GBA Logo horizontal Facebook LinkedIn Email Pinterest Twitter Instagram YouTube Icon Navigation Search Icon Main Search Icon Video Play Icon Audio Play Icon Headphones Icon Plus Icon Minus Icon Check Icon Print Icon Picture icon Single Arrow Icon Double Arrow Icon Hamburger Icon TV Icon Close Icon Sorted Hamburger/Search Icon
Guest Blogs

Federal Agencies Begin Efficiency Policy Rollbacks

Efficiency gains made during the previous administration are now under attack

The Environmental Protection Agency wants to roll back rules on greenhouse gas emissions at the nation's power plants and adopt a much weaker alternative to the Clean Power Plan. (Photo: Michael Mays / CC BY-ND / Flickr)

More than 600 days into the Trump administration, amid constant reports of regulatory rollbacks, there’s been surprisingly little damage to energy efficiency… yet. But now the administrative winds are starting to blow, rulemaking procedures are underway — with a couple of open comment periods — and we are working hard to hold onto the energy savings we have been helping to build.

The Obama administration had some remarkable successes on energy efficiency. We estimated that its appliance, vehicle, and power plant standards alone should save over 10 quadrillion Btu per year by 2030 (equivalent to about half of U.S. home energy use), and should cumulatively save consumers over $2.5 trillion in energy bills by 2040.

How resilient are those policies and programs? Here are some local weather reports:

Vehicle standards are facing a gale

The Department of Transportation and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently proposed to roll back the fuel economy and emissions standards for cars and light trucks for 2021-2025 (EPA had already determined that the standards set in 2012 are too high), and to block California and other states from implementing higher standards. This would waste 14 billion gallons of fuel a year. The draft is open for comment through October 26, and ACEEE already gave preliminary testimony.

EPA is chopping away at the standards for heavy trucks as well, issuing a proposed rule to exempt gliders (new trucks with old engines), and considering repeal of the standards on truck trailers. There already are lawsuits related to all of the vehicle standard issues, with a stay on the trailer standards.

Clean Power Plan

EPA last year proposed repealing the rule on greenhouse gas emissions from existing power plants, and recently proposed a much weaker replacement rule that would only seek modest efficiency improvements at the plants (and gave it a different catchy name, the Affordable Clean Energy rule). It is open for comment through October 31. Meanwhile, the Clean Power Plan also is blocked by a court stay.

Appliance standards frozen in place

Due to a unique provision in the law, the Department of Energy (DOE) cannot weaken existing standards, so most of the standards appear to be safe. But the agency also has not proposed a single update and has now missed a dozen legal deadlines. And four standards that the Obama DOE had issued but not yet published in the Federal Register remain in limbo after 20 months (DOE has appealed a court order to publish these standards).

Worse, DOE is preparing a draft rule that could try to roll back one of the biggest-saving rules ever — a definition that applies 2020 light bulb standards to a wider range of commonly used bulbs. Mysteriously, a document on full repeal of the definition appeared on, and then quickly disappeared from, DOE’s website. Such a rollback would be taken to court. DOE is also working on procedural changes that could weaken the program.

Manufactured housing standards

A 2016 DOE draft rule based on a consensus agreement between manufacturers and efficiency advocates has never been finalized. Now DOE is considering a weaker standard or maybe no standard at all, while the Department of Housing and Urban Development considers weakening the existing HUD code for manufactured homes (in which the energy provisions have not been updated since 1994).

All of the above are proposed or potential actions. There have been a couple small final actions. HUD reversed its earlier support for Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) financing, barring the Federal Housing Administration from insuring mortgages on homes with PACE assessments. And DOE issued a required determination (only a few months late) that ASHRAE 90.1-2016, the model standard for commercial buildings, saves energy. This will encourage more states to update their commercial building energy codes.

Meanwhile, federal energy efficiency programs continue working despite roadblocks. Energy Star is still the leading mark of energy efficiency, and has set and updated some product specifications, despite a White House attempt to end it and a draft bill that would have gutted it. Congress seems set to pass level funding for the second year in a row. And although the administration proposed drastic cuts to DOE efficiency programs, Congress actually increased funding for this year when it finally passed a bill in March, and has slightly increased funding for next year.

Although the money is there, getting it out the door has been an increasing problem, made even worse because there still is not a Senate-confirmed assistant secretary for energy efficiency and renewable energy at DOE.

While the near-term forecast does not look good, we are working to limit the damage as much as we can. And as unpredictable as the course of a storm may be, we know that the one certainty about the weather is that it will eventually change.

 

Lowell Ungar is senior policy advisor at the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy. This post originally appeared at the ACEEE Blog.

One Comment

  1. John Clark | | #1

    California, god bless them, I hope they succeed. It would be a win for federalism.

    Q for anyone with regards to the OTR diesel trucks. My understanding is that the introduction of DPF/SCR (Urea) resulted in higher fuel costs (net reduction in MPGs), increased maintenance expenses vs the pre-DPF/SCR rigs. Basically that on a mileage basis the trucks with the new tech don't emit significantly less NOX and just cost more to maintain/acquire.

    From my own anecdotal experience the emission system on my diesel only lasted 50k miles.

    I've also read that relatively small size of the PM emitted via DPF burn off is arguably worse than that PM w/out DPF since it travels deeper into the lungs.

Log in or create an account to post a comment.

Related

Community

Recent Questions and Replies

  • |
  • |
  • |
  • |