Obama's budget good for energy efficiency

President Obama’s 2013 budget caused a lot of smiles this week among energy efficiency advocates – even if it is more of a wish list than anything else. Obama calls for about $1.2 billion in spending for energy efficiency.

 

What’s this mean to the energy efficiency industry?

 

Kateri Callahan, president of the Alliance to Save Energy, says that Obama’s budget represents a dramatic increase from current efficiency spending. And while the sector won’t receive that kind of money in the final budget, it still should do well, given that the starting point is so high in a time when many budget items begin with cuts.

 

“The administration’s vigorous support for energy efficiency at this stage of the game should help ensure that we get funding almost as robust as we have currently,” she said.

 

It’s not easy figuring exactly how much the federal government spends on efficiency now, since funding is spread out over several programs and sometimes infused into budgets for defense, science, agriculture, environment and commerce.

 

By ASE’s count Congress appropriated $811 million in 2012 for energy efficiency programs in DOE’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), and $50 million for Energy Star at the Environmental Protection Agency.

 

In all, Obama increases the Department of Energy budget by 3.2%,  bringing it to $27.2 billion for 2013. He allots $2.3 billion for both the efficiency and renewable energy programs in EERE, and maintains Energy Star spending at the same level. Funding for  high-risk research increases 27% and for manufacturing advancement 150%. Obama offers an 80% increase in programs that cut energy use in buildings and factories. He also continues to press Congress to pass the HomeStar bill to reduce household energy use.

 

Raising spending might sound alarms, given the US deficit. However, spending on efficiency actually decreases society’s energy expenses. Energy efficiency cost about 1.6 to 3.3 cents/kWh for utilities in 14 states studied by the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy. Had those utilities built power plants rather than conserved energy, they would have paid 6 to 14 cents/kWh.

 

“The President clearly recognizes that energy efficiency is a critical component of our economic future and is the fastest, cleanest and cheapest way to meet growing energy needs,” said Terry Singer, executive director of the National Association of Energy Service Companies.

 

Obama also cuts $4 billion in fossil fuel subsidies. This is significant because subsidies tend to depress fossil fuel prices and encouage more consumption. The International Energy Agency has been strongly pushing for the kind of fossil fuel subsidy cuts Obama proposed. Here are some of the reasons IEA gives  in a report issued late last year.

 

  • Fossil fuel subsidies worldwide totaled $409 billion in 2010, up $110 billion from the previous year
  • Without reforms, the subsidies will reach $660 billion or 0.7% of world GDP by 2020
  • Poor people don’t benefit from these subsidies. Only 8% of the $409 billion went to the poorest 20%.
  • Phasing out fossil fuel subsidies by 2020 would decrease energy consumption by 4.1%


Obama’s tried before to make the fossil fuel cuts, and chances are they are more wish than real, much like the dramatic increases in energy efficiency spending. But the budget news is not all ‘if wishes were horses.’ It signals a general support for energy efficiency at the top of US government. Coupled with the aggressive energy efficiency policies in many states, Obama’s budget suggests a strong year ahead for the energy efficiency industry.

Views: 294

Comment

You need to be a member of Home Energy Pros to add comments!

Join Home Energy Pros

Comment by Bob Blanchette on March 5, 2012 at 7:07am

If fossil fuel subsidies were gone and energy doubled in price the energy conservation industry would do just fine w/o government subsidies.

Comment by Patrick Michaelyan on March 5, 2012 at 5:58am

Amen to that Bob. But good luck getting our "leaders" in DC to make any significant cuts to any subsidies but those for alternative energies and efficiency. We subsidize our farmers and our oil and gas companies to the tune of 100s of billions, but we can't throw a single billion to techs of the future?

I try my best to know what's going on in Washington, but act independently of the BS that dominates down there now. I have to assume that subsidies and financial assistance for what we do will be completely gone in the near future, and act accordingly. If Home Star or some other program lands then it's party time ladies and gents.

Patrick

Comment by Bob Blanchette on March 4, 2012 at 4:01pm

The fossil fuel subsidies MUST go in order to make energy conservation measures have reasonable payback times.

Comment by Patrick Michaelyan on March 1, 2012 at 12:10pm

Yes, thank you.

Comment by Blake Shurtz on February 22, 2012 at 8:11pm

What a wonderful overview of the macroeconomics, as well as the politics, of energy efficiency in America! Thank you!

Home Energy Pros

Home Energy Pros was founded by the developers of Home Energy Saver Pro (sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy,) and brought to you in partnership with Home Energy magazine.

Latest Activity

Kurt Shafer replied to Tom Conlon's discussion Whole House Fans - Love 'Em or Not?
"Tom, great new post! Thank you for the focus. As you know, the term "whole house fan" is…"
6 minutes ago
Don Fitchett replied to Brandon Walton's discussion 12 Things Every Home Performance Contractor Should Have on Their Work Truck
"Thank you Brandon, for sharing."
12 minutes ago
David Eakin commented on Scott Mellberg's blog post Lessons from Energy Efficiency Advisors: Getting Homeowners Onboard with Home Performance
"Ted, I'm coming at this issue from a national perspective. If the USA were leading the world…"
18 minutes ago
Kurt Shafer commented on Kurt Shafer's blog post What is your opinion about members promoting products here?
"Comment by John Proctor 9 hours agoDelete Comment Kurt: So my question is how…"
37 minutes ago
Kurt Shafer commented on Kurt Shafer's blog post What is your opinion about members promoting products here?
"For Bud Poll,  I missed your question so here is my answer.  Now, with that out of the…"
41 minutes ago

Ryan Rutledge just added their location.
(via Member Map)

2 hours ago
Profile IconPaul DelVaglio, Michael Glovre, reflintorm and 1 more joined Home Energy Pros
3 hours ago
Nate Adams commented on Scott Mellberg's blog post Lessons from Energy Efficiency Advisors: Getting Homeowners Onboard with Home Performance
"Interesting conversation. David, I completely understand where you are coming from. To me it's…"
5 hours ago
John Proctor commented on Kurt Shafer's blog post What is your opinion about members promoting products here?
"Kurt: So my question is how does your device work? PSC motors generally do not reduce their…"
10 hours ago
John Proctor commented on Christopher Morin's blog post How do You Test a TXV?
"Correction 32 is the melting point, not the saturation temperature."
10 hours ago
Richard Beyer replied to Mike Kandel's discussion Our Homes Suck – And That's Why Our Kids Have Sinus Problems
""I have no interest in bantering or arguing with you." AGREED! I look at these…"
12 hours ago
tedkidd replied to Mike Kandel's discussion Our Homes Suck – And That's Why Our Kids Have Sinus Problems
"Todd, it appears Richard is more about getting the last word than about learning a new thing.…"
12 hours ago

© 2014   Created by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service