, home improvement measures such
as insulation, energy-efficient windows, and weatherization measures can reduce the use of
home heating oil.
Climate Change: Energy Efficiency’s Role
The FY2004 Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs
Appropriations Act (P.L. 108-199, Division D, Section 555) provided $180 million for
“energy conservation, energy efficiency, and clean energy” to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions in developing countries.
DOE’s November 2003 report U.S. Climate Change Technology Program —
Technology Options for the Near and Long Term compiles information from multiple federal
agencies on more than 80 technologies. For these end-use and supply technologies, the
report describes President Bush’s initiatives and R&D goals for advancing technology
development, but it does not estimate emissions saving potentials, as some previous DOE
reports on the topic had presented.
Energy efficiency is seen as a key means to reduce fossil fuel-induced carbon dioxide
(CO2) emissions that may contribute to global climate change. Thus, recent debates over the
U.S. role in the Kyoto Protocol and related international negotiations to curb global
CRS-9

---

IB10020
08-22-05
emissions of greenhouse gases tend to be reflected in deliberations over federal funding and
incentives for energy efficiency.
In fulfilling requirements under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change (UNFCCC), EPA issued the third U.S. climate report to the United Nations entitled
Climate Action Report 2002. In it, the Bush Administration commits to reducing greenhouse
gas intensity (emissions per unit of GDP) by 18% (4% more than under existing policies)
over 10 years through a combination of voluntary, incentive-based, and existing mandatory
measures focused on energy efficiency and other measures. This is projected to attain a 4.5%
reduction from forecast emissions in 2012. The Administration has proposed this policy in
place of the Kyoto Protocol, which it opposes due to concerns that it could raise energy
prices and slow economic growth. Further, the Administration has stated its intent to support
funding for energy efficiency and renewable energy programs at DOE and at the Global
Environment Facility.
The 2001 White House Initial Review on Climate Change cites an existing array of
energy efficiency and other programs that support goals of the UNFCCC and refers to the
National Energy Policy (NEP) report’s provisions for CHP, CAFE, Energy Star, and other
energy efficiency policies as part of the foundation for its strategy to curb greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions.
The Kyoto Protocol had called for the United States to cut GHG emissions to 7% below
the 1990 level during the period from 2008 to 2012. At the Seventh Conference of Parties
(COP-7) in 2001, the United States was accused of avoiding real efforts to reduce emissions,
through energy efficiency and other means, in order to address the Kyoto Protocol. At COP-
10 in 2004, the parties focused mainly on technical issues, including “next steps” for
developing nations. In February 2005, the Kyoto Protocol went into effect, without a U.S.
commitment to an emissions reduction goal.
DOE’s 2000 report Scenarios for a Clean Energy Future shows the potential for
advanced energy efficiency and other measures to cut two-thirds of the projected U.S. carbon
emissions growth by 2010 and to cut emissions to the 1990 level by 2020. Assuming no
major future policy actions, the reference case scenario in the EIA’s January 2003 Annual
Energy Outlook 2003 projects 2010 emissions will be 1,800 MMTC, 32% more than that for
1990. DOE’s 1995 report Energy Conservation Trends shows that energy efficiency has
reduced long-term rates of fossil energy use and thereby curbed emissions of CO2
significantly. (For details about the potential for energy efficiency to reduce CO2 emissions,
see CRS Report RL30414, Global Climate Change: The Role for Energy Efficiency.)
In September 2004, the California Air Resources Board approved a plan that would
require automobile manufacturers to cut carbon dioxide and other GHG emissions 22% by
2012. This could force automakers to increase fuel efficiency sharply. An industry court
challenge is possible. Seven northeastern states have adopted other auto emission regulations
by California. In Apil 2005, the Canadian government signed a “voluntary” agreement with
automakers to reduce GHG by 5.3 million tons, or 17%, by 2010.
CRS-10

