U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

45–010 PDF 2009

S. HRG. 110–775 

EXAMINING SOLUTIONS TO COPE WITH THE RISE 

IN HOME HEATING OIL PRICES 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS 

AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JUNE 25, 2008 

( 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts, Chairman 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

TOM HARKIN, Iowa 

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut 

MARY LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

EVAN BAYH, Indiana 

MARK PRYOR, Arkansas 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

JON TESTER, Montana 

OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine 

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri 

NORMAN COLEMAN, Minnesota 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

ELIZABETH DOLE, North Carolina 

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota 

BOB CORKER, Tennessee 

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming 

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia 

NAOMI BAUM, Democratic Staff Director 

WALLACE HSUEH, Republican Staff Director 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

OPENING STATEMENTS

Kerry, Hon. John F., a United States Senator from Massachusetts ................... 1 

Snowe, Hon. Olympia J., a United States Senator from Maine .......................... 4 

WITNESS TESTIMONY

Johnson, David F., Deputy Assistant Secretary for Petroleum Reserves, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Washington, DC ........................................................... 11 

Brooks, Jennifer, Community Relations manager, Penquis, Bangor, Maine ...... 32 

Farrell, Sandra, Owner, Northboro Oil Company, Northboro, Massachusetts ... 39 

Ferrante, Michael, president, Massachusetts Oilheat Council, Wellesley Hills, 

Massachusetts ...................................................................................................... 45 

Stoddard, Michael, deputy director and attorney, Environment Northeast, 

Portland, Maine .................................................................................................... 58 

ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED

Brooks, Jennifer 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 32 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 35 

Response to post-hearing questions from: 

Senator Kerry ............................................................................................ 87 

Senator Snowe ........................................................................................... 88 

Farrell, Sandra 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 39 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 41 

Response to post-hearing questions from Senator Snowe ............................. 91 

Ferrante, Michael 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 45 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 48 

Response to post-hearing questions from: 

Senator Kerry ............................................................................................ 89 

Senator Snowe ........................................................................................... 92 

Letter to assistant attorney generals Jed Nosal, Chris Barry-Smith and 

Diane Lawton regarding National Grid Advertising ................................. 92 

Letter to Hon. Martha Coakley, Office of Attorney General, Boston, Massachusetts regarding Keyspan Energy Delivery ‘‘Be Green Win Green’’ 

Promotional Program .................................................................................... 95 

Letter to Joseph Rogers, Office of Attorney General, Boston, Massachusetts ................................................................................................................ 97 

Johnson, David F. 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 11 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 16 

Response to post-hearing questions from: 

Senator Kerry ............................................................................................ 84 

Senator Snowe ........................................................................................... 85 

Kerry, Hon. John F. 

Opening statement ........................................................................................... 1 

Post-hearing questions posed to David F. Johnson and subsequent responses ........................................................................................................... 84 

Post-hearing questions posed to Jennifer Brooks and subsequent responses ........................................................................................................... 87 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
Page

IV 

Kerry, Hon. John F. —Continued 

Post-hearing questions posed to Michael Ferrante and subsequent responses ........................................................................................................... 88 

Post-hearing questions posed to Michael Stoddard and subsequent responses ........................................................................................................... 98 

Lieberman, Hon. Joseph I. 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 83 

Snowe, Hon. Olympia J. 

Opening statement ........................................................................................... 4 

Post-hearing questions posed to David F. Johnson and subsequent responses ........................................................................................................... 85 

Post-hearing questions posed to Jennifer Brooks and subsequent responses ........................................................................................................... 88 

Post-hearing questions posed to Michael Ferrante and subsequent responses ........................................................................................................... 91 

Post-hearing questions posed to Sandra Farrell and subsequent responses ........................................................................................................... 90 

Post-hearing questions posed to Michael Stoddard and subsequent responses ........................................................................................................... 101 

Stoddard, Michael 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 58 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 60 

Response to post-hearing questions from: 

Senator Kerry ............................................................................................ 98 

Senator Snowe ........................................................................................... 101 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
(1) 

EXAMINING SOLUTIONS TO COPE WITH THE 

RISE IN HOME HEATING OIL PRICES 

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 25, 2008 

UNITED STATES SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS

AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP, 

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:06 a.m., in room 

428–A, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. John F. Kerry (chairman of the committee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Kerry and Snowe. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOHN F. KERRY, 

CHAIRMAN, AND A UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS 

Chairman KERRY. The hearing will come to order. Thank you all 

for being here. Good morning. 

Obviously, with temperatures pushing 80 degrees here in Washington and the thermometer in the high 70s with a nice humid 

early summer day in Boston, it probably strikes some of you as odd 

that we are having a hearing on home heating oil prices. But for 

those of us who are New Englanders and understand what the 

New England winter brings and how the pipeline has to be fed 

early, not late, this is the right time to be having this hearing. In 

fact, the clock is ticking when it comes to Washington’s ability to 

be able to step in before it is too late and allow the crisis for homeowners who are hard-pressed financially to face devastating circumstances. 

So now and in the coming weeks, families and businesses are 

going to be sitting down to sign their heating oil contracts, and 

record prices are creating very difficult decisions for them. Nationally, 7.7 million households heat their homes with home heating 

oil. In Massachusetts, over 963,000 households use home heating 

oil delivered by over 800 distributors, many of them small businesses. And it is reality, not rhetoric that price spikes will force 

people to decide whether to feed their families or heat their home 

on any given day. 

You don’t have to take my word for that. The Energy Information 

Administration is projecting that heating oil prices will be up 56 

percent in 2009 compared with 2007, and that estimate may even 

be modest. I challenge anybody to show me almost any worker who 

is going to see a 56 percent increase in their pay, let alone a five 

percent, or even two percent increase. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
2 

Prices for a gallon of home heating oil sit at over $4.50 today compared with less than $1 ten years ago. That means that consumers are paying thousands more than they used to pay just to 

heat their homes in the winter. In a slumping economy where the 

cost of everything else is soaring, too—health care, tuitions, clothing, food, all of it—in that kind of an economy, families are facing 

a recipe for the toughest kinds of choices. 

Senator Snowe and I have been fighting to get Washington to 

take precautions ahead of time for some time in order to avoid the 

equivalent of a snowy Katrina, where we see our government flatfooted and families shivering in their homes. For low-income families and the elderly, the most important thing that we can do to 

respond to their needs ahead of time is to fund the Low Income 

Home Energy Assistance Program. 

But that is just the start of a comprehensive answer to a complex 

problem. Consumers bear the brunt of spikes in heating oil prices, 

but small business owners are extremely hard hit, too. Most heating oil distribution is done by small businesses like the Northboro 

Oil Company owned by Sandra Farrell. As we will hear from Ms. 

Farrell and other small distributors, she and others are victimized 

many times over by the rising prices of fuel. Their accounts receivable go through the roof, and that is not an easy situation to handle during a credit crunch. Their customers have a difficult time 

paying their bills, and rising credit card fees further cut into their 

margins. The volatility in the market also causes the price of hedging, which is locking into a price and buying certainty to rise from 

a few cents a gallon a few years ago to upwards of 40 cents a gallon 

today. 

We have to do a better job of easing the impact of these price 

shocks, and this is not a new problem, but regrettably obstruction 

in Congress doesn’t help us to solve the problem. Back in the winter of 2000, I authored the Home Heating Readiness Act, which 

called on the Secretary of Energy to report to Congress on the readiness of the heating oil and propane industries to prevent and prepare for shortages, and I supported the creation of a Northeast 

Home Heating Oil Reserve to respond to localized price shocks. I 

have cosponsored Senator Snowe’s bill, the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, which is a mandate for a release from the Northeast 

Home Heating Oil Reserve if the price of home heating oil is over 

$4 a gallon. So we need to be clear about the definition of a price 

shock and we need to make sure that this reserve is there to help 

people when they need it, and the fact is, time is running out. 

Those are short-term, stop-gap precautions that we should insist 

upon. But Congress also has to tackle the explosion of energy 

prices as a whole. Crude oil prices make up 60 percent of the cost 

of home heating oil, and we have just received testimony in Congress from energy market experts and major oil company executives that the price of oil and gas can no longer be explained or predicted by normal market dynamics or through their historic understanding of supply and demand forces. 

As an ExxonMobil executive testified before Congress under oath, 

the price of crude oil should be about $50 to $55 per barrel based 

on the supply and demand fundamentals that have been observed 

for years. But as we know, the current crude oil prices are well 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
3 

more than double that—They are about $136 today—and there are 

many reasons why prices have risen to these levels. 

To be absolutely clear, we just had testimony in the Commerce 

Committee a couple of weeks ago about this and I met with one of 

the CEOs of one of the major oil companies in the country last 

week, and all of the evidence that they have put in front of us says 

that anywhere from $10 to $40 a barrel is pure speculation and it 

is driving these prices. We just passed legislation which gives the 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission the authority and responsibility to prevent fraud, manipulation, and excessive speculation 

in U.S. commodity markets. 

But I will tell you something. A strong Attorney General, a 

strong FTC, and a strong administration would be speaking out 

about this and they would be sending signals to the marketplace 

that would tamp down this speculation. And the fastest, quickest, 

most effective, and cheapest way to reduce the cost of fuel to the 

American consumer today is for the administration to have appropriate discussions about intervention with respect to the speculation that is taking place. Instead, we have a rather toothless and 

feckless bureaucracy that has stood at the sidelines while the 

American consumer pays a high price and while major companies 

walk away with very significant windfall profits. 

We also need a broader and comprehensive strategy to help out 

the small businesses and consumers who get walloped by these 

skyrocketing prices. This week, I will once again be introducing 

along with Senator Snowe the Small Business Energy Emergency 

Relief Act of 2008 to provide affordable, low-interest, Small Business Administration disaster loans to small businesses that have 

suffered economic harm and can’t pay their bills because of the 

huge price increases in heating oil, propane, kerosene, and natural 

gas. Whether they are small distributors or business owners who 

rely on those fuels to heat stores, many small businesses are dependent on these basic heating fuels. Our legislation will provide 

small businesses with assistance when you have a very dramatic 

fluctuation that is completely unanticipated and takes a working, 

viable business that under normal circumstances can survive and 

helps them get through that rough spot of the dramatic and unpredictable price fluctuation. 

This legislation has passed the full Senate three times. It has 

passed this committee several other times, and it is time we got the 

obstruction out of the way and got it into law so that we put another tool at the disposal of our small businesses. 

I might just end by saying that with these kinds of pressures, opportunities also present themselves, and it seems to me that the 

market, with help from the government, can unleash unbelievably 

powerful forces to create new efficiencies in order to help solve the 

problem in the long term. Let me give you an example. 

Massachusetts Governor Patrick, Senate President Murray, and 

House Speaker DiMasi have introduced legislation that would 

make Massachusetts the first State to require all diesel and home 

heating fuel sold in the State to contain a minimum amount of renewable bio-based alternatives in their blends, with that amount 

rising from two percent in 2010 to five percent in 2013. These mandates will help build Massachusetts’s emerging biofuel refinery and 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
4 

distribution sector and save consumers money as renewable 

sources become more prevalent and cheaper, and it also obviously 

sends a message to the marketplace about the perspective of the 

government on this issue. 

We ought to be on the fast track towards increasing energy efficiency. It is shocking to me, absolutely shocking to me, that after 

all these years, 1975 and Jimmy Carter and the first oil shock, and 

then 1988, Jim Hansen predicting global climate change, and now 

all the rhetoric of the last eight years about energy efficiency and 

climate change, et cetera, et cetera, it is stunning to me that we 

still remain the most profligate, wasteful nation in the world with 

respect to energy. We just throw it away. 

Our escalators are going 24/7. In other countries, they stop and 

start as people get on them. Our lights are on in halls 24/7/365. In 

other countries, they are dimmed and if nobody is in the hall, they 

go off completely. If somebody comes out of a room into the hall, 

they go on automatically. We are so far behind that it is shameful, 

and we are wasting money and fostering a greater dependency on 

foreign entities that supply our fuel. 

We have got to get smart here. There are real savings to be had, 

and the fact is that a lot of big businesses that I have met who are 

now involved in pushing for a cap and trade global climate change 

response companies ranging from DuPont to Dow Chemical to British Petroleum and others are all engaged in major energy efficiency 

programs that are saving some of them billions of dollars and others millions of dollars. So this is the track we have to go on, and 

we need to make it possible for small businesses, who often can’t 

afford the capitalization costs, to take advantage of these things, 

because in the long run, it will make them more competitive and 

more efficient. 

Senator Snowe. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE OLYMPIA J. 

SNOWE, A UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM MAINE 

Senator SNOWE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this critical hearing today. It is certainly timely with respect to the dramatic impact that skyrocketing home heating oil and energy costs 

that are burdening and bearing down on small businesses and 

American consumers. I appreciate your tireless leadership on this 

issue that is imposing untold hardship on people, certainly in my 

State of Maine and across the country. 

