Order Code IB10020
CRS Issue Brief for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Energy Efficiency:
Budget, Oil Conservation, and
Electricity Conservation Issues
Updated March 27, 2006
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, FY2007
EPA Budget, FY2007
Energy Security
Electricity Conservation, 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
LEGISLATION
CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS, REPORTS, AND DOCUMENTS
FOR ADDITIONAL READING

---

IB10020
03-27-06
Energy Efficiency: Budget, Oil Conservation,
and Electricity Conservation Issues
SUMMARY
Energy security, a major driver of federal
million), Building Codes Program (-$4.5
energy efficiency programs in the past, came
million), Clean Cities (-$3.5 million), and
back into play as oil and gas prices rose late in
Rebuild America (-$1.3 million). Further, the
the year 2000. The terrorist attack in 2001
Weatherization Program would receive a
and the Iraq war have heightened concern for
major cut of $78.4 million. Also, the request
energy security and raised further concerns
would eliminate all congressional earmarks
about the vulnerability of energy infrastructure
under the DOE energy efficiency programs.
and the need for alternative fuels. Further, the
2001 power shortages in California, the 2003
P.L. 109-102 (H.R. 3057) provides $100
northeast-midwest power blackout, and con-
million for clean (renewable) energy and
tinuing high natural gas and oil prices have
energy efficiency programs in developing
renewed emphasis on energy efficiency and
countries. P.L. 109-97 (H.R. 2744) provides
energy conservation to dampen oil, electricity,
$23 million for farm-based energy efficiency
and natural gas demand.
(and renewable energy) grants and loans. H.R.
2862 has telecommuting provisions for federal
Also, worldwide emphasis on environ-
agencies, and P.L. 109-54 (H.R. 2361) pro-
mental problems of air and water pollution
vides $109.4 million for the Environmental
and global climate change, the related devel-
Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Climate Protec-
opment of clean energy technologies in west-
tion Programs.
ern Europe and Japan, and technology com-
petitiveness may remain important influences
P.L. 109-58 (H.R. 6) authorizes or
on energy efficiency policymaking.
reauthorizes several energy efficiency and
conservation programs. It also establishes
The Bush Administration’s FY2007
several new commercial and consumer prod-
budget request for the Department of Energy’s
uct efficiency standards, sets new goals for
(DOE’s) Energy Efficiency Program seeks
energy efficiency in federal facilities and
$484.7 million for energy efficiency R&D
fleets, broadens the Energy Star products
programs, which is $20.9 million, or 4.5%,
program, expands programs for hydrogen fuel
more than the FY2006 appropriation. In
cell buses, and extends daylight savings.
support of the President’s proposals for the
However, it does not include Senate-proposed
American Competitiveness Initiative and
provisions for oil conservation or a broader
Advanced Energy Initiative, the request in-
range of legislated standards for equipment
cludes major funding increases for hydrogen
efficiency.
and fuel cell technology under the Hydrogen
Fuel Initiative. For the DOE Energy Effi-
P.L. 109-59 (H.R. 3) contains several
ciency Program, the main increases are for
provisions for energy conservation and fuel
Hydrogen ($40.2 million) and Hybrid/Electric
savings, including sections 1121, 1307, 1807,
Propulsion ($6.9 million). Some key cuts are
1808, 1952, 1954, 3005, 3016, 3045, 4149,
for Industries of the Future (“Specific,” -$7.2
5301, 5502, 6001, and 9002.
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