---

IB10020
08-22-05
Electric Industry Restructuring and Conservation
The debate over the federal role in restructuring includes questions about energy
efficiency. The 2001 electricity problems in California raised the issue of whether a federal
role is needed to encourage demand-side energy efficiency and load management measures.
A June 2002 report (#49733) by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, California
Consumers Kept Lights on During Electricity Crisis by Conserving and Investing in Efficient
Equipment, found that conservation and efficiency measures reduced summer 2001 peak
demand by 10%, increased system reliability, avoided some wholesale power purchases, and
avoided $2 billion to $20 billion in potential losses from rolling blackouts. Energy Efficiency
Leadership in California, an April 2003 report by the Natural Resources Defense Council
and Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group, uses California Energy Commission data to project
that additional efficiency measures could reduce electric demand by 5,900 megawatts (MW)
and save $12 billion over the next 10 years.
Many states and electric utilities created demand-side management (DSM) programs
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. Utility DSM spending
peaked in 1994 at $2.7 billion and DSM energy savings peaked in 1996 at 61 billion
kilowatt-hours (which is equivalent to the output from 12 one-gigawatt powerplants).
After California issued its 1994 proposal for electric industry restructuring, many states
and utilities reduced DSM efforts. By 1998, utility DSM spending had fallen to about $1.4
billion. In response, some states, such as California, include provisions for energy efficiency
and conservation in their restructuring legislation. For example, California’s law (A.B. 1890,
Article 7) placed a “public goods” charge on all electricity bills from 1998 through 2001 that
provided $872 million for “cost effective” energy efficiency and conservation programs.
Other states, such as Pennsylvania, have few if any provisions for energy efficiency. (For a
discussion of broader electricity restructuring issues, see CRS Report RL32728, Electric
Utility Regulatory Reform: Issues for the 109th Congress.)
LEGISLATION
109th Congress
P.L. 109-54 (H.R. 2361)
Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill,
2006. House version includes $91.5 million (EPM) and $20.0 million (S&T) for EPA’s
Climate Protection Programs. Senate version includes $94.5 million (EPM) and $17.7
million (S&T). In House, Committee on Appropriations reported (H.Rept. 109-80) May 13,
2005. Passed House, amended, May 19. Reported (S.Rept. 109-80) in Senate June 10.
Passed Senate, amended, June 29. Conference reported (H.Rept. 109-188) July 26. Signed
into law August 2.
H.R. 3 (Young)/S. 732 (Inhofe)
Transportation Equity Act. Sections related to energy efficiency and conservation
include 1121, high occupancy vehicle (HOV) facilities; 1307, magnetic levitation
transportation; 1807, nonmotorized transportation pilot program; 1808, additions to
CRS-11