I want to join the Chairman in welcoming Mr. Johnson, who is 

the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Petroleum Reserves, who has 

been with the Department, as I understand it, since 1979, so he 

has seen the dimensions of this critical question. 

I also appreciate the fact that the Department of Energy has announced its intent with an issuance of solicitation to purchase approximately 35,000 barrels of oil for the Northeast Home Heating 

Oil Reserve. I appreciate that and want to explore that issue further with respect to the terms of adjusting the formula in the legislation to which the Chairman had referred. 

I also want to thank Jennifer Brooks, who is a Community Relations Manager at Penquis Community Action Program, who is on 

the front line of providing services to my constituents and to the 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
5 

people of Maine that is so difficult during these difficult times. Also 

Michael Stoddard with Environment Northeast, for traveling from 

Maine to participate in this hearing. I welcome your expertise and 

insight about the increasingly dire situation that requires bold and 

immediate action, analysis, and investigations into the pricing and 

supply of home heating oil, and above all, how to prepare for a potential and unmistakable tsunami that is heading for Maine and 

New England and throughout this country, given the dramatic increase in energy prices. 

Mr. Chairman, the ominous reality is that alarm bells have already sounded as we are confronting a crisis of the highest order. 

Consider the example that is illustrated here on this chart. In 

2006, New England was purchasing oil per gallon for $2.39, for 4.1 

billion gallons of home heating oil, representing 82 percent of the 

entire country’s demand, and costing New England $9.84 billion. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
6 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 13 45010A.001
7 

Fast forward two years, and this chart highlights that one gallon of home heating oil in Maine currently costs $4.60, and since the 

start of the 2007–2008 home heating oil season, we have seen the 

price increase by more than 70 percent. So New England may 

spend, in today’s prices, just given the $4.60 anticipation, more 

than $19 billion on home heating oil alone, compared to 2006, 

where it was $9.84 billion. And we are in the middle of the summer, when demand for home heating oil is negligible. 

So I trust that this hearing will provide Mainers and Americans 

with an explanation for the unfathomable price increases as well 

as explore initiatives that can mitigate these energy costs as winter 

approaches. It is time we begin to understand and then act upon 

the root causes behind these pernicious price increases. 

As this chart indicates, from 2003 to 2007, the home heating oil 

price in Maine jumped by a staggering 135 percent, far outpacing 

the wage gains that the Chairman referred to, which increased 

17.1 percent. A 135 percent increase in a basic commodity and yet 

wages only increased 17.1 percent. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
8 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 16 45010A.002
9 

So it begs the question, what specific concrete steps can we take 

here in Congress to reverse this calamity? How can citizens and 

small businesses prepare for the winter months ahead? What can 

be done to increase the inventory of our home heating oil supply? 

What exactly are customers saying? How are dealers responding? 

Furthermore, I think that we need to understand exactly what 

is driving up these prices, as the Chairman referenced in terms of 

price speculation. Maine oil dealers told me that one day in May 

the price for home heating oil went up 30 cents per gallon, again 

when demand is virtually negligible, minimal, and yet 30 cents in 

one day. We had the single largest increase for oil per barrel in 

June. It went up $11 in one single day. 

So the purpose of this hearing is again to elicit an understanding 

in terms of the analysis and also to receive answers to many of 

these questions and how we can stem this crisis and prepare for 

the winter ahead. 

Certainly, small business owners are experiencing the financial 

pressure of rising energy costs and they require assistance. According to the National Federation of Independent Businesses, 42 percent of small businesses ranked the cost of natural gas, propane, 

gasoline, and fuel oil as a critical problem. In most cases, small 

businesses, instead of exploring opportunities for expansion or 

growth, are forced to reexamine their business plans, future investments, bottom-line profitability, and job creation. 

Energy price increases severely undermine small businesses, 

which often lack the negotiating power and margin buffer enjoyed 

by their larger counterparts, and that is especially true for small 

business, oil and gas distributors. According to the New England 

Fuel Institute, which submitted testimony to this committee, heating oil has had a dramatic effect on almost every aspect of these 

small business operations. 

As we will discuss today, these distributors are confronted with 

severely constrained bank credit lines and are unable to secure 

more credit to confront rising oil prices. These dealers are also having a difficult time maintaining a liquid cash flow, as most customers cannot afford to pay their entire heating oil bill. In this 

bleak landscape, 16 small business oil distributors in Maine have 

already gone out of business in this past year. With small businesses operating on razor-thin margins, they often must raise 

prices simply to remain in business, which in turn impinges on customers as they struggle with inflation across the board in simply 

every category. 

Energy cost increases are also compelling small business executives to make reductions in other areas, such as employee benefits 

and safety training. And let us not forget that these same dynamic 

entrepreneurs, that we count on to create three-quarters of all new 

jobs in America, are now coping with double-digit premium increases in the cost of providing their employees’ health care. 

For individual families, the situation is worsening and becoming 

untenable. Mainers require between 850 gallons to 1,000 gallons a 

year to get through the winter. Most Mainers are now facing a 

classic Catch–22. Do I lock in prices that are nearing $5 a gallon, 

or do I roll the dice and gamble that heating oil prices might somehow drop in the coming months as the weather turns colder? The 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
10 

thought of spending approximately $5,000 per family just to stay 

warm this winter in a State where the per capita income is $33,000 

is outrageous. The potential scenario is nothing short of a looming 

catastrophe for the region with every passing day, and this is a 

State that derives 80 percent of home heat from oil. That is the 

challenge that we are facing in our State and certainly throughout 

New England. 

Amid this challenging economic landscape and all too polarizing 

political climate, there are steps and initiatives we can take to 

mitigate the effects of soaring prices. That is why I will join the 

Chairman when he introduces his legislation that will provide for 

an underpinning to our economy, and that is allowing for disaster 

assistance loans for economic dislocation. With prices remaining 

close to $5 a gallon, when the winter months come, this will certainly affect the major part of our economy in this country that creates jobs. 

The Small Business Act currently allows for the Administrator to 

declare a disaster for small businesses suffering a substantial economic injury. I think this legislation is most appropriate in allowing SBA to provide loans for small businesses that have suffered 

injury when home heating oil prices have increased by 40 percent. 

As Senator Kerry mentioned, we now have the Northeast Home 

Heating Oil Reserve Program. It was created in 2000. I have introduced legislation to adjust the Reserve’s release formula, and I appreciate Senator Kerry’s cosponsorship and Senator Dodd’s. I think 

it is critically important that we adjust that formula so that if 

prices remain above $4 a gallon, that we are able to release that 

supply in a staggered fashion throughout the winter, with the 

funding from its sale to also underwrite weatherization programs. 

At a time when astronomical energy prices drive individuals to 

keep warm by using cooking stoves, space heaters, and kerosene 

can heaters, which can lead to fires as well as produce toxic fumes, 

we must take every available step to reduce prices. That is why I 

vigorously fought for extending the tax credits for alternatives and 

renewables. It is regrettable we have not passed that here in the 

Congress. It is set to expire at the end of this year. 

But what is even more preposterous is that one of my provisions 

that would provide a tax credit for remodeling of homes to make 

them more energy efficient expired at the end of last year and we 

were unable to get that renewed for the beginning of this year. 

Here are people trying to remodel their homes, get energy-efficient 

furnaces, and they are not able to take advantage of a tax credit 

because it expired this last year. 

We also have the Low Income Fuel Assistance Program. I worked 

to get the authorization doubled in the budget resolution with Senator Conrad, who is the Chairman of the Budget Committee, and 

now it is important to make sure that we have the appropriations 

to buttress that authorization. But given the meteoric rise in our 

prices, our reliance on low-income fuel assistance will not be sufficient to address those who are reliant on the program and even 

those who are not eligible income-wise to use that program. We are 

going to have to address other ways in which to help people to accommodate these rising costs in home heating oil. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
11 

So we have to act swiftly and decisively commensurate with the 

mammoth scale of our nation’s energy challenges. I hope that Congress can address these and other issues, including speculation in 

the energy markets, that as many have indicated through testimony and through studies submitted to this Congress, that, in fact, 

it adds anywhere from $25 to $60 per barrel of oil. So we do have 

an obligation to act, in fact, much of which could happen today 

with unilateral action by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. 

They have the powers today, for example, to require that those 

oil futures that are traded in foreign markets have to adopt the 

same standards and regulations that are required here in the 

United States. Much of those oil futures are traded abroad and yet 

they are contributing to the rising oil prices, yet we have no way 

of engaging in any kind of oversight, suspending the trading or giving the Commodity Futures Trading Commission the emergency 

authority to suspend and intervene in emergency situations to suspend the trading when necessary, in addition to limiting the positions of individual traders when they are cornering a market. 

So there are many issues that can be addressed that could have 

an immediate impact on the prices, and hopefully we can build a 

bipartisan support. I think we should have a national energy summit between Congress and the President, engage in a bipartisan solution to this problem, and deal with it as it is a crisis for this 

country. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman KERRY. Thank you very much, Senator Snowe. That 

was an important statement and I appreciate it very, very much. 

Mr. Johnson, in light of those comments as a backdrop, we look 

forward to your testimony. As you know, your full testimony will 

be placed in the record, so if you could summarize, that would be 

helpful. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID F. JOHNSON, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR PETROLEUM RESERVES, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 

ENERGY, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you. Mr. Chairman and Senator Snowe, I 

am pleased to be here today to discuss the Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve, which was established by the Department of Energy in 2000 as an emergency stockpile of heating oil to address 

weather-related supply problems in the Northeast. 

The vulnerability of the Northeast to heating oil supply problems 

has always been a concern. The New England portion of the Northeast is most vulnerable to any form of heating oil supply constraints during the winter season, and New England has no refineries so that the heating oil must all be brought from outside the 

region. A high percentage of the movements into and around the 

region are marine, thereby putting movements of heating oil at risk 

for any severe winters when rivers freeze, and in some cases harbors freeze and are closed by high winds during the peak demand 

periods. 

In July of 2000, the President directed by the Department of Energy to establish a regional distillate reserve in the Northeast as 

an emergency stockpile of heating oil to address these winter-reVerDate Nov 24 2008 02:00 Apr 10, 2009 Jkt 045010 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A010.XXX A010

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
12 

lated problems, as occurred in the winter of 1999 and 2000. The 

regional distillate reserve in the Northeast was later codified in the 

Energy Policy and Conservation Act as the Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve. 

The authorized size of the Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve 

is two million barrels. The intent was to create a stock buffer large 

enough to allow commercial companies to compensate for interruptions in supply during severe winter weather, but not so large to 

dissuade suppliers from responding to increasing prices as a sign 

that more supply is needed. The Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve is comprised of government-owned oil stored in commercial 

storage tanks in the Northeast, of which one million barrels is in 

New England and one million barrels is located in the New York 

Harbor. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
13 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 26 here 45010A.003
14 

The Heating Oil Reserve currently contains 1,965,000 barrels. 

The Department had to sell 35,000 barrels in June of 2007 in order 

to have sufficient funding to award new storage contracts for the 

heating oil. The current storage contracts will provide for the storage through September 2011. 

In 2008, Congress appropriated $3 million of additional funds to 

repurchase the 35,000 barrels sold. Just this week, the Defense Energy Support Center, acting as our purchasing agent, has issued a 

solicitation for the replenishment of these quantities. 

The Department’s response plan for the Heating Oil Reserve provides for the release of heating oil by the means of competitive 

sales. The Department has implemented an online sales platform 

which will allow for the award of sales contracts within two days, 

and the Department’s Office of Fossil Energy website permanently 

posts standard sales provisions and also provides the means for 

companies and individuals to register for prompt notification for 

imminent sale. Actual sales are limited, of course, to entities customarily engaged in the sale and distribution of petroleum distillate. The Petroleum Reserve Office conducts pre-season exercises 

of the sale system with industry every winter to ensure the industry’s familiarity with the sale system and to receive feedback for 

continual improvement. 

Congress in the Energy Policy and Conservation Act provided explicit conditions for the release of stocks from the Heating Oil Reserve. The Secretary may release stocks from the reserve only upon 

the finding by the President that there is a severe energy supply 

interruption. Such a finding may only be made if it is determined 

that, one, a dislocation in the heating oil market has resulted from 

an interruption, or two, a circumstance exists that constitutes a regional supply shortage of a significant scope and duration that the 

reserve’s release would significantly reduce its adverse impact. 

To date, the Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve has not been 

needed to address an emergency winter shortage situation. The recent winter, however, of 2007–2008 saw the end-of-season potential 

supply situation develop in the Northeast as commercial stocks fell 

to unprecedented lows due to high market prices and strong demands for distillate in Europe. That situation is not what the reserve was established to address and would not have been characterized as a severe energy supply disruption, as the law stipulates. 