IB10020
03-27-06
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
On March 23, 2006, Andrew Karsner, formerly with Enercorp (a renewable energy
development firm), was sworn in as DOE Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy. On March 9, 2006, the House Committee on Science held a hearing
focused on a National Academy of Sciences proposal that Congress consider establishing an
Advanced Research Projects Agency for Energy (ARPA-E) at DOE. Some bills (H.R. 4435,
H.R. 4906, S. 2196, S. 2197, S. 2398) propose creating such an agency in various forms.
However, the Administration has already requested FY2007 funding for an Advanced Energy
Initiative (AEI), as part of its American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI), that includes
accelerated funding for the “Hydrogen Fuel” initiative under DOE’s Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy Program.
On February 6, 2006, President Bush issued the Administration’s budget request for
FY2007. The Department of Energy (DOE) request seeks $484.7 million for energy
efficiency R&D, which is $20.9 million, or 4.5%, more than the FY2006 appropriation
(excluding inflation). The request calls for elimination (or reprogramming) of all
congressional earmarks, which amount to $71.6 million for FY2006 Energy Efficiency
programs, including Hydrogen ($42.5 million) and Vehicle Technologies ($20.3 million).
(For more details, see “FY2006 DOE Budget” and Table 3. CRS Report RL33294, DOE
Budget Earmarks: A Selective Look at Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy R&D
Programs, by Fred Sissine, provides more details about earmarks for DOE’s energy
efficiency programs. Also, the DOE budget document is online at [http://www.cfo.doe.gov/
budget/index.htm].)
For FY2007, the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) request for Climate
Protection (energy efficiency) Programs is $104.3 million, which is $5.1 million lower than
the FY2006 level. (For more details, see “EPA Budget, FY2007” and Table 2, below.)
Appropriation bills for the Department of Agriculture and the Department of State also
include funding for energy efficiency programs. (For more details, see the “Legislation”
section below.)
(Note: The energy efficiency provisions in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 [P.L. 109-58,
H.R. 6] and other bills of the 109th Congress are discussed in “Energy Efficiency in the 109th
Congress” and “Legislation,” below.)
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
CRS-1

---

IB10020
03-27-06
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.
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 FY1978 through FY2005, DOE spent about $12.0 billion in 2004 constant dollars
for energy efficiency R&D, which amounts to about 15% of the total DOE spending for
energy R&D during that period. In 2004 constant (real) dollars, energy efficiency R&D
funding declined from $692 million in FY1980 to $223 million in FY1988 and then climbed
to $652 million in FY2001. For FY2005, $584 million was appropriated, which was $12.8
million, or 2%, less than the FY2004 mark in 2004 constant dollars. Also, in 2004 constant
dollars, since FY1978, DOE has spent about $8.2 billion on grants for state and local
conservation programs.
CRS-2

---

IB10020
03-27-06
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 FY1977, in 2004 constant dollars, the federal government spent about $41.2
billion for nuclear (fission and fusion) R&D and about $13.7 billion for fossil energy R&D.
From FY1978 through FY2005, the federal government spent $32.8 billion for nuclear
(fission and fusion), $20.4 billion for fossil, $13.0 billion for renewables, and $12.0 billion
for energy efficiency. Total energy R&D spending from FY1948 to FY2005, in 2004
constant dollars, reached $135.4 billion, including $74.0 billion, or 55%, for nuclear, $34.1
billion, or 25%, for fossil, $13.0 billion, or 10%, for renewables, and $12.0 billion, or 9%,
for energy efficiency.
Under the FY2005 budget structure (in current 2005 dollars) for EERE, DOE’s energy
efficiency R&D funding totaled $595.9 million, or about 25% of DOE’s energy R&D
appropriation. Renewable energy R&D received $380.3 million (16%), fossil energy
received $539.6 million (22%), and fission and fusion were appropriated $784.1 million
(32%).
Since 1985, national energy use has climbed about 20 Q (quads — quadrillion Btus,
British thermal units), reaching a record high of 99.7 Q in 2004. 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
CRS-3

---

IB10020
03-27-06
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 the DOE Budget Request for FY2006, energy efficiency is addressed under the
strategic goal “to protect national and economic security” and within General Goal 4, which
seeks to “[i]mprove energy security” through a variety of energy supply measures and by
“improving energy efficiency.” In support of DOE General Goals, the request lists 10
Program Goals (PGs) under Energy Conservation, from which selected PGs follow. PG 4.01
says the Hydrogen/Fuel Cell Technologies Program will achieve certain cost and
performance goals. PG 4.02 aims to increase the efficiency of cars and trucks to “reduce
energy use and greenhouse gas emissions.” PG 4.04 says that the Buildings Program will
become “capable of generating as much energy as they consume.” PG 4.06 says that the
Industrial Technologies Program will reduce energy intensity and improve economic
competitiveness. PG 4.13 says that relative to the 1985 baseline, DOE’s Federal Energy
Management Program (FEMP) will support federal agency efforts to reduce energy intensity
by 35% by 2010. Further, DOE notes that from 2001 through 2004, EERE was awarded 33
R&D 100 awards. DOE projects that the EERE programs will curb energy demand growth
by 12 Q per year in 2025 and by 30 Q in 2050, which would represent more than half of the
otherwise expected growth by 2050.
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. P.L. 109-58 (§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
CRS-4