---

IB10020
08-22-05
congestion mitigation and air quality (CMAQ); 1952, congestion relief; 1954, bicycle
transportation and pedestrian walkways; 3005, metropolitan transportation planning; 3016
national research and technology programs; 3045, national fuel cell bus technology
development program; 4149, office of intermodalism; 5301, intelligent transportation
systems; 5502, congestion relief research initiative; 6001, transportation planning; and 9002,
study of high speed rail. House bill introduced February 9, 2005; referred to Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure. Reported (H.Rept. 109-12, Parts I and II) March 8.
Passed House, amended, March 10. Senate bill reported (S.Rept. 109-53) April 6. In lieu
of S. 732, Senate passed its version of H.R. 3, amended, May 17. Conference reported
(H.Rept. 109-203) July 28. Signed into law August 10.
H.R. 6 (Barton)/S. 10 (Domenici)
Energy Policy Act of 2005. The enacted version (H.Rept. 109-190) authorizes or
reauthorizes several energy efficiency and conservation programs. It also establishes several
new commercial and consumer product efficiency standards, sets new goals for energy
efficiency in federal facilities and fleets, broadens the Energy Star products program, expands
programs for hydrogen fuel cell buses, and extends daylight savings. However, it does not
include Senate-proposed provisions for oil conservation and a broader range of legislated
equipment efficiency standards. In House, Committee on Energy and Commerce ordered
committee print reported, as amended, April 13. Incorporated Domestic Energy Security Act
and H.R. 1541 (as Title XIII). Passed House, amended, April 21. In Senate, H.R. 6 was
brought to the Senate floor on June 14, 2005, and S.Amdt. 775 incorporated S. 10 into the
bill as an amendment in the nature of a substitute. The tax title and other key provisions
were added as floor amendments. Conference reported (H.Rept. 109-190) July 27. Signed
into law August 8.
H.R. 1541 (Thomas). Section 202 provides a 15% business investment tax credit to
support installation of fuel cell equipment. The Joint Committee on Taxation scores this
provision at $6 million over 10 years. Section 207 provides a 20% investment tax credit
($2,000 maximum) to home owners for energy efficiency improvements. The Joint
Committee on Taxation scores this provision at $391 million over 10 years. Committee on
Ways and Means ordered bill reported, April 13. Incorporated into H.R. 6.
H.R. 2419 (Hobson). Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2006.
Provides funding for DOE energy efficiency (conservation) programs, formerly funded
under Interior Appropriations, in a new account structure that merges program funding for
DOE renewable energy programs. Reported (H.Rept. 109-86) May 18, 2005. Passed House,
amended, May 24. Senate Appropriations Committee reported (S.Rept. 109-84) June 16.
Passed Senate July 1.
H.R. 2862 (Wolf)
Science, State, Justice, Commerce, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006.
Section 618 directs the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Securities and
Exchange Commission, and the Small Business Administration to certify that telecommuting
opportunities have increased over the previous year. Section 619 directs the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the National Science Foundation (NSF)
to certify that telecommuting opportunities are available to 100% of the eligible workforce.
Without the above-noted certification, the agencies risk forfeiting $5 million at the end of
the fiscal year. Reported (H.Rept. 109-118) June 10, 2005. Passed House June 16.
CRS-12

---

IB10020
08-22-05
H.R. 3057 (Kolbe)
Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Bill,
2006. In Senate version of bill, Development Assistance (Environment Programs, §6074a)
includes $180 million for energy efficiency and renewable/clean energy technologies.
Section 6074(b) requires that the President submit, after the FY2007 budget request, a report
to Congress identifying all federal FY2006 expenditures related to climate change. House
Committee on Appropriations reported (H.Rept. 109-152) June 21, 2005. Passed House,
amended, June 28. Reported (S.Rept. 109-96) in Senate June 30. Passed Senate July 20.
S. 726 (Alexander). Natural Gas Price Reduction Act of 2005. Section 101 authorizes
funding for an energy conservation public education initiative. Section 102 sets efficiency
standards, test procedures, and labeling requirements for several types of residential and
commercial equipment. Section 103 authorizes funding for distributed generation. Section
104 authorizes funding to accelerate hydrogen and fuel cell development. Section 105
would, under certain conditions, repeal PURPA Section 210 requirements for cogeneration
and small power facilities. Section 106 calls for a study of cogeneration and small power.
Introduced April 6, 2005; referred to Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
S. 727 (Alexander). Tax Incentives for the Natural Gas Price Reduction Act of 2005.
Section 2 makes a 10% investment tax credit available over four years to combined heat and
power (CHP or cogeneration) systems smaller than 50 megawatts (MW) that satisfy certain
efficiency standards. Section 4 has an investment tax credit (20%) for residential fuel cell
equipment. It also creates a 20% investment tax credit ($2,000 maximum) to homeowners
for retrofits to existing residential housing with energy efficient envelope components
(insulation, windows, roofs, heating equipment); and an equipment tax credit (maximum
$2,000) to home builders for envelope components that reduce home energy use by 30%.
Section 4 also provides a tax credit to manufacturers ($60 million maximum) for energy-
efficient clothes washers ($100 each) and refrigerators ($150 each). Further, Section 4
creates a tax deduction ($1.50 per square foot maximum) for energy efficient equipment in
commercial buildings that reduces energy use by 50%. Introduced April 6, 2005; referred
to Committee on Finance.
(A more extensive list of more than 100 bills appears in CRS Report RL32860, Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy Legislation in the 109th Congress.)
CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS, REPORTS, AND DOCUMENTS
U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Science. Improving the Nation’s Energy Security:
Can Cars and Trucks Be Made More Fuel Efficient? Hearing held February 9, 2005.
[http://www.house.gov/science/hearings/full05/feb9/February92005.htm]
(A more extensive list appears in CRS Report RL32860, Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy Legislation in the 109th Congress.)
(Many hearings on Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy held in the 108th Congress are
listed on the DOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy website at
[http://www.eere.energy.gov/office_eere/congressional_test.html].)
CRS-13