However, last year’s situation does give similar concerns for this 

upcoming winter of 2008–2009. 

I would like to conclude by saying the Department’s Northeast 

Home Heating Oil Reserve stands ready to make heating oil available in a very rapid manner in the event of a Northeast supply 

shortage. We are currently adding the heating oil to bring our supplies to 99 percent. During the winter season, the Department of 

Energy also participates in weekly energy calls with the State energy offices, local government, the Northeast gas and heating oil 

associations, and the Coast Guard and others to monitor the Northeast fuel supply situation. These calls have served in the past to 

help States exchange information, coordinate a response to stock 

situations, transportation issues, price levels, and dealer and consumer concerns. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
15 

This concludes my prepared testimony. I will be happy to answer 

any questions you have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Johnson follows:] 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
16 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphics folio 31 here 45010A.004
17 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphics folio 32 here 45010A.005
18 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphics folio 33 here 45010A.006
19 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphics folio 34 here 45010A.007
20 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphics folio 35 here 45010A.008
21 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphics folio 36 here 45010A.009
22 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphics folio 37 here 45010A.010
23 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert graphics folio 38 here 45010A.011
24 

Chairman KERRY. Well, thank you, Mr. Johnson. 

So do I understand from your testimony that it would be your 

position that you do not have the Congressional authority to release the reserve other than in those two circumstances? 

Mr. JOHNSON. That is correct. 

Chairman KERRY. And you are saying that the circumstances require an interruption? 

Mr. JOHNSON. That is correct, a supply disruption. 

Chairman KERRY. A supply disruption. There were two circumstances. One was a supply disruption, and one was a disruption of what? 

Mr. JOHNSON. One was what is called a—there is a trigger which 

is a supply dislocation, and the other one was—— 

Chairman KERRY. Why would what we have today not be a supply dislocation? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Because the President—the high prices are not indicative of a supply interruption—— 

Chairman KERRY. So if there is no supply interruption and the 

normal supply and demand curve is what it was, why is the price 

going up? 

Mr. JOHNSON. The price of heating oil, as you know, is—excuse 

me. The price of heating oil is tied to the price of crude and that 

is why—it is based on the fundamentals and the price of crude. 

Chairman KERRY. And that can’t be interpreted as a supply 

interruption? 

Mr. JOHNSON. No, sir. 

Chairman KERRY. So is it your position that Congress needs to 

pass a redefinition or an additional circumstance? 

Mr. JOHNSON. That would be correct. 

Chairman KERRY. Interesting. Under what circumstances as a 

matter of policy do you believe we should perhaps use the reserve? 

Let me preface that with a threshold question. Do you believe the 

reserve is large enough? 

Mr. JOHNSON. The reserve was built to respond to winter-related 

supply emergencies such as that happened in the 1988–1989 winter and again in the 1999–2000 winter, in which prices spiked because supplies couldn’t reach the market and the reserve was built 

to address those things. It was not to address price issues as what 

you are thinking. So therefore what we did is want to build only 

enough supplies that would meet that immediate need. We have 

enough supplies that can meet five days of—— 

Chairman KERRY. I understand all of that, but it is not what I 

am asking. I am asking you to think out of the box a little bit and 

tell me whether, given what is happening to small businesses, 

given the rise in prices, as a matter of policy, should we consider 

having a larger reserve which can be released as a counter to speculation, to these very significant spikes in price that have a profoundly negative impact on the economy generally, and particularly 

on small businesses? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Sure, the reserve could be made bigger, but essentially if you are saying that there needs to be more supplies, the 

industry should be out there providing those supplies to build up. 

Is it—— 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
25 

Chairman KERRY. Well, we haven’t built a refinery in this country in 30 or 40 years. We don’t have any refineries in New England, I don’t think. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Correct. 

Chairman KERRY. So obviously the marketplace isn’t working so 

well with respect to supply. They kind of like it the way it is, a 

nice chokehold. Prices are up and you can make a lot of money. My 

question is whether we need some intervention in the marketplace 

to help consumers. People are crossing the border to get gas in 

Mexico now. They take gas holidays. Did you know that? They 

drive to Mexico in order to fill up because Mexico subsidizes their 

gas, keeps it a lower price. 

I am not suggesting we ought to subsidize the price, but I think 

we should have the ability to be able to counter the negative impact—the inflationary impact, the significant sort of disruption, if 

you will, to the normal market forces that occurs when you have 

a very significant increase in prices because of speculation, as you 

heard Senator Snowe speak about as well. Her experts say speculation is responsible for $20 to $65 per barrel. I said $10 to $40. Put 

it somewhere in between, $30 to $50. That is a very significant 

chunk of what the American consumer is paying today due only to 

speculation. 

So you can tamp down the speculation if you have the ability to 

counter it by affecting the supply and demand curve. Has this not 

occurred to you? You guys don’t talk about these things? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes. Yes. 

Chairman KERRY. You do? 

Mr. JOHNSON. But, you know, the thing is if you take and you 

build a reserve up there and you released it due to higher prices, 

you are going to dissuade industry from bringing stocks in to supply. They are going to have expectations more that the government 

is going to release oil so therefore I should be able to have it. 

Chairman KERRY. Why wouldn’t you have the counter incentive, 

which is to bring a whole bunch in so that you are the person selling it and you make more money to prevent the government from 

feeling it has to? I mean, if you have got a good business instinct, 

it seems to me the instinct is to try to get as much of the market 

as you can, and therefore you want to make sure you have got 

enough supply coming in because they might come in—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. But should government compete with industry? 

Should—— 

Chairman KERRY. Technically, no, but industry also ought to behave according to some standards. This is why we have the FTC. 

That is why we have a Commodity Futures Trading Board. That 

is why we have an Attorney General. That is why we have laws, 

blue sky laws. That is why Teddy Roosevelt busted up a whole 

bunch of trusts, because people didn’t behave. And we learned a 

long time ago that sometimes the government has to step in to ensure a fair playing field. That is all we are talking about here. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, but the price of heating oil is a reality due 

to the price of crude oil and essentially it is Congress—— 

Chairman KERRY. It is tied to crude oil. I understand it is wedded to the per-barrel cost. I get it. But when you have a region that 

is particularly dependent on heating oil with a whole bunch of conVerDate Nov 24 2008 02:00 Apr 10, 2009 Jkt 045010 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A010.XXX A010

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
26 

comitant costs that have a profound impact on people’s ability to 

survive, don’t you have some responsibility to try to address that? 

People are paying for something they have no control over. For 

instance, they are losing their health care because defined benefit 

plans are disappearing and they are being thrown into contribution 

plans, so they are out in the marketplace, fending for themselves. 

Their health care costs are going up. Their benefits are going down. 

They turn around, college tuition is going up. You notice tuition 

costs are going up? Their food prices are going up. And now credit 

costs more because the housing market has collapsed, and there 

has been no response from this administration for six months despite many of our pleas. We hopefully will pass something here in 

the Congress. 

Haliburton is doing well. A bunch of big companies are doing 

well. But the average American is really getting hurt. It doesn’t 

seem like there is an administration response that wants to try to 

find a way to intervene and help the average American. 

Now, coming back to heating oil prices, I am asking you as a 

matter of policy, would the administration support expanding that 

home heating oil pool and expanding the circumstances under 

which it might be released in order to relieve pressure? You could 

define a set of strict impacts, but would you be supportive of exploring something like that? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I can’t speak for the administration on that. I do 

manage the Heating Oil Reserve in accordance with the laws—— 

Chairman KERRY. What would you advise, as the person who 

manages the heating oil? Does it concern you? 

Mr. JOHNSON. The whole situation concerns me very much, okay. 

I believe the premise of the Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve 

to meet the winter-related shortages is a very important mission 

and is something that we should be doing from the Federal Government. However, I think also the Department of Energy is doing as 

much in trying to resolve some of these issues, because it is tied 

to crude. The Department has initiated efforts to increase energy 

efficiencies and conservation efforts, development of cleaner, more 

sustainable energy sources, alternative fuels, and also calling for 

the development of production of Outer Continental Shelf, Arctic 

National Wildlife Refuge, and our domestic oil shale resources. 

Those things will lower crude prices, which will in turn lower the 

heating oil price. 

Chairman KERRY. Well, not according to the experts I have 

talked to. They don’t lower prices. The maximum you might get out 

of ANWR is a reduction of two cents per gallon, none of which will 

affect—at its maximum peak pumping, world prices at all. And you 

can play Outer Continental Shelf games and all that stuff. But we 

only have three percent of the world’s reserves. There is no way 

three percent of the world’s reserves, fully exploited, is going to affect the people who produce 65 percent of the world’s reserves. It 

is just not going to happen. That is not the way the market works. 

So this is a phony argument that is being sold to people, and regrettably, when we have tried to do things like a renewable portfolio standard, major initiatives with respect to alternative renewables—we paid for it. We had $23 billion to excite alternative renewables. And you didn’t make the decision, but the administration 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
27 

you work for helped defeat it on the floor of the Senate in favor 

of fossil fuel oil. Big oil won that battle. So we are not moving $23 

billion into incentives for alternatives and renewables. 

Unfortunately, the rhetoric has worn short with me. I have been 

here too long now and I know the difference between solutions and 

rhetoric. It just doesn’t move me. There has just been an anemic 

effort to try to wean us from foreign oil or to deal with consumer 

issues and I don’t think it is your fault. I think you are trapped 

because I think OMB and the White House run these things and 

it is too bad because a lot of good thinking and good civil service 

manpower gets tied up and put into gridlock, unfortunately. 

Well, let me turn to Senator Snowe. 

Senator SNOWE. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. You make an 

excellent point. Ultimately, it has resulted in an all or nothing 

proposition. It requires numerous components for a balanced energy policy that has been totally absent. We have a responsibility 

on both sides of Pennsylvania Avenue to address that question, but 

it can’t be just one thing or another. It needs a combination. 

And that is what was mentioned about the alternatives. You are 

absolutely right. Here we are in the midst of this year, in the midst 

of an energy crisis, and we haven’t extended the tax credits for renewables. In Maine alone, there is $1.5 billion worth of wind 

projects pending the extension of the tax credits beyond this year. 

It doesn’t make sense that people buying energy-efficient furnaces 

cannot take advantage of tax credits. They expired at the end of 

last year. We cannot reach an agreement on that question. It just 

doesn’t make sense. It just defies logic. 

It takes all of these efforts, especially now to have an immediate 

impact on the price. Whatever we can do for people to divert to alternatives, are doable, including more energy-efficient furnaces, 

whether it is oil or natural gas or whatever. The point is that people can’t avail themselves of these tax credits as they are remodeling their homes, or to weatherize their homes. They just can’t do 

it because it has expired because there is resistance on the part of 

some who just simply don’t think it will work. It will work. 

But here we are, and the people in Maine are worried about, one, 

price, which is catastrophic, and two, supply. Do you anticipate 

that there will be a supply problem next year? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Do we anticipate? 

Senator SNOWE. Right. 

Mr. JOHNSON. It is hard to anticipate. You never know what the 

weather is going to deal us. 

Senator SNOWE. So there is a possibility? 

Mr. JOHNSON. There is always a possibility, yes. 

Senator SNOWE. Are you concerned about the fact that in terms 

of production and oil supply, we are dramatically down this year 

compared to previous years in terms of production, is that correct? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I can’t answer that. You mean in terms of—— 

Senator SNOWE. Well, as I understand it—— 

Mr. JOHNSON [continuing]. Crude oil production, you mean? 

Senator SNOWE. Yes, and supply of home heating oil, from 46 

million barrels, is that correct? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Umm—— 

Senator SNOWE. To 25 million barrels? 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
28 

Mr. JOHNSON. Right now, stocks are low of heating oil, correct. 

Senator SNOWE. Yes, and why is that the case? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, I am not an expert on that, but my understanding is there is a lot more refining margins in producing lowsulfur diesel, and so a lot of effort is being given to production of 

low-sulfur diesel. 

Senator SNOWE. So more of it is going to production of low-sulfur 

diesel. Is that price tied? Are home heating oil prices tied to lowsulfur diesel? Why are the prices up, then, for home heating oil? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I mean, of course, that is higher than home heating oil, and—— 

Senator SNOWE. We are paying $4.60. My CAP program for my distributor is $4.89. That is where we stand today, and this is 

June, approaching July. You don’t expect high prices at this point 

for home heating oil. 

Mr. JOHNSON. No. 

Senator SNOWE. So can you explain that? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I cannot explain. 

Senator SNOWE. So people are asking me the question, rightfully, 

why are prices so high right now? Can you give an explanation to 

that? I would like to know, because you have had obviously a 

breadth of experience—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. That would have to be asked of the Energy Information Administration. I can’t answer all those. We have asked the 

same questions to—because we are trying to buy the 35,000 barrels 

to replace the oil in the reserve. We are tied to that same market, 

and we had hoped to be able to buy that 35,000 with the $3 million 

the Congress gave us. However, we are not going to be able to buy 

that much. 