---

IB10020
03-27-06
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. P.L. 109-58 (§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, P.L. 109-58 (§101) calls
for the implementation of a plan for congressional buildings to meet the energy efficiency
goal 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. P.L. 109-58 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
(P.L. 109-58)
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).
CRS-5

---

IB10020
03-27-06
Housing, Funding Authorizations, and Other Provisions
P.L. 109-58 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, FY2007
The main requested increases are for Hydrogen ($40.2 million), Hybrid/Electric Vehicle
Propulsion ($6.9 million), Residential Buildings ($4.5 million), and a total of $2.3 million
for new Industrial programs in Combustion, Robotics, and Sensors/Automation. The main
program cuts are for Industries of the Future (“Specific,” -$7.2 million), Industrial Technical
Assistance (-$1.5 million), Vehicle Materials (-$5.5 million), and the Federal Energy
Management Program (-$2.3 million). In addition, the request seeks a $13.8 million increase
for State Energy Program grants and a $78.4 million, or 32.3%, cut for Weatherization
Program grants. Further, the Gateway Deployment program area would be eliminated, which
includes terminations of the Building Codes Program (-$4.5 million) and the Inventions
Program (-$3.0 million), as well as cuts in Clean Cities (-$3.5 million), Rebuild America (-
$1.3 million), and Energy Star (-$0.2 million) programs, which would be transferred to other
program areas.
In his State of the Union address, President Bush announced the launch of the American
Competitiveness Initiative (ACI) to stimulate long-term economic growth, in large part by
increased promotion of R&D and technological innovation. A key component of the ACI
is the Advanced Energy Initiative, which DOE says also “aims to reduce America’s
dependence on imported energy sources.” The Hydrogen Fuel Initiative is one theme under
the Advanced Energy Initiative that is funded under energy efficiency programs in DOE’s
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE). The goal of the Hydrogen Fuel
Initiative is to “bring hydrogen and fuel cell technology from the laboratory to the
showroom.” Specifically, the program aims to “facilitate a decision by industry to
commercialize a hydrogen infrastructure and fuel cell vehicles by 2015.” To support this
initiative, the DOE request for energy efficiency programs proposes major funding increases
for hydrogen and fuel cell technology programs. The ACI and the FY2007 federal budget
reflect strong concern about the rapidly growing amount of legislative earmarks for R&D
programs, including the Hydrogen program.
In FY2006, Congress adopted a new appropriations structure that merged EERE funding
for renewable energy from the Energy and Water Development bill with funding for energy
efficiency from the Department of Interior and Related Agencies bill. The unified account
structure (now under the Energy and Water Development bill) no longer reports completely
separate funding amounts for energy efficiency and renewable energy programs.
For additional information on Energy Conservation Programs, see [http://www.eere.
energy.gov/].
CRS-6