---

IB10020
08-22-05
FOR ADDITIONAL READING
——.American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy. Proceedings from the ACEEE
2004 Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings. Washington, 2004. (10 v.)
ACEEE’s Green Book: The Environmental Guide to Cars and Trucks: Model Year 2005.
2005. 120 p. Summary at [http://aceee.org/press/0502greencar.htm].
Cato Institute. The High Costs of Federal Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential
Appliances. (Policy Analysis No. 504) 2003. 15 p.
Government Accountability Office (GAO). Research and Development: Lessons Learned
from Research Could Benefit FreedomCAR Initiative. (GAO -02-8101) 2002. 50 p.
National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC). AGA and NRDC
Release Energy Efficiency (Conservation Tariff) Joint Statement. August 2004. 4 p.
[http://www.naruc.org/displayindustryarticle.cfm?articlenbr=21073&startrec=1]
National Research Council. Energy Research at DOE: Was It Worth It? (Energy Efficiency
and Fossil Energy Research 1978 to 2000). 2001. 224 p.
[http://www.nap.edu/books/0309074487/html/]
——.Effectiveness and Impact of Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards.
2001. 184
Rocky Mountain Institute. Winning the Oil Endgame: Innovation for Profits, Jobs, and
Security. 2004. 306 p.
[https://www.rmi.org/store/p12details4772.php]
U.S. Department of Energy. Energy Information Administration. Impacts of Modeled
Recommendations of the National Commission on Energy Policy. [Report on CAFE
fuel economy] (SR/OIAF/2005-02) April 2005. 79 p.
[http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/bingaman/]
——.Interlaboratory Working Group. Scenarios for a Clean Energy Future. (ORNL/CON-
476) November 2000. 350 p.
[http://www.ornl.gov/sci/eere/cef/]
——.State Energy Advisory Board. Homeland Security: Safeguarding America’s Future
with Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. (DOE/EE-0272) August 2000. 26 p.
[http://www.steab.org/]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. U.S. Climate Action Report 2002. 2002. 260 p.
[http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/ResourceCenterPublications
USClimateActionReport.html].
——.Protecting the Environment — Together: Energy Star and Other Voluntary Programs
2003 Annual Report. (EPA 430-R-04-011) September 2004. 47 p.
[http://www.energystar.gov/ia/news/downloads/annual_report_2003.pdf]
CRS-14