Senator SNOWE. Because of the price? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Because of the price. 

Senator SNOWE. So we need to provide additional funding to at 

least meet the two million in terms of reserves? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes. We will only be—we will probably be acquiring less than 20,000 barrels. 

Senator SNOWE. So that is something that we obviously should 

work on, to provide additional funding, given the price. But getting 

back to the question of price, I know what the original legislation 

called for in terms of releasing supplies from the reserve, and as 

Senator Kerry was exploring, are there any other options here. 

That is why I have introduced this legislation with Senator Kerry 

and Senator Dodd because I do think it is important to change the 

threshold for release of those supplies. If, for example, oil approaches $5 a gallon or more. People are rightfully asking that question, too. If it is $4.89 today in June, 

what is it going to be in September, October, November, December, 

as we are approaching the winter months? They are logically thinking, could it be worse? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Mm-hmm. 

Senator SNOWE. So we are where we are today, and that is catastrophic. It will be absolutely devastating if they are going to approach $5 or beyond. So, that being the case, is the administration 

prepared to handle those who cannot afford to purchase it? Even 

with the standards for low-income fuel assistance, which the inVerDate Nov 24 2008 02:00 Apr 10, 2009 Jkt 045010 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A010.XXX A010

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
29 

come eligibility standard is $13,000, if the people of Maine and 

throughout New England have to pay upwards of $5,000 to heat 

their homes, if you are talking about an average of $850 or $1,000, 

depending on the size of your home and whether it is energy efficient and so on, you are talking $5,000. There will be a major disruption of supply to the home. People are just not going to be able 

to afford it. What then do they do? What are we prepared for, because that will be a crisis. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, I am not sure what this program can do 

about that. I mean, that is a bigger issue. 

Senator SNOWE. So I think the question is, there is a possibility 

the price could be higher, would you agree? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Right. 

Senator SNOWE. And there is a possibility there could be a challenge to supplies. There may not be adequate supplies next winter, 

that is a possibility? 

Mr. JOHNSON. We think there will be enough supplies for the 

winter. There will be production of heating oil and suppliers 

will—— 

Senator SNOWE. Given this dramatic drop in supplies this year, 

and dramatic drop in production, does that compare to previous 

years in terms of the production that has declined for home heating 

oil currently? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well—— 

Senator SNOWE. How does that compare to previous years? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I can’t answer that. 

Senator SNOWE. How are they going to make up for that lack of 

supply? If they have reduced their production currently and we are 

already down compared to previous seasons, dramatically in terms 

of the number of barrels available for our nation’s supplies, how do 

we make that up? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Again, that is a question that is more appropriate 

for the Energy Information Administration. 

Chairman KERRY. Okay. Speaking of the Energy Information 

Agency, they stated that based on supply and demand, the price 

should be about $90 per barrel. He further stated there has clearly 

been a surge in money coming into the commodities, including energy, which has had some upward effect on the price above the 

trend line. Would you disagree or agree with Mr. Caruso on that 

in terms of the role that speculation has played in the pricing of 

oil? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I am not equipped to agree or disagree. I live with 

the Energy Administration’s information, too. 

Senator SNOWE. What advice do you give to the administration 

with respect to what is impending with the reserve and price? 

Mr. JOHNSON. We monitor the situation of the—as to disruptions 

in the Northeast, okay. We manage the Northeast Home Heating 

Oil Reserve. We make sure we are ready and able to respond to 

any supply disruption in the Northeast that would indeed—that 

people would actually be running out, not due to prices, but due 

to weather-related disruption, so that we could make a recommendation that the reserve should be released. 

Senator SNOWE. But at which point do you make that decision? 

My concern is this. From October 2007 to May 2008, supplies of 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
30 

home heating oil reduced by more than half, from approximately 46 

million barrels to about 25 million barrels. Production currently is 

down 400,000 barrels per day over last year. Where is the tipping 

point here? At what point do you realize that supplies aren’t adequate to make a recommendation? 

We need to have a response plan, is what I am saying. We have 

to have a response plan in terms of price and in terms of supply, 

because oil is a basic commodity. It is the difference between life 

and death. That is the point. People could freeze to death, and they 

are making unconscionable choices. 

I already heard those unconscionable choices before last winter, when oil was $2.79 a gallon, depending on where you were in the 

State. Today, we are talking double the price. So where are we? Oil 

is a fundamental commodity and it affects the personal well-being, 

not to mention the economic well-being of this country. So we need 

to have a response plan, because there are going to be people beyond the threshold of low-income fuel assistance, which isn’t even 

adequate—and I want to get into that and discuss that with the 

second panel. But the point is, that won’t even be adequate to help 

those individuals, let alone those individuals who make more than 

$13,000 to pay for their $5,000 home heating oil bills. 

This will be devastating, and that is the point. It will be. It is 

a national emergency, considering what we know today and what 

we can anticipate for the future. We have got to prepare for the 

worst-case scenario, and that means lead time and preparing and 

pre-planning. So that is what I am encouraging and urging you in 

your conversations, discussions, and recommendations, and looking 

at that supply just here and now with what is going to happen next 

winter and what people are thinking. 

I am getting asked this every day. I am being asked to give advice on whether or not they should lock into a price, the current 

price. I mentioned that in my statement. People are deciding, 

should we lock into a price at whatever it is, depending on the CAP 

program? Is it $4.70, $4.89? Or do I wait and hope that the price 

will drop? And they are going to have to have a time constraint 

here in making that decision. Some distributors are not even doing 

it this year, they can’t afford to, or can’t get insurance to do it, if 

they are still in business. So would you recommend people lock into 

a price today? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I can’t make a recommendation on that. I don’t 

have a crystal ball. 

Senator SNOWE. Okay. So you see the scope of the decisions and 

the challenges here—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. Oh, yes. 

Senator SNOWE [continuing]. And the range. We have experienced the previous price problems in 1979, the gas lines, as we all 

remember that, in 1979, 1980, 1974. Now we have got this dimension of a problem and it is historic. I suggest that the administration begin to plan for all these potential contingencies, because 

they are life threatening and do basically mean the difference between life and death. 

So I appreciate you being here today, Mr. Johnson. Thank you. 

Chairman KERRY. Well, thank you, Senator Snowe. I think that 

was an important line of questioning. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
31 

Mr. Johnson, I know you have been at the DOE since about 1979 

and you were very instrumental in helping to set up this reserve 

program. I don’t mean any disrespect, but I do have a sense that 

you sit there and interpret your job in the narrowest sense, which 

is if there is a weather-related interruption or if a ship somehow 

doesn’t get in, that is the interruption. But you don’t interpret it 

in the context that Senator Snowe has just described, where you 

have production down, where you have an interruption in what is 

the standard flow of the supply. And that interruption is going to 

have an impact that she has described. Do you not accept that? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I accept it, but to do anything, I would have to— 

be a market intervention, and I am not—we are not equipped to 

intervene in the marketplace like that. 

Chairman KERRY. Even though the supply is down, even though 

there is an interruption in the normal flow of produced heating oil, 

why does that not qualify? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, I have no authority in that area. 

Chairman KERRY. Well, isn’t the reserve set up to—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. I mean—— 

Chairman KERRY [continuing]. Intervene in the event of an interruption in the supply? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Sure, in releasing—— 

Chairman KERRY. Isn’t that what Senator Snowe has described? 

Mr. JOHNSON. But our action is to release oil reserves in the 

event of a supply disruption that is going to leave the people without fuel. Yes, in that situation. But like I said, at the end of the 

season this last year, it was very much a concern how low the supplies were up there and industry did respond. Industry came and 

kept ships coming in and kept the supply coming while the winter 

kept on into March. But—— 

Chairman KERRY. Well, let me suggest this. Can you stay here 

and listen? I want you to listen to the testimonies of the people 

who are on the second panel. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Okay. 

Chairman KERRY. And I would like you to take a summary of 

what they say back to the DOE. I am going to ask Senator Snowe 

if she would join me in writing a letter to the Secretary in which 

we describe what is now teed up to happen in New England in the 

fall if we don’t straighten this situation out somehow, or if we can’t 

guarantee a better line of supply right now that is going to somehow affect the price, because we are looking at some very tough 

stuff for people. And I hope people will take note that on this warm 

June day, we are sitting here talking about this well ahead of time. 

So I thank you. I thank you for staying. I think you will find it 

interesting to listen to these business folks who are out there 

struggling. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Okay. 

Chairman KERRY. And then maybe we can work on some remedy 

to this language issue that you are talking about. 

So if I can invite the second panel up, please, we will try to make 

this transition as quick as possible. And I am going to leave Senator Snowe just for a couple of minutes. I have a judge back here 

I have to go back and visit with for a few minutes. If she could 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
32 

begin the process of your testimony, I will be right back. Is that 

okay? 

Senator SNOWE. Yes. 

Chairman KERRY. Thanks. 

Senator SNOWE [presiding]. Our second panel features a group of 

people who can collectively give us a pretty complete picture of the 

heating oil crisis and how to address it. 

First, we are going to hear from Jennifer Brooks, the Community 

Relations Manager for Penquis, a nonprofit organization in Maine. 

Our second witness is Sandra Farrell, owner of Northboro Oil 

Company in Massachusetts. 

Next, we will hear from Michael Ferrante, the President of Massachusetts Oilheat Council, who is also representing the New England Fuel Institute. 

Finally, we will hear from Michael Stoddard, Deputy Director 

and Attorney for Environment Northeast. 

I thank all of you for being here and I look forward to hearing 

your views. We thank you for taking the time. Your complete testimonies will be submitted for the record. Thank you. 

Jennifer, will you begin? 

STATEMENT OF JENNIFER BROOKS, COMMUNITY RELATIONS 

MANAGER, PENQUIS, BANGOR, MAINE 

Ms. BROOKS. Good morning. Thank you for taking time to hear 

testimony about a very important issue affecting us all, the high 

cost of energy. There is not a meeting I attend that the topic of the 

cost of oil is not discussed and the statement made, what are we 

going to do? 

More than 70 percent of people own their own home in Maine. 

In Penobscot and Piscataquis County, there are more than 15,000 

owner-occupied homes that were built prior to 1950. Twenty-eight 

percent of those homes are considered poorly insulated. Four out of 

five Maine households heat their homes with oil. The average cost 

of oil in Eastern Maine is $4.65 per gallon. The average household 

in Maine uses 900 gallons of oil per year. That is $4,185. The average household income in Penobscot County is approximately 

$36,845. In Piscataquis County, it is even less. 

Eastern Maine has suffered the loss of major employers located 

in very rural communities. With few opportunities for new employment, workers are left with only one option, to travel long distances 

for work. Gas is at an average of $4.10 per gallon. 

If small businesses are the backbone of the United States economy, in Maine, they are the lifeline. Ninety-seven percent of all 

businesses in Maine are considered small. Many of those businesses, however, are much smaller than the SBA’s definition of 

small businesses. In our region, microenterprises account for more 

than 25,000 jobs. In Knox County, microenterprises account for 30 

percent of the workforce. With the high energy costs facing these 

microenterprises, they are truly startling. 

However, they are not alone in their inability to handle the high 

cost of fuel. Recently, Katahdin Paper in Millinocket announced it’s 

closing due to the cost of energy. Two hundred people may lose 

their jobs. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
33 

Last year, Penquis provided the LIHEAP funding to 9,078 households but denied 2,151 households. Sixty percent of those denials 

were due to the households being over-income. The average benefit 

amount was $736. That is 158 gallons of oil at the cost right now. 

In order to qualify for LIHEAP this upcoming season, a family of 

four has to earn less than $31,800. Penquis administers a Good 

Neighbor Fund that provides fuel assistance to individuals who do 

not qualify for LIHEAP. That is funded by private donors. 

Last year, people who could not afford to purchase oil utilized 

other heating sources, such as small electric heaters, improperly installed wood stoves, even leaving their cooking oven on and open. 

Between October and April, Bangor Hydroelectric Company is prohibited by State law from disconnecting electricity for nonpayment. 

Many individuals resorted to heating by electricity. In April, Bangor Hydroelectric Company mailed 46,000 disconnection notices, 

representing 39 percent of all of its customers. 

While low-income individuals in our State clearly have an extremely hard time with these price increases, moderate-income 

families that are above traditional public assistance eligibility 

guidelines are at the greatest risk if there is not a deliberate and 

rapid change in eligibility. They will be driven into poverty very 

quickly. Any public program or assistance offered in response to 

the current energy crisis must be made available on a sliding benefit schedule that will allow people up to 100 percent of area or 

Statewide median income to receive some benefit. 