---

IB10020
03-27-06
EPA Budget, FY2007
The FY2007 appropriation for EPA’s Climate Protection Programs (CPPs) is $104.3
million, which is $5.1 million less than FY2006 appropriation. This includes $1.0 million
more under the Office of Environmental Programs and Management (EPM) and $6.1million
less under the Office of Science and Technology (S&T) for transportation activities.
EPA conducts its CPP programs under the Office of Atmospheric Programs, with
funding from appropriation accounts for EPM and S&T. EPM programs cover the areas of
buildings, industry, state and local government, international, and sequestration. S&T
programs mainly cover transportation. CPP programs focus mainly on voluntary energy
efficiency activities. These programs include Energy Star Buildings, Methane to Markets,
Climate Wise, and Transportation Partners. They involve public-private partnerships that
promote energy-efficient lighting, buildings, and office equipment. Efforts also include
labeling, information dissemination, and other activities to overcome market barriers.
Table 2. EPA Funding for Climate Protection
Energy Efficiency Programs (CPP)
($ millions current)
FY2004
FY2005
FY2006
FY2007
FY2007-
Percent
Enacted
Enacted
Appn.
Request
FY2006
Diff.
Environ. Programs &
88.5
92.5
90.8
91.8
1.0
1.1%
Management
Science &
21.8
20.4
18.6
12.5
-6.1
-32.8%
Technology
TOTAL
110.3
112.9
109.4
104.3
-5.1
-4.7%
Source: EPA FY2007Annual Performance Plan and Congressional Justification, Feb. 2006,
[http://www.epa.gov/ocfopage/budget/2007/2007cj.htm].
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]).
CRS-7

---

IB10020
03-27-06
Electricity Conservation, Demand-Side Management (DSM),
and Distributed Power
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 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.
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 by nearly half, to
about $1.4 billion. In response, some states, such as California, included 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
that provides about $300 million per year for “cost effective” energy efficiency and
conservation programs directed by the California Energy Commission.
The August 2003 electric power blackout that affected several states and Canadian
provinces rekindled interest in energy efficiency, demand response, and distributed power.
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 Office of Electricity (OE) program may help reduce the
security risk by decentralizing energy facilities and establishing some facilities off-grid.
Also, the need in emergency situations to ensure rapid restoration of transportation systems
and energy production, transmission, and distribution can be readily addressed by small,
highly mobile distributed energy equipment. P.L. 109-58 has provisions (§126, §921-925,
§931) 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
CRS-8

---

IB10020
03-27-06
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
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 22.4 mpg in 2004. Light trucks have experienced
greater variability, with a recent peak in 2001 at 17.6 and a decline to 16.2 mpg in 2004.
Section 774 of P.L. 109-58 requires EPA to revise its adjustment factors to increase the
accuracy of fuel economy labels. In action on H.R. 6 (P.L. 109-58), the Senate version
included a provision to save 1 million barrels of oil per day by 2010, but the provision did
not survive conference. (For more on CAFE standards, see CRS Issue Brief IB90122,
Automobile and Light Truck Fuel Economy: The CAFE Standards, by Robert Bamberger.)
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
CRS-9

---

IB10020
03-27-06
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.
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 Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations
Bill, 2006 (P.L. 109-102, H.R. 3057; Section 585[a]) provides $100 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.
CRS-10

---

IB10020
03-27-06
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
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. In
February 2005, the Kyoto Protocol went into effect, without a U.S. commitment to an
emissions reduction goal.
At COP-11 in December 2005, the parties focused on the post-2012 period and sat as
the first “Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (MOP-1).” COP-11/MOP-1 adopted
detailed rules for the operation of the Kyoto Protocol, including emissions trading, joint
implementation, clean development mechanism, crediting of domestic sink activities, a
compliance regime, and a system for reporting and reviewing national emissions. Shortly
before COP-11/MOP-1 convened, both leaders of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
introduced Res. 312, which calls for U.S. participation in “negotiations under the UNFCC”
and in agreements that “establish mitigation commitments by all countries that are major
emitters of greenhouse gases.” This resolution may reflect an increasing interest from
Congress for stronger U.S. engagement in the multilateral climate effort.
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 2006 projects 2010 emissions will be 1,731 MMTC, 27% 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
CRS-11