---

IB10020
08-22-05
U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). Electricity Markets: Consumers Could
Benefit from Demand Programs, But Challenges Remain (GAO-04-844) August 2004.
68 p. [http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04844.pdf]
CRS Reports
CRS Report RL32860. Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Legislation in the 109th
Congress, by Fred Sissine.
CRS Report RL32543. Energy Saving Performance Contracts: Reauthorization Issues, by
Anthony Andrews.
CRS Report RL30414. Global Climate Change: The Role for Energy Efficiency, by Fred
Sissine.
CRS Report RS20298. Sport Utility Vehicles, Mini-Vans, and Light Trucks: An Overview
of Fuel Economy and Emissions Standards, by Brent Yacobucci.
Websites
American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE). Extensive listing of websites
on energy efficiency.
[http://www.aceee.org/]
National Association of State Energy Offices.
[http://www.naseo.org/]
U.S. Council for Automotive Research (USCAR). FreedomCAR.
[http://www.uscar.org/freedomcar/index.htm]
U.S. Department of Energy. Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Network.
[http://www.eere.energy.gov/]
U.S. Department of Energy. FY2005 Congressional Budget Request.
[http://www.mbe.doe.gov/budget/05budget/]
U.S. Department of Energy and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Fuel Economy.
[http://www.fueleconomy.gov/]
U.S. Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory. Center for Building Science.
[http://eetd.lbl.gov/]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. FY2005 Budget Justification (Goal 1, Clean Air and
Global Climate Change, p. I-111 to I-133 and Special Analysis, p. SA-42).
[http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/budget/2005/2005cj.htm]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Energy Star Programs.
[http://www.energystar.gov/]
CRS-15

---

IB10020
08-22-05
Table 3. DOE Energy Efficiency Budget for FY2004-FY2006
(selected programs, $ millions)
FY2005
FY2006
FY2006
FY2006
Senate -
Senate -
Appn.
Request
House
Senate
House
FY2005
HYDROGEN TECH.
94.6
99.1
99.1
99.1
0.0
4.5
FUEL CELL TECH.
74.9
83.6
83.6
83.6
0.0
8.7
Fuel Processor
9.7
9.9
——
——
——
——
Stack Component
32.5
34.0
——
——
——
——
BIOFUELS / BIOREF’Y
89.1
72.2
86.2
92.2
6.0
3.1
VEHICLE TECH.
166.9
165.9
167.9
199.9
32.0
33.0
H

ybrid and Electric
——
——
——
——
——
——
Adv
anced Combustion
——
——
——
——
——
——
Materials Technology
——
——
——
——
——
——
Fuels Technology
——
——
——
——
——
——
Technology Introduction
——
——
——
——
——
——
BUILDING TECH.
67.1
58.0
65.0
67.0
2.0
-0.1
Res. & Commercial Bldgs
21.9
22.9
——
——
——
——
Emerging Technologies
31.4
25.4
——
——
——
——
INDUSTRIAL TECH.
75.3
56.6
56.6
56.5
— 2.4
-18.9
Ind. of the Future, Specific
38.2
22.1
——
——
——
——
Ind. of the Future, Cross.
32.9
30.6
——
——
——
——
DISTRIB. ENERGY RES.*
60.6
56.6
56.6
——
——
——
FED. ENERGY MGMT
20.1
19.2
19.2
19.2
0.0
-0.9
WEATHER’N & INTERG.
326.5
310.1
321.1
325.1
4.0
-1.4
Weatherization Program
224.7
225.4
235.4
240.4
5.0
15.7
State Energy Grants
44.2
41.0
41.0
41.0
0.0
-3.2
State Energy Activities
2.3
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.0
-1.8
Gateway Deployment
35.0
26.7
25.7
26.7
-1.0
-8.3
Rebuild America
——
——
——
6.6
——
——
Clean Cities
——
——
——
6.5
——
——
Energy Star
——
——
——
5.8
——
——
Inventions
——
——
——
2.4
——
——
PROGRAM MGMT
110.0
111.0
111.0
153.0
42.0
43.0
EFFICIENCY R&D
595.8
575.8
——
——
——
——
SUBTOTAL
GRANTS SUBTOTAL
268.9
266.4
276.4
281.4
10.0
12.5
Prior Year Balances
-5.3
——
——
——
——
——
EERE, TOTAL
1,248.9
1,200.4
1,235.8
1,253.8
17.0
4.9
Sources: DOE FY2006 Budget Request, v. 7, Feb. 2005, p 208-214. H.Rept. 109-86 (p. 96-104); S.Rept. 109-
84.
*Funding for Distributed Energy was moved to the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability.
CRS-16

---