We should increase LIHEAP funding to reflect both the percentage increase in the cost of home heating oil and the increase in 

need; provide grants, no-interest loans, and tax credits to small 

businesses to upgrade or convert their existing heating systems; 

continue to fund the SBA’s microloan program, allowing a simple 

loan process and providing technical assistance to the many microenterprises; increase weatherization funding to weatherize the 

homes of all families at or below 100 percent of the area or State 

median income by 2015; and underwrite the costs of converting to 

non-petroleum heating systems for families at or below 100 percent 

of the area or State median income. 

Before I conclude, I want to leave you with a few stories. These 

types of situations are everywhere in Maine. You could not open a 

newspaper last winter without a story about a family and a struggle to keep warm, a fire, some sort of tragedy. These are two families that we were able to help through the Good Neighbor Fund. 

Like I said, there were so many others that we could not. 

Ruth and her husband are in their 60s and Ruth has cancer. 

They have closed off part of their house to conserve energy. They 

receive Social Security and their medical bills are mounting. They 

owe the oil company for deliveries already made and cannot charge 

any more deliveries. They were $400 over the LIHEAP income and 

could not receive the town assistance. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
34 

Chris had worked all of his life until last winter when he was 

laid off. He ordered 50 gallons of oil at a time, but paid a hefty delivery charge. Swallowing his pride, he applied for LIHEAP, only 

to learn that he was over income due to wages prior to his layoff 

and his unemployment benefits. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Brooks follows:] 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
35 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 64 here 45010A.012
36 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 65 here 45010A.013
37 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 66 here 45010A.014
38 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 67 here 45010A.015
39 

Senator SNOWE. Thank you. 

Ms. Farrell. 

STATEMENT OF SANDRA FARRELL, OWNER, NORTHBORO OIL 

COMPANY, NORTHBORO, MASSACHUSETTS 

Ms. FARRELL. Good morning. Honorable Chairman Kerry, Ranking Member Snowe, and distinguished members of the committee, 

I sincerely thank you for the opportunity to speak before you today. 

Unfortunately, I cannot address every issue that we as small retail 

heating oil dealers are facing in the brief time that we have here 

today. However, I can tell you my story. It is a story that resonates 

with many of us in this business and I am honored to be able to 

tell it to you today. 

My family has owned and operated Northboro Oil since January 

of 1953. This is our 55th year in business. We are fairly typical of 

other fuel oil dealers in that we are a multi-generational familyowned business. Growing up, the business was a constant presence 

in our home. Today, Northboro Oil is no longer run out of the family residence, but we have retained the spirit of the business that 

my dad bought all those years ago. We are still a relatively small 

operation, delivering approximately two million gallons of fuel oil 

every year, servicing 2,400 customers and employing 12 people, and 

we are still a 24-hour, seven-days-a-week, 365-days-per-year operation. 

But something has changed since the days when my father ran 

the business. Don’t get me wrong. We have seen our share of struggles, but the current state of affairs is like nothing we have ever 

encountered. 

I worry for my customers. Some of my customers have been loyal 

to Northboro Oil since I was a young child and now they have come 

to me for help. They can’t pay their bills and they are scared and 

angry and confused. Last year, a typical oil deliver was approximately $500. This year, at current prices, it will be $850 to $900 

per delivery. It is not uncommon in New England in a cold period 

of time for a homeowner to receive two deliveries per month. That 

is going to be $1,700 to $1,900 per month to heat their home. 

It is very tough looking into the eyes of these customers when 

they ask me what I think they should do. I don’t know what to tell 

them. For the first time, I think some of my customers are going 

to have to choose between essentials to pay their bills. I now face 

a harsh reality. How can I cut off delivery to people I have known 

all my life? I can’t even begin to imagine. I have made so many exceptions, but if I make too many more, the business won’t survive. 

And that brings me to my worry over the business. A lot of the 

money is tied up currently in accounts receivable and relatively little money is coming in. Between the winter of 2006 and this past 

winter, I have watched my accounts receivable jump up by 

$300,000 to over $900,000 in February of this winter. It is difficult 

to afford to offer price protection contracts because the cost of insuring them is prohibitive, not to mention the risk involved in the 

programs. And I still fear with the price of heating oil at $4.60 a 

gallon, or more currently, almost double what it was just last year, 

the worst is yet to come. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
40 

Meanwhile, the day-to-day operational costs of running the business keep going up. Hauling fees have increased by 22 percent 

since 2006, adding an additional $32,000 to my overhead costs. And 

credit card transaction fees are eating away what little profit I 

have managed to salvage. And there are my employees. What happens to them if the business starts to go under? As a small business owner, it pains me to think about how my employees and my 

family will suffer if my business fails. 

In short, we are being squeezed from all directions. I have gotten 

to know and work with many dealers from around New England 

and I can tell you that I have never met more honest, hard-working, family-oriented individuals anywhere. We truly care for our 

customers, our employees, and the family members that will inherit our businesses after we are through. But many of us are in 

serious trouble and more will be if the current situation continues. 

A fellow dealer recently said to me, ‘‘If I go out of business, I will 

probably be all right, but what about my niece and nephew? This 

is all they know.’’ 

Thank you, Senators, for listening to me today. I am proud to 

have been chosen to tell this story and I hope I have made an impression on you today and look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Farrell follows:] 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
41 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 73 here 45010A.016
42 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 74 here 45010A.017
43 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 75 here 45010A.018
44 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 76 here 45010A.019
45 

Senator SNOWE. Well, you most certainly have in the testimony 

we have heard so far, which is very dramatic and wrenching. 

Mr. Ferrante. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL FERRANTE, PRESIDENT, MASSACHUSETTS OILHEAT COUNCIL, WELLESLEY HILLS, MASSACHUSETTS 

Mr. FERRANTE. Yes. Senator Snowe and Senator Kerry, thank 

you so much for the opportunity to speak before this committee 

today. My name is Michael Ferrante. I am the President of the 

Massachusetts Oilheat Council, a trade association representing 

about 300 retail operations in Massachusetts. We started our operation in 1955 and have seen a dramatic change in our membership 

in terms of consolidation and the shrinking of our industry. 

As Sandra so eloquently said, our dealers face tremendous hurdles today in this energy market. We are proud to have teamed 

with New England Fuel Institute, who is the largest—they represent the industry regionally, and we are very proud of our work 

on the speculative side of the market, which we will talk about just 

briefly here. 

The high crude and commodity costs are really the underpinning 

of what is striking so many people like Sandra. As you so well 

know, the price of crude has nearly doubled since 2005. On June 

6, we saw prices hovering at around $138 per barrel. Those prices 

are commensurate with the rise in heating oil. The unprecedented 

crude oil prices have sparked an increase in the retail price of 

home heating oil in Massachusetts to $4.60 per gallon. 

A typical fuel oil dealer like Sandra selling 1.9 million gallons is 

an average kind of a profile for a retailer in Massachusetts, interestingly enough, about the size of the reserve. 

Your comments earlier, both of you articulated very well the impact of the speculative markets on our industry, and that is translated to severely strained credit lines for people like Sandra. As she 

mentioned to you, her receivables are sky high. A survey last week 

of our retail board members, about 35 of those folks across the 

State, indicate that their receivables have nearly doubled. A small 

Needham, Massachusetts retailer are seeing receivables very similar to Sandra’s profile. 

And those receivables have also translated to incredibly difficult 

situations with banking. Credit lines have had to be increased by 

more than 50 percent, some from $250,000 to the $500,000 level, 

some from $1 million to almost $2 million to handle the incredible 

strain on their receivables. Our largest member in Worcester, Massachusetts has had to raise his credit line from $1.2 million to $5 

million to cover the cost of fuel. 

The overwhelming customer receivables, of course, is significant. 

Again, the same profile is being reported across the State. Retailers 

are reporting a dramatic increase in the amount of money that is 

not coming into the business, and this alone is dramatically as 

much as a wholesale heating oil dealer requires prompt payment 

from people like Sandra. So when she purchases fuel oil, a wholesale supplier requires payment for that fuel within ten days. So 

you can see that the strain on the receivables has a trickle-down 

effect, one that has had dramatic impact on the industry. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
46 

And, of course, bad debt is another issue that is facing our retailers. People simply cannot pay their bills. Not only that, they will 

not be able to pay at all and may be struggling to simply cover 

their costs at home. Unlike utilities, our retailers do not have shutoff policies. They prefer to work with customers and develop and 

establish a credit base, but they are worried about not receiving 

some payments. 

The lack of price protections programming is really an issue that 

we are facing, and that is dramatic, as Sandra has illustrated, as 

well. Those programs have become so cost-prohibitive to construct. 

The insurance, the downside protection to lock in or cap a program 

has risen from pennies per gallon years ago to 45, 50, even 60 cents 

per gallon. Based on a contract of 40,000 gallons, that is a staggering amount of money for a retailer to be able to put forward to 

protect one contract for heating oil. A typical home using 1,000 gallons of heating oil, one contractor would service 40 customers. 

The customer relations woes that folks like Sandra are facing are 

also very significant. They are spending an inordinate amount of 

time explaining very arcane machinations in the market, taking 

away from their time that is very much more needed to develop 

budget plans and work with their customers on installing new efficient equipment. 

I must also add that gas utility encroachment is having a severe 

impact on our industry. The utilities have wasted no time in capitalizing on the high cost of our fuel versus their fuel, which right 

now has the economic advantage. It is very hard for a small retailer to battle a super-size utility and their marketing programs 

in terms of conversion. So folks like Sandra are once again facing 

tremendous hurdles there. 

And I must add, the Margin-Over-Rack program for LIHEAP, the 

leveraging mechanism of a program that we have so stridently supported, we have demonstrated year after year the importance of 

LIHEAP funding, and our members provide lots of evidence to support that program, but the Margin-Over-Rack program, the 

leveraging program, that mechanism is really also impacting our 

bottom lines. 

In closing, I want to touch upon just a few points I think that 

would make for sound energy policy, and you have touched upon 

a lot of those. Curbing speculation in the market is absolutely key. 

Providing tax credits for efficiency of equipment is also important. 

Raising LIHEAP benefits is truly the most significant thing you 

could do to help those in need. 

The SBC charge that the Massachusetts Oilheat Council has proposed in Massachusetts, a very innovative way to help energy efficiency. That would be a utility-type model where we would assess 

a small assessment on a gallon of heating oil that would fund efficiency upgrades. 

SBA loans, Senator Kerry, your work there is significant and we 

urge you to continue to do that. 

The National Oilheat Research Alliance also is another key component of our survival. That program on a national basis has developed incredible programs for more efficient systems. We are burning much less fuel now than we did ever before. And I will say, as 

well, that the movement towards biofuels, renewable energy, is sigVerDate Nov 24 2008 02:00 Apr 10, 2009 Jkt 045010 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A010.XXX A010

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
47 

nificant in the portfolio of things we need to do to change the entire 

dynamic, lessen our dependence on fossil fuels, and provide a cleaner-burning fuel for our members. 

And I would add one last point. Your whole discussion around 

the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is an interesting one and I ask 

you to pursue that vigorously. It is a small yet substantial pool of 

heating oil, but nonetheless would really have, in our view, if tested, it would be challenging to meet the needs of the Northeast 

when you consider over ten billion gallons of heating oil make up 

the oil heat States. In Massachusetts alone, two billion gallons of 

heating oil are sold annually. So the heating oil reserve would be 

used up quickly in a time of need. 

Just a note on suppliers. You have to remember that there are 

only about ten or 12 key terminals in Massachusetts storing product and those terminals are very resilient inasmuch as providing 

product to the marketplace. They do a really good job in supplying 

the retail operations. We have yet to test how the reserve would 

work with those core terminals in distributing product. 

In closing, Senator Kerry, I want to thank you again for your 

continued work on SBA activities. Senator Snowe, thank you for 

having this hearing today and thank you for the opportunity to 

speak to you today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ferrante follows:] 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
48 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 84 here 45010A.020
49 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 85 here 45010A.021
50 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 86 here 45010A.022
51 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 87 here 45010A.023
52 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 88 here 45010A.024
53 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 89 here 45010A.025
54 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 90 here 45010A.026
55 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 91 here 45010A.027
56 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 92 here 45010A.028
57 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 93 here 45010A.029
58 

Chairman KERRY [presiding]. Thank you very much, Mr. 

Ferrante. 

Mr. Stoddard. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL STODDARD, DEPUTY DIRECTOR 

AND ATTORNEY, ENVIRONMENT NORTHEAST, PORTLAND, 

MAINE 

Mr. STODDARD. Thank you, Senator Kerry, Senator Snowe. My 

name is Michael Stoddard. I am an attorney at Environment 

Northeast, a nonprofit organization that researches and advocates 

innovative environmental policies. I live and work in Portland, 

Maine. 

