|
State Perspectives on the Federal Budget By Jeff Genzer, Counsel, The FY’07 Federal Budget provides increased funding for the State Energy Program (SEP), which is the principal state-federal partnership program for energy efficiency. This increase, to $50 million, follows a 20% cut in federal appropriations to SEP in FY’06, and is well below the $100 million authorized for the program under the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct). Additionally, the budget slashes the Low-Income Weatherization Assistance Program by almost $80 million from the FY’06 level of $242 million. In fact, a wide array of energy-efficiency programs were cut or eliminated. On the state level, the building energy codes assistance and training program was zeroed out, despite the dramatic success of the program. Large energy savings resulted from enhancements in the energy efficiency of state building energy codes and the compulsory training of code officials mandated under the program. Similar cuts in the Rebuild America program (devoted to increasing energy efficiency in commercial and institutional buildings) and the Clean Cities Program (focused on encouraging the use of alternative fuels and hybrid vehicles) are coming at precisely the wrong time, given America’s soaring energy prices and unabated rise in energy consumption. While the DOE Energy Star program was not cut, the EPA Energy Star Program was cut by 10%. The voluntary Energy Star program has proven to be highly successful, with over 30 states partnering with EPA to expand the scope of the program. The states are also concerned with the cuts in funding for Title IX of the Farm Bill, including the energy efficiency and renewable energy program for farmers and rural small businesses contained in Section 9006. The proposed budget increases in SEP and solar and ethanol programs are welcome, but not when coupled with cuts in Weatherization, Energy Star, energy codes, geothermal programs and other key activities. EPAct created new authorizations and expanded existing authorizations for a bevy of energy-efficiency activities. Full funding of these activities at the authorized levels, with either regular appropriations or emergency supplemental appropriations, would be the clearest sign that the federal government is serious about responding to our present energy crisis. These programs are successful. For every federal dollar invested in SEP, $10.71 is leveraged from non-federal funding sources and $7.22 is saved. SEP is also the principal source of federal support for state efforts in energy emergency preparedness. The energy codes and training program, originally authorized in Section 101 of the 1992 Energy Policy Act and expanded in Section 128 of EPAct 2005, should not be eliminated – rather, it should be funded at the authorized level of $25 million. Other programs under EPACT 2005 that have not received either all of their authorized funding, or any funding at all, include the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Project (LIHEAP), energy-efficient appliance rebates, the energy-efficient public buildings program, the low income community energy-efficiency pilot program, the State Technologies Advancement Collaborative, the public energy education program, the energy-efficiency public information initiative, etc. A sound national energy policy would fund both R&D and energy deployment efforts. State energy offices, and the states generally have taken new and innovative approaches to addressing our nation’s energy problems. Examples of new efforts include: 1) the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative in the northeast and mid-atlantic states; 2) the Western Governors Association efforts to expand energy efficiency and obtain 30,000 megawatts from renewable resources; 3) the new efforts through the Southeast Energy Efficiency Alliance; 4) the efforts of California and other states to address greenhouse gases in automobiles; 5) state efforts to adopt new energy policies and reorganize state government to address energy problems, including, but not limited to, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii and Rhode Island; and 6) expansion of “public benefit” programs throughout the country. These are just a few examples of the work being conducted at the state and regional levels. The state energy offices and NASEO are working closely with the Alliance to Save Energy to expand funding at the federal and state levels for these critical initiatives while conducting important supporting research. For example, NASEO is working with the Alliance to examine energy-efficiency programs for electric and natural gas utilities. For more information on this and other NASEO programs, please visit NASEO’s website at http://www.naseo.org/. Originally published in the February-March State Policy Bulletin. |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
||||||||
|
|||||||||