---

IB10020
03-27-06
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 2005, the California Air Resources Board approved final rules that would
require car manufacturers to cut automobile carbon dioxide and other GHG emissions 22%
by 2012. This could force automakers to increase fuel efficiency sharply. Although the rules
take effect in 2006, new cars will not have to meet new standards until model year 2009. An
industry court challenge is possible. Seven northeastern states have adopted other auto
emission regulations that parallel those in 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.
LEGISLATION
Public Laws
P.L. 109-54 (H.R. 2361)
Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill,
2006. The conference bill includes $112.5 million for EPA’s Climate Protection Program
(energy efficiency) — $93.5 million under the Office of Environmental Programs and
Management (EPM) and $19.0 million under the Office of Science and Technology (S&T).
Conference reported (H.Rept. 109-188) July 26, 2005. Signed into law August 2.
P.L. 109-58 (H.R. 6)
Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT 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. Conference reported (H.Rept. 109-190)
July 27, 2005. Signed into law August 8.
P.L. 109-59 (H.R. 3)
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
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. Conference reported (H.Rept. 109-203) July 28, 2005.
Signed into law August 10.
Note: Four other public laws make appropriations for energy efficiency programs. P.L.
109-97 (H.R. 2744) makes appropriations for grant and loan (§9006) programs at the
CRS-12

---

IB10020
03-27-06
Department of Agriculture; P.L. 109-102 (H.R. 3057, §585[a]) makes appropriations for the
Department of State’s climate change programs in developing countries, including $100
million that “should be made available to directly promote and deploy energy conservation,
energy efficiency, and renewable and clean energy technologies”; P.L. 109-103 (H.R. 2419)
makes appropriations for the DOE energy efficiency (energy conservation R&D and grant)
programs; and P.L. 109-108 (H.R. 2862, §618 and §619) directs several federal agencies to
certify that telecommuting opportunities have increased over the previous year and several
other agencies to certify that telecommuting opportunities are available to 100% of the
eligible workforce. Failure to certify would cause agencies to risk forfeiting $5 million.
More details about these laws and other bills are described in CRS Report RL32860, Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy Legislation in the 109th Congress, by Fred Sissine.)
P.L. 109-171 (S. 1932)
Deficit Reduction Act of 2005. Section 1301 amends section 9006(f) of the Farm
Security Act of 2002 to set a limit of $3 million in FY2007 funding for the USDA
Commodity Credit Corporation to carry out renewable energy and energy efficiency projects.
Section 1402 terminates FY2007 funding authorization for the USDA Value-Added Producer
Program (created by section 6401 of the Farm Security Act of 2002) to provide grants to
renewable energy and energy efficiency projects. Conference reported (H.Rept. 109-362)
December 19, 2005. Signed into law February 8, 2006.
Legislation
(A more extensive list of more than 160 bills appears in CRS Report RL32860, Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy Legislation in the 109th Congress, by Fred Sissine.)
CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS, REPORTS, AND DOCUMENTS
(An extensive list appears in CRS Report RL32860, Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy Legislation in the 109th Congress, by Fred Sissine. Testimony by officials of DOE’s
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) at many hearings of the 109th
Congress are listed on EERE’s website at [http://www.eere.energy.gov/office_eere/
congressional_test.html].)
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 Online: Guide to Cars and Trucks, Model Year 2006. Highlights at
[http://www.greenercars.com/bestof.html].
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.
CRS-13

---

IB10020
03-27-06
National Association of Manufacturers (NAM). Efficiency and Innovation in U.S.
Manufacturing Energy Use. 2005. 37 p. [http://www.fypower.org/pdf/Mfg_NAM_
ASE.pdf]
National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC). AGA and NRDC
Release Energy Efficiency (Conservation Tariff) Joint Statement. 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 p.
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) 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) 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].
——.Investing in Our Future: Energy Star and Other Voluntary Programs 2004 Annual
Report. September 2005. 54 p.
[http://www.energystar.gov/ia/news/downloads/annual_report2004.pdf]
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 RL33294. DOE Budget Earmarks: A Selected Look at Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy R&D Programs, by Fred Sissine.
CRS-14