Environment Northeast is at the forefront of State and regional 

efforts to combat global warming with solutions that promote clean 

energy, clean air, healthy forests, and a sustainable economy. On 

behalf of our organization, I want to thank this committee for giving us the opportunity to testify today. 

In our written testimony, we briefly recap our view of the problem presented by our present lack of tools to control heating oil 

costs. These include: (1) because petroleum heating fuels must be 

imported to the Eastern States, more than $11 billion leaves this 

region each year; (2) demand on Federal fuel assistance for low-income households are rising, but the funds are covering less of the 

household heating needs; (3) the Federal Weatherization Assistance 

Project funding is so low it would take 35 years to treat every eligible home; (4) and despite their very good work, these programs do 

not provide heating help to small business, commercial or middleincome residential customers; (5) perhaps the biggest problem of all 

is that while customers of electricity and natural gas have access 

to large and growing energy efficiency programs to help them gain 

control over their energy costs, heating oil customers do not. 

As explained in more detail in our written testimony, Environment Northeast is proposing that the Federal Government and the 

States coordinate on a major new initiative to help consumers and 

the U.S. economy gain control over escalating oil and propane 

costs. Working together, Federal and State government should implement a comprehensive effort to develop and fund energy efficiency programs for petroleum-based heating fuels. 

The benefits of a national energy efficiency program for heating 

oil, kerosene, and propane would be many and include the following: (1) small businesses and commercial property owners and 

residential homeowners of all income levels will finally have access 

to energy efficiency programs regardless of whether they use electricity, natural gas, or oil to heat their buildings; (2) individual 

homeowners can cost effectively cut their energy use by 20 percent, 

delivering a cost savings of more than $1,000 at current oil prices 

each year; (3) businesses will cost effectively reduce their consumption and heating bills by seven to nine percent every year; (4) 

money that formerly left the States to importers can be saved to 

trickle down into the local economy; (5) good, steady, new jobs will 

be created for heating system technicians, building contractors, and 

weatherization specialists. 

The heating fuel efficiency programs we propose can be implemented along two paths. For small businesses, commercial and 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
59 

multi-family building owners, and residential customers other than 

low-income, every State in the U.S. will offer market-based efficiency programs much like the utility-based programs Michael was 

describing, designed to function like current electric and natural 

gas efficiency programs. 

Market-based efficiency programs for heating fuels will ultimately require a national budget of around $1 billion annually. It 

should start low and ramp up to that level over a three- to fiveyear period. One billion dollars is our approximation of what it 

would cost to capture all cost-effective heating fuel efficiency opportunities. This is the standard being used in the electric and natural 

gas programs. 

For income-eligible residential buildings, the Weatherization Assistance Program budget should be expanded to around $3 billion 

per year over five years in order to weatherize every home that receives LIHEAP fuel aid, and that would be whether they receive 

oil or natural gas or propane or electricity for their heating and 

cooling. 

Opponents of this proposal may try to paint this as a defeatist 

call for Americans to accept that their only course of action is to 

use less, spending the winter wrapped in sweaters and blankets 

and reading by candlelight. Senators, please do not give them the 

satisfaction of perpetuating this myth. Energy efficiency is not the 

same as conservation. Energy efficiency means using better technology to get the same amount of output from your heating, lighting, appliances, and business equipment as you did before, but 

using less energy in the process. It means keeping your living room 

heated to the same temperature with less energy because you have 

tuned up your boiler, insulated your attic, and installed a programmable thermostat. Energy efficiency means standing up and taking 

control of the situation, not sitting back to let the situation control 

us. The one thing energy efficiency does not mean is making do 

with less. 

So how do we take control? We take control by investing, just the 

same as electric utility efficiency programs have been doing successfully for decades. We invest tactically to help consumers put 

energy-efficient products into their businesses and homes. We invest in the difference between the cost of an average product and 

the cost of a high-efficient product. And for those who are not lowincome, we leverage public dollars by cost sharing with the customer. 

Energy efficiency programs represent the best traditions of how 

Americans respond when our country needs to make a major transition. This is one of those times. We need a comprehensive energy 

efficiency program for those customers who heat their businesses 

and homes with oil. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Stoddard follows:] 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
60 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 100 here 45010A.030
61 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 101 here 45010A.031
62 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 102 here 45010A.032
63 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 103 here 45010A.033
64 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 104 here 45010A.034
65 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 105 here 45010A.035
66 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 106 here 45010A.036
67 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 107 here 45010A.037
68 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 108 here 45010A.038
69 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 109 here 45010A.039
70 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 110 here 45010A.040
71 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 111 here 45010A.041
72 

Chairman KERRY. Well, thank you, Mr. Stoddard. I couldn’t 

agree with you more about those recommendations. I think Senator 

Snowe and I would join you in articulating a lot of frustration that 

we haven’t been doing this for the last several years. 

I have to tell you that it is so exciting what is happening in some 

quarters right now in venture capital, the private sector, MIT, Carnegie Mellon, CalTech, and places like that. There are just really 

amazing incubator projects that are taking place, and what we 

could do to excite them if we got those tax credits that Senator 

Snowe is referring to, the extenders—it is just inexcusable that we 

are sitting here without a national policy that allows people to get 

credit for moving in some of these directions, which in fact moves 

the marketplace. I know this. We saw it in Massachusetts in the 

1970s and 1980s. You know, the fastest-growing sector of our economy, with 75,000 jobs and over 1,200 new companies, was in environmental industries, environmental impact mitigation, and related fields when we had those major incentives, tax credits, in 

place. 

And then, of course, the 1980s came along and the Reagan administration didn’t believe in them ideologically and they pulled 

the guts out from under them. Tenured professors who had left 

their jobs to go to the Colorado Laboratory on Energy were thrown 

out on the street, and the things that we had begun to develop in 

our laboratories were picked up by Europeans, the Japanese, and 

others and they became the world’s leaders in photovoltaics and alternative energy. It is just crazy. 

Well, now we are getting back there, slowly. I visited the other 

day with Dr. Craig Venter, who did the human genome mapping 

project, and he explained to me that he is now entirely focused on 

energy. He described to me how he and his group are using synthetic biology to take some of the lessons learned through the genome process about how you can create things, knowing what the 

form of genes are, et cetera, and applying this knowledge to a process that combines photosynthesis and the microbiolab processes 

taking carbon dioxide to create a feedstock for a new fuel that is 

clean. 

Now, if we succeed in that, that is a game changer, a total game 

changer. This is like Harry Truman and Franklin Roosevelt sitting 

there knowing someone else is developing a bomb and if you don’t 

get it first, you may have a problem, and so we go out and create 

the Manhattan Project. Well, we have got a bomb ticking underneath us right now and we have no response commensurate with 

the level of the challenge. 

And I will tell you, if we were to unleash our colleges and universities and entrepreneurs and venture capitalists and all these people, revolutionary innovation is one thing we know how to do in 

America. We are the best innovators and creators there are, and 

we have just got to help kick it into high gear. That is the essence 

of it. So I appreciate what you are saying about those efforts. 

Ms. Brooks and Ms. Farrell, I wasn’t here to hear your testimony, but I have read both of your testimonies. I appreciate enormously what you do with Penquis and the recommendations you 

made are just right on target. I mean, those couldn’t be more apt 

for what we ought to be doing long-term, short-term, et cetera. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
73 

Ms. Farrell, I am fascinated, with those kinds of receivables and 

this trend, how do you make it work? How do you stay in business? 

Ms. FARRELL. I think that is the question we are all asking ourselves, is how we are going to stay in business. Interestingly 

enough, I went over to the office this weekend when I was re-looking at information, and as you stated on this warm day in June, 

my receivables are still $512,000. Last week, I had one deposit that 

amounted just above $4,000 and another day I had a deposit that 

amounted just over $9,000. The customers—— 

Chairman KERRY. How far back do those receivables go? 

Ms. FARRELL. About—usually at the late spring, early summer is 

when you see your larger over-90 because they are starting to go 

into over-90. I think the over-90 was probably about 150, and the 

rest of it is 60, 30. But, you know, you do begin to—— 

Chairman KERRY. Have you traditionally gotten to a point where 

the vast percentage of that is paid off or not? 

Ms. FARRELL. That is what you hope, yes. 

Chairman KERRY. You hope, but have you gotten there in the 

past? 

Ms. FARRELL. Yes, usually pretty good. You know, sometimes, 

you have a little bit of bad debt. We do a little equipment financing, so there is a certain amount that is involved in that. But generally speaking, we try to do a pretty good job of getting it cleaned 

up, because if you don’t, it just goes into the next season and it gets 

worse. And what starts to happen—— 

Chairman KERRY. How do you carry it? On those receivables, 

what percentage are just your supply costs? 

Ms. FARRELL. I would say 60 percent—well, maybe even more 

now. It is probably more than that because of the price of oil—— 

Chairman KERRY. So basically, you are financing—— 

Ms. FARRELL. Yes. 

Chairman KERRY. You have become a financier of other people’s 

home heating oil. 

Ms. FARRELL. Yes. Exactly. 

Chairman KERRY. You are a LIHEAP adjunct. 

Ms. FARRELL. Yes, I am. It appears that way, yes. 

Chairman KERRY. Drafted, I might add. 

Ms. FARRELL. Mm-hmm. 

Chairman KERRY. So as you go forward, have you seen some of 

the other distributors go out of business? 

Ms. FARRELL. There are—Michael could probably answer that 

better, but yes, there are distributors who have gone out of business, and I know there are a lot of distributors who are very concerned, because if you are not collecting the collectables, how do 

you go forward. 

Chairman KERRY. What would make the most difference to you? 

Ms. FARRELL. Well, I think having LIHEAP funding right up 

front, because I know some years it seems as though we get a portion and it is kind of distributed and then no one knows what is 

going to happen. And then maybe we get another portion that is 

distributed and then no one knows what is going to happen. And 

that becomes cumbersome on the fuel oil dealer accounting-wise 

with the customer because they don’t know what is going to happen. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
74 

You know, another thing we are running into which is, of course, 

getting worse is we have our LIHEAP customer, and LIHEAP does 

a pretty good job for them. A lot of their fuel oil needs are met and 

they also provide some repairs and equipment replacement, if necessary. The customer that I am very concerned about is the customer who just falls right out of the range of LIHEAP because 

there is absolutely nothing for that customer. They may make $20 

a week too much and they get absolutely nothing. 

I mean, we have a customer right now who is an 80-year-old 

woman. She has Social Security, a very small pension, and she 

works 20 or 25 hours a week, believe it or not, at 80 years old at 

a supermarket chain in New England. And she needs a new boiler. 

Her boiler is terribly inefficient. It is leaking. It will not make it 

into the next heating season. We encouraged her to apply for fuel 

assistance. A lot of customers are reluctant because they figure 

that that is a welfare program and a lot of your elderly and younger people feel kind of proud. But we tell them that they really need 

to be doing this. So we helped her. She got all her facts and figures. 

She makes something like $30 a week too much. If she wasn’t making that $30 a week, fuel assistance would replace her boiler and 

she would be getting assistance with her fuel oil, electricity, 

and—— 

Chairman KERRY. Why doesn’t she cut back a couple of hours? 

Ms. FARRELL. Well, she could, and we recommended that to her, 

as a matter of fact. But she likes her job and she—they were on 

the line, and there are many of them like her—— 

Chairman KERRY. Sure. She is proud—— 

Ms. FARRELL. She is proud. I think she likes her job. 

Chairman KERRY. She is feeling independent. She wants to do 

it—— 

Ms. FARRELL. The job is probably good for her. It gets her out 

of the house. 

Chairman KERRY. I understand. 

Ms. FARRELL. But there is no contingency for someone like her. 

We have tried calling every other agency we can think of. There 

is no help out there. 

Chairman KERRY. And what happens when you lock in? I noticed 

in your testimony you talked about the lock-in price you were at, 

but the price went up. Do you just lose on that? 

Ms. FARRELL. No. How price protection—— 

Chairman KERRY. You insure it? 

Ms. FARRELL. How these plans are constructed is we will go and 

purchase future contracts over the winter months and we price 

them. You look on the screen, say to your supplier, get me some 

contracts at these rates if they look good. Of course, nowadays, you 

never know what looks good. And typically, that would be how 

you—— 

Chairman KERRY. You are passing on based on your purchased 

contract? 

Ms. FARRELL. Yes. We get a purchased contract, put our margin 

on top of that, and that would be a fixed-price program. Then the 

CAP pricing came into being when some years the retail price of 

fuel would go below the fixed rate. How the CAP program works 

is you essentially buy puts against your future contract so that if 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
75 

the retail price of fuel oil goes down, the customer’s price will go 

down, also. Originally, when we started those CAP plans, the price 

of oil was not as high. It was not as volatile. The puts ran about 

two to three cents per gallon. They have continually escalated with 

the price of oil. The last two years, it was 17 to 18 cents out of the 

money puts. That is not even in the money puts. 

Last year, I created a hedging program. I hedged a million gal- lons. It cost me $170,000 up front. To have created the same program this year, it was going to cost me $400,000, and I would have 

had to have been doing that program in the winter. I just didn’t 

have the money to do that. That is $400,000 up front that you may 

never recoup if oil stays within a certain parameter. All your options are going to expire, so you have had to outlay this huge 

amount of money. You may never recoup it and there is tremendous risk in these programs. 

We will probably—probably are going to come out with a program this year. Customers like them. I think they have worked 

well for customers. But we are going to do it more in the moment. 

We haven’t tried to do it—you know, before, I would have had it 

all set maybe three months ago—— 

Chairman KERRY. Right, but you are forced to be—— 

Ms. FARRELL. I am forced to be in the moment because we don’t 

know what is going to happen. And once again, if a customer, like 

Senator Snowe said, asks me, what do you think I should do, locking in at $4.899 per gallon, I honestly do not know what to tell that 

person. I don’t even want to be locked into those prices. 

Chairman KERRY. Fair enough. Senator Snowe. 

Senator SNOWE. I want to thank you all for very significant testimony. It certainly is moving to listen to the stories and the challenges that you face respectively and the constituencies that you 

represent. I think it underscores the dramatic challenge that this 

country is facing and individuals are facing caught up in the confluence of these events that are creating a very dire situation as 

it stands today, and the unpredictability of the future, I think enhances the fear and the apprehension. It certainly has been expressed to me personally, about what to expect for the future and 

how to prepare for it. 

Ms. Brooks, I know that you cover a wide ranging area in Maine 

geographically, a very rural area, and the Low-Income Fuel Assistance Program becomes a pivotal program for so many. What would 

you recommend for changes, if we could sketch a scenario for 

change in that program with respect to eligibility of how it is funded? Ms. Farrell, you mentioned about having more money available 

up front, which is true because you can leverage your buying and 

purchasing power. Perhaps we should put more money on the 

emergency side so that there is more discretion in how it is funded 

rather than the full formula, but that is always a challenge here, 

as well, for other reasons I won’t get into right now, but it is something that we certainly should examine. Ms. Brooks. 

Ms. BROOKS. I think it is important to point out that the 

LIHEAP program was never meant to pay for someone’s oil for the 

entire winter. However, if the average person on fuel assistance 

makes about $14,000 a year and the benefit only pays for 158 gallons of oil, I don’t know how they come up with any more money, 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
76 

and I know why they haven’t paid their oil companies, because 

they can’t. They can’t, with the cost of food and the cost of gas and 

everything else. There is no money left over to pay even in the 

summer months. 

So I guess my first recommendation would be to increase the dollars that the actual person gets, a higher benefit amount, and also 

expand the guidelines so that those people that are just above that 

income guideline can receive some assistance, as well. 

Senator SNOWE. How many people come to you that are just 

above the guidelines? 

Ms. BROOKS. Last year, it was a little over 2,000 that we denied, 

and about 60 percent of those were because of over income. And I 

know there are thousands more that aren’t calling us. 

Senator SNOWE. So that is between those two counties alone. 

Serving two counties is more than 2,000. And given the prices 

where we are today, it puts people really—— 

Ms. BROOKS. Right. 

Senator SNOWE [continuing]. In some difficult financial straits. 

Ms. Farrell, what would you recommend in terms—you mentioned about having more money up front, which is certainly a good 

idea—in terms of the way the money is issued? 

Ms. FARRELL. Well, not that it has to come in up front, but I 

think if customers knew, because it creates a lot of anxiety in the 

LIHEAP customers not knowing what they are going to be getting, 

because they don’t know how to plan. You know, most of these people are trying to plan and they are trying to manage. So not necessarily that we would get the money so much up front, but I think 

it is helpful to the customer to know kind of what to expect. 

One of my notes of something that I think would be helpful other 

people have mentioned here today is I would love to see a tax credit or a rebate program for customers who want to upgrade their 

equipment. We have tremendously efficient oil heating equipment, 

90 percent efficient. It is clean. Customers want to upgrade now 

that the prices are high. We have used programs similar to this 

with the utilities have offered, and with rebates—a lot of customers, it is enough to kind of give them an incentive to replace 

their equipment. And going from some of the older equipment to 

newer equipment, we are seeing customers saving—we have two 

systems we have taken out in the last two weeks. I am sure that 

those customers are going to save 40 percent in their consumption 

of fuel oil. 

So getting new equipment out there and weatherization assistance, I think will go a long way to helping a lot of customers reduce 

the amount of fuel that they are using. So I do think that is important, would be a great thing to have and a great tool for us. 

Senator SNOWE. Yes. That was one of the issues with this tax 

credit, the one that expired the end of last year, was to do just 

that. But I think it is interesting that home heating oil is shortchanged in the process for enhanced efficiencies—— 

Ms. FARRELL.Yes. 

Senator SNOWE [continuing]. Compared to electricity and natural 

gas, which is the point you were making, Mr. Stoddard, and I think 

that is critical. Should we set up a separate program in order to 

do that across the board, set aside funding? One of the issues that 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
77 

I raised with Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve is upon the sale 

of that oil, that we would use the revenues to set aside for weatherization, for example, as another way of doing it and making those 

kind of energy efficient investments. 

Mr. STODDARD. Part of what we have tried to put in our testimony was some estimate, some reasonable, rational estimate of 

what it might cost overall to try to get good energy efficiency programs out there on a meaningful scale, and that is where we came 

up with that figure, not including LIHEAP-using customers, but 

everyone else. What would be cost effective? What resource that is 

out there that would be cheaper than just buying another gallon 

of fuel? And nationally, that would come to about $1 billion in 

total. 

It is important, I think, to mention that the States have been 

quite active. They have been leaders, and particularly in your two 

States and in the Northeast generally, in implementing these energy efficiency programs, both in the natural gas and the electric 

utilities. And the significance of that is that there are planning and 

administration and implementation and evaluation systems in 

place to do energy efficiency delivery. They just don’t apply to oil 

customers. 

So I think, to go to your question, Senator Snowe, should we establish a program, I think some programs are already established. 

They just don’t go to oil customers, and so the question would be 

would you take funding and plow it into those existing programs, 

or do you need to create something new. I would suggest that it 

should be implemented on a State-by-State basis because every 

State has a slightly different arrangement in terms of government 

agencies, how interested the oil dealers are in participating, and so 

forth, and I think the planning has to happen on a State-by-State 

level. 

I also feel very strongly that the States ought to chip in their fair 

share. I don’t know what that fair share is, but when you hear the 

Massachusetts oil dealers talking about a half-penny per gallon 

charge and Vermont currently assesses a half-a-percent gross receipts tax and it was recently recommended that they raise that to 

1.5 percent. I currently chair a committee of the Energy Task Force 

formed by Governor Baldacci in our home State to look at this 

question of what efficiency opportunities we might have, and there, 

too, we have raised the question about what funds could we raise 

locally to contribute to this solution. 

So maybe some kind of matching requirement would help entice 

States to chip in their share. But clearly, what our testimony was 

designed to show is that the task is bigger than probably what the 

States and the oil customers can carry by themselves. 

Senator SNOWE. That is an intriguing possibility and it is something we should explore in terms of maybe setting up a matching 

program to expedite this process which could serve as a catalyst, 

at the minimum. I mean, I think there is no question of the necessity. 

Mr. Ferrante, you have been in this business for a long time. 

What do you see? How does this compare to previous energy crises 

of 1979 or 1980? 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
78 

Mr. FERRANTE. Senator, I have been with the Council 17 years. 

This is unprecedented. There is no question about it. We are at crisis proportion. 

If I could echo what we are talking about here, and this is a very 

important component of providing help, what we are talking about 

is what is called a system betterment charge, and if I may just take 

a couple of minutes to explain. It is important to know, without 

sounding confrontational, if the utilities are able to pass that 

charge along to every other customer. So it is built in their rate 

base. So conservation programs for gas and electric are paid for by 

every gas and electric utility. 

We are more than willing to embrace that, as a matter of fact, 

have taken a leadership role in that position in Massachusetts. An 

SBC charge of about a half-a-cent a gallon in Massachusetts would 

collect about $5 million for energy efficiency programs, and that 

language is now being debated on Beacon Hill. It is unlikely it will 

pass this session, but maybe next session. 

The important component about an SBC for oil is that 30 percent 

of those funds, as designed by our language, would go to low-income homes. There, we make a real change. We can truly, as Sandra said to you, curtail their energy use, increase their efficiency, 

hence saving everyone money. So a half-a-cent could go a long way, 

but it has to be done with some understanding. It is based on volume sold, and I can tell you that over the last few years, we have 

not, quote, ‘‘had a normal winter.’’ So depending on what you assess per gallon, that could fluctuate every year depending on how 

cold the weather is, obviously translating into how much heating 

oil volume. That is very key to these programs in the long-term 

success. 

So what we are talking about here in a more national level, a 

broader scale, we have to look at how we can supplement that 

funding, let us say in Massachusetts and other Northeast States, 

with some Congressional activity. 

Senator SNOWE. Do you anticipate there will be a supply problem 

this year? 

Mr. FERRANTE. I would say no one in this room is really quite 

capable and adept at saying there will be a supply problem. So 

many factors are at play. Weather is key. What I can tell you is 

the heating oil industry is incredibly resilient. That is the best 

term I can use. When there is need for product, wholesale companies will go out and get it. People like Sandra will find a way to 

deliver fuel. We have not had truly a fuel shortage or a real crisis 

since 2000. But I must also add that we have not had a severe winter. That is going to be the real test of this cascading series of 

events we are talking about today. If a real winter pattern descends on the Northeast and this country, then we will be in for 

a real crisis. 

Senator SNOWE. What should the reserve hold? What is your estimate? 

Mr. FERRANTE. Well, I think there is some reality here. Again, 

you have to remember earlier in my testimony, in Massachusetts, 

we have about 12 core storage terminals. These are not your major 

oil companies, although one is owned by ExxonMobil. So you have 

to remember around the State, where we have just shy of a million 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
79 

homes using heating oil, and we have, again, about two billion gallons sold in Massachusetts, so we have 11 core terminals storing 

that product, distributing to people like Sandra who pull their 

trucks under the rack, as it is called. 

We have a number of other inland terminals which are owned by 

companies like Sandra. She has storage where other companies can 

come in and pull from that, from those storage facilities. 

So when you ask, should the reserve be bigger, I think the answer is yes, but where would you store it? That is the question. 

These 11 core terminals are your key storage locations. They try 

to manage their inventory in this volatile market with what we call 

just-in-time inventory. A retailer, let us say Global Petroleum in 

Massachusetts, will look forward and see what the cost of fuel is, 

and those who operate those terminals are not going to be buying 

product and putting it into their tanks for storage given the volatility. So they manage the influx of inventory day-to-day during the 

winter. 

And you know what? It has worked marvelously over the years. 

They are very adept at that. So I want to leave you today with 

some security knowing that these wholesale suppliers manage the 

inventory scheme very well, and that works in tandem with your 

retailers. 

I do think, in summary, though, that the reserve should be higher. Remember now, Sandra sells two million gallons a year, her 

company alone. There are 800 retailers in Massachusetts, many of 

whom sell much more than that. So the reserve, if you look at Massachusetts only, is truly a drop in the bucket. 

Senator SNOWE. What do you anticipate happening to individuals 

who simply cannot afford to pay this price? I mean, beyond the 

scope of low-income fuel assistance, although that is inadequate 

even to help those individuals currently as it stands. Jennifer, 

what do you see in that respect? What are you anticipating, because that is the concern that I have, all the people out there that 

cannot simply pay for it. 

Ms. BROOKS. That is a great question and it is a question that 

comes up often. There is talk in the State of Maine to have warming places so people can shut their furnace down real low during 

the day and go to libraries and stay warm during the day. The reality is once you run out of oil, your pipes freeze, your house is 

damaged, you have got to move. 

We are in a crisis. I don’t think that there is any way else to explain it. We are in a crisis and there will be people that will have 

fires, that people will have—it is a life and death situation, really, 

for the State of Maine. 

Senator SNOWE. Well, I heard from a dealer in Maine who said 

exactly that, that people were limiting it to one room, heating one 

room and lowering the temperature significantly in other rooms. I 

heard about an individual who was suffering from multiple sclerosis who had set up a kerosene heater that was not appropriate 

inside his bedroom and set an alarm to wake up to make sure that 

it didn’t go on too long without catching fire and would get up and 

take a shower to keep warm during the night. I mean, this is how 

dramatic it was last year. 

Ms. BROOKS. Right. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
80 

Senator SNOWE. And one can only try to conceive of what would 

happen this year and it is inconceivable. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman KERRY. Thank you, Senator Snowe. 