---

IB10020
03-27-06
CRS Report RL32860. Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Legislation in the 109th
Congress, by Fred Sissine.
CRS Report RL30414. Global Climate Change: The Role for Energy Efficiency, by Fred
Sissine.
CRS Report RL32251. Tax Incentives for Alternative Fuel and Advanced Technology
Vehicles, by Brent Yacobucci.
CRS Report RS20298. Sport Utility Vehicles, Mini-Vans, and Light Trucks: An Overview
of Fuel Economy and Emissions Standards, by Brent Yacobucci.
Websites
Alliance to Save Energy. Many resources on energy efficiency.
[http://www.ase.org/]
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/]
Tax Incentives Assistance Project. Resources for energy efficiency incentives in P.L. 109-58
(H.R. 6). [http://www.energytaxincentives.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. FY2007 Congressional Budget Request.
[http://www.cfo.doe.gov/budget/07budget/Content/Volumes/vol_3_ES.pdf]
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. EPA FY2006 Annual Performance Plan and
Congressional Justification (S&T-24; EPM-2, 34).
[http://www.epa.gov/ocfopage/budget/2007/2007cj.htm]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Energy Star Programs.
[http://www.energystar.gov/]
CRS-15

---

IB10020
03-27-06
Table 3. DOE Energy Efficiency Budget for FY2005-FY2007
(selected programs, $ millions)
FY2005
FY2006
FY2006
FY2007 -
Percent
Appn.
Appn.
Request
FY2006
Change
HYDROGEN TECH.
166.8
155.6
195.8
40.2
25.8%
Fuel Cell Tech.
81.9
67.8
96.6
28.8
42.4%
VEHICLE TECH.
161.3
182.1
166.0
-16.1
-8.8%
Hybrid and Electric
44.1
44.0
50.8
6.9
15.6%
Advanced Combustion
48.5
45.6
46.7
1.1
2.5%
Materials Technology
36.0
35.3
29.8
-5.5
-15.5%
Fuels Technology
12.4
13.7
13.8
0.1
1.0%
Technology Introduction
4.9
6.3
11.0
4.8
76.5%
Clean Cities
10.6
7.9
4.4
-3.5
-44.3%
BUILDING TECH.
65.2
69.3
77.3
8.1
11.6%
Res. & Commercial Bldgs
21.9
18.3
24.4
6.1
33.3%
Emerging Technologies
31.1
33.1
32.8
-0.3
-0.9%
Tech. Valid. & Mkt. Intro.
0.0
0.0
8.2
——
——
Rebuild America
8.6
3.8
2.5
-1.3
-34.2%
Energy Star
3.7
5.9
5.8
-0.1
-1.7%
INDUSTRIAL TECH.
73.4
56.9
45.6
-11.3
-19.9%
Ind. of the Future, Specific
37.4
24.2
17.0
-7.2
-29.9%
Ind. of the Future, Cross.
32.3
28.9
28.6
-0.3
-1.0%
Comb., Robotics, Sesors
4.5
3.1
5.4
2.3
76.7%
Industrial Tech. Assist.
15.1
14.4
12.9
-1.5
-10.4%
DISTRIB. ENERGY RES.a
59.1
0.0
0.0
——
——
FED. ENERGY MGMT
19.9
19.2
16.9
-2.3
-11.8%
WEATHER’N & INTERG.
325.5
316.9
225.0
-91.8
-29.0%
Weatherization Program
228.2
242.6
164.2
-78.4
-32.3%
State Energy Grants
44.2
35.6
49.5
13.8
38.8%
State Energy Activities
2.3
0.5
0.0
-0.5
-100.0%
Gateway Deploymentb
33.9
25.4
0.0
——
——
Inventions
3.9
3.0
0.0
-3.0
-100.0%
PROGRAM MGMT
115.1
111.9
102.0
-9.9
-8.8%
Prior Year Balances
-5.3
——
——
——
——
EERE, TOTALa
1,234.3
1,173.8
1,176.4
2.6
0.2%
EFFICIENCY R&D, SUB.c
466.6
463.9
484.7
20.9
4.5%
GRANTS, SUBTOTAL
272.3
278.2
213.7
-64.5
-23.2%
EE EARMARKS, SUB.
34.0
85.7
0.0
-85.7
-100.0%
Source: DOE FY2007 Budget Request, v. 3, Feb. 2006.
a. Funding for Distributed Energy was moved to the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability.
b. The request would terminate Gateway Deployment and move some subprograms to other Programs.
c. Efficiency R&D Subtotal includes Hydrogen, Fuel Cells, Vehicles, Buildings, and Industrial Technologies.
CRS-16

---