Just very quickly before we wrap up, Ms. Brooks, obviously you 

have recommended that we increase the LIHEAP funding, and I 

guess everybody would agree that the single biggest impact, single 

biggest difference is to have LIHEAP funded adequately to help 

people be able to pay, is that correct? 

Ms. BROOKS. It is just a small—— 

Chairman KERRY. Excuse me? 

Ms. FARRELL. That is just a small percentage of the customers, 

though. I mean, it is very beneficial, but it really only helps a small 

amount. 

Chairman KERRY. And what do you recommend doing for those 

people who don’t qualify, if anything? 

Ms. FARRELL. It is going to be a real concern, because I have peo- ple at $700 and $800 a delivery. They just are not paying it. They 

may be paying $300 one month—— 

Chairman KERRY. Well, do we have to take a look and rescale— 

Ms. FARRELL. I don’t know. 

Chairman KERRY [continuing]. This thing now? I mean, what we 

did previously was adjust it according to where sort of the 

marketbasket was for everybody on all the costs of living. Now, 

that has changed dramatically, obviously, and in places like Maine 

particularly, which is going through some tough economic times, 

and elsewhere, you have really got to help people. You are going 

to have to find a way to do it. You may have to bring your ceiling 

up as to who qualifies for some kind of help. 

Ms. FARRELL. Well, that would definitely be helpful. As far as the 

rest of the solution, I am not sure I have the answer to that. I 

mean, even if—— 

Chairman KERRY. I think Ms. Brooks’ long-term investment concepts are things we have batted around here for a long time, but 

if you help people lower their costs at home, if you can weatherize, 

if you can put in an efficient boiler, if you could change the kind 

of heating system you are relying on, if you can get triple panes, 

if you can do all those things, you can cut your bills very, very dramatically, by 50 percent in some cases, or more. Those things pay 

for themselves over a period of time. 

We have to do more. Mr. Stoddard, you raised that. We have to 

do more to educate people and make improvements in efficiency 

available to them. A lot of people don’t realize the benefits of efficiency. They think, oh my gosh, I can’t afford that, but they don’t 

realize that in a year, it will pay for itself with the savings they 

will get, and then in the following years, they will actually save 

money. So we have got to proactively get out to people, which is 

something we began a number of years ago. The effort seems to 

have died away. 

What about what Mr. Johnson was talking about? You all have 

heard Mr. Johnson’s statements, and I wonder if you have any 

thoughts about the reserve itself. Is there a way that we should 

rethink, the function of the reserve to address this more effectively? 

Anybody? Mr. Ferrante. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
81 

Mr. FERRANTE. I think, as Mr. Johnson said in your question 

about the trigger mechanisms, they should be reexamined. I think 

that there is clearly some definitions here that lawmakers should 

reexamine. 

Chairman KERRY. And if we reexamine them, what about the 

market intervention issue that he raised? Is that appropriate? Is it 

doable—— 

Mr. FERRANTE. It is appropriate. I must agree with his—— 

Chairman KERRY. Is it doable with—— 

Mr. FERRANTE. I must agree with his assessment that you have 

to remember this product would be coming into the market and 

would be the wholesale suppliers I have mentioned, the 11 core terminals. Those key companies have to deal with that and reconcile 

with that product coming into the market. I think they could, but 

the bigger it gets, Senator, the more significant an economic or 

business challenge that would be for a supplier like Global Petroleum or others to deal with what they bring into the market. 

There is no question that two million barrels is not a heck of a 

lot of heating oil, but nonetheless, it has a lot to do with storage. 

Where can you put this product, that product sitting there waiting 

to be utilized? There is very little storage in the Northeast. We 

have lost storage for heating oil. 

Chairman KERRY. So what I am hearing is basically that chasing 

the reserve is going to be really fighting this at the margins, right? 

Mr. FERRANTE. I believe so. I mean, we have never tested the reserve, too, and I think that is the other thing that we have to remember. It has never really been put to a full test and we have 

never triggered it to say, well, this works. That two million barrels 

was distributed efficiently and adequately to people and it was also 

delivered in time. 

So with that said, I don’t think anyone here can really fully say 

what that number should be for total storage, now or in the future. 

It doesn’t sound like a lot to me. It never has. And for those who 

I deal with on the wholesale side, they would agree. 

Chairman KERRY. One last question. Mr. Stoddard, you seem to 

be advocating State management of these efficiency programs rather than some sort of Federal standard or level. Am I interpreting 

that correctly? 

Mr. STODDARD. That would be my recommendation at this time, 

based on the successful model that we have seen from the electricity and natural gas utilities. 

Chairman KERRY. But what do you think the role is for the Federal Government? 

Mr. STODDARD. Funding. 

Chairman KERRY. What about standards? What about goals? 

What about incentives? 

Mr. STODDARD. Again, the kinds of standards that come to my 

mind are minimum efficiency standards for appliances and equipment, and in the last couple of years in the EPCA 2005, you made 

tremendous progress doing that for many appliances, a little bit 

slow still on some of the heating appliances, but those are much 

better. 

The other obvious minimum standard to raise is building energy 

codes, and here again, that is typically the jurisdiction of States, 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
82 

not the Feds. So we are starting to see baby steps. Our home State 

of Maine is very proud to have passed a very aggressive minimum 

building energy code last year, but it is slow progress and I am not 

quite sure what the Federal Government could do to enhance that. 

One idea does come to mind, though. We have been working with 

some of your staffs in the recent discussions about the LiebermanWarner legislation and there you have many dynamic discussions 

going on about how you distribute allowances to different States, 

and one suggestion would be to incentivize States to bump up their 

various standards on something like building codes in order to gain 

a slightly higher allocation of allowances. 

Chairman KERRY. Well, building codes are a big deal, and I will 

close out by calling to your attention a Commercial Building Initiative within the Department of Energy. I forget which division of 

the Department of Energy, but we are trying to get $20 million to 

the initiative and make sure it is funded. This is an effort to encourage leads and other standards to be applied to buildings. 

People don’t realize it. Buildings are the source of 40 percent of 

energy use in America and 40 percent of our greenhouse gas emissions come from buildings, so there is no solution to greenhouse gas 

emissions and no solution to an energy problem through energy 

policy that doesn’t embrace a building standard and code for the 

United States. This effort, the Commercial Building Initiative, is 

setting out to have a zero net energy use building, which is doable. 

You can, through efficiencies and materials and climate control and 

other things, build a building that reduces net energy use by 70 to 

80 percent. And then with solar and self-contained energy grids, et 

cetera, you can get down to a net energy use of zero, which is what 

we have to do in the country. People don’t realize it. 

Planning boards, city councils, zoning departments shouldn’t 

allow any building to be built today that doesn’t embrace new 

standards for building. And it is exciting to see what people are 

doing around the country. I won’t go into details, but there are 

some really exciting things that are happening. 

In conclusions we are very grateful to you. Senator Snowe and 

I will talk seriously about different kinds of initiatives. There are 

a number of different options here, and we have obviously got to 

get this on the front burner. I think today’s hearing has been enormously helpful. This is what a hearing is supposed to do; inform 

and educate and shed light on issues when it is important, and I 

think you have all done that very effectively today, so we are very 

grateful to you. We need to enlist the Energy Department, Mr. 

Johnson, and get the administration really thinking about this 

ahead of time, because those supply numbers that Senator Snowe 

quoted are ominous and I think we have all got to be aware of 

what may or may not happen. 

So at any rate, we will go about our business and do what we 

can, and we are going to try to alleviate your pain, Ms. Farrell—— 

Ms. FARRELL Thank you. 

Chairman KERRY [continuing]. And Ms. Brooks, to help you be 

able to administer that terrific program up there, and we really appreciate it. So thank you all very, very much. 

We stand adjourned. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 12:09 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
(83) 

APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED 

SENATOR JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, SENATE COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP, JUNE 25TH COMMITTEE HEARING ON ‘‘EXAMINING SOLUTIONS TO

COPE WITH THE RISE IN HOME HEATING OIL PRICES’’ 

STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD

I welcome today’s Small Business Committee Hearing examining solutions to cope 

with the rise in home heating oil prices, and I appreciate the leadership of Senator 

Snowe and Chairman Kerry in tackling this problem. 

Connecticut, along with much of the Northeast, is vulnerable to fuel oil shortages 

and price spikes during winter months. Approximately 50% of people in our state 

use oil to heat their homes. According to the Energy Information Administration, 

residential heating oil prices are projected to average approximately $4.50 per gallon this heating season, a 35–40% increase over last year. Heating a home for the 

entire winter in Connecticut could cost more than $5,000 in such an environment, 

and we rightfully have concerns about the impact on low-income and middle class 

families. Coupled with the pain currently being felt at the gas pump and in the food 

aisle, these projected price increases could have serious consequences for our region. 

To ease prices for small businesses, working families, and senior citizens (especially those living on a fixed income), we must first look to use the tools that stand 

ready at our disposal. 

We must be prepared to release oil from the Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve 

in the event that prices remain above $4.00 per gallon. To that end, I support S. 

3170, which was introduced last week by Senator Snowe and co-sponsored by Senators Dodd and Kerry. In the past, these emergency reserves have been effective in 

helping avoid a catastrophe, and I welcome efforts to ensure that those resources 

will be available for use this year. 

I also strongly urge passage of the Keeping Americans Warm Act, which would 

appropriate an additional $1.0 billion to help the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) keep pace with rapidly rising prices. This critical program 

assists vulnerable, low income families, families who will be paying an even higher 

proportion of household income for home energy this winter. 

Over the long term, however, we can only tackle this problem by changing the 

way we use energy, and especially oil. The only permanent solution to high fuel 

prices is to free ourselves from the whim of volatile and even hostile oil-producing 

nations and the greed of commodities speculators. In short, we must end our oil addiction. 

To that end, we must continue to seek new legislation on a number of fronts, including increased oversight and smarter regulation of energy futures markets, improved efficiency and fuel economy standards for our homes and vehicles, caps on 

carbon emissions, and greater support for renewable energy technologies. Through 

this comprehensive approach, we can end our dependence on fossil fuels and become 

the global energy leader the world so badly needs. 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, 

Washington, DC, October 14, 2008. 

Hon. JOHN KERRY, 

Chairman, Committee on Small Business & Entrepreneurship, 

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: On June 25, 2008, David F. Johnson, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Petroleum Reserves, Office of Fossil Energy, testified regarding, ‘‘Examining Solutions to Cope with the Rise in Home Heating Oil Prices.’’ 

Enclosed are the answers to nine questions that were submitted by you and Senator Snowe to complete the hearing record. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
84 

If we can be of further assistance, please have your staff contact our Congressional Hearing Coordinator, Lillian Owen, at (202) 586–2031. 

Sincerely, 

LISA E. EPIFANI, 

Assistant Secretary, 

Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs. 

Enclosures. 

QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR KERRY

Question 1. I understand there is no refining capacity in the Northeast and the 

majority of home heating oil is delivered via ships. This delivery is vulnerable to 

weather conditions and ripe for interruption. Given this concern and the reliance 

on home heating oil for so many individuals in the Northeast, are there steps we 

should be taking to encourage other delivery mechanisms? Given the unpredictable 

weather we are increasingly seeing, is a ten-day supply in our strategic reserve adequate? 

Answer l. The commercial heating oil industry has shown to be very resourceful 

in managing a logistical system that, although sometimes strained, delivers heating 

oil from many sources to the end user efficiently, on time, and on specification. We 

would rely on the commercial industry to determine if additional delivery methods 

were required and to establish those mechanisms. The ten days of coverage provided 

by the two million barrel Reserve is intended as a temporary buffer which is adequate to tide industry over in cases in which an imminent supply interruption is 

considered to be likely. 

Question 2. Would it reduce the potential for price spikes to have a larger reserve, 

bought in the summer months, to help ensure against price spikes that could potentially leave consumers and small businesses in great peril during an especially cold 

winter? 

Answer 2. Price spikes are an indicator to industry that additional supplies are 

needed. The two million barrel Reserve is sized to cover regional supply interruptions while not directly influencing the market price of heating oil or the industry 

role of providing those necessary supplies. Although a larger reserve would allow 

for greater coverage in the Northeast and more emergency response flexibility, tank 

storage availability is at a premium in today’s market and a larger reserve would 

most likely displace much needed commercial stocks. Further, although filling the 

Reserve during the summer months is an option, the summer driving season and 

the transportation sector needs put pressure on refiners so less heating oil is produced. Whatever heating oil is produced goes directly into commercial inventories 

or is exported to South America to assist with their winter season. Heating oil 

wholesalers also begin building their stocks during this time for the upcoming winter. Increasing the Reserve during the summer would cause the Department of Energy to compete with commercial inventories and may put upward pressure on 

prices of heating oil and other refined product prices. 

Question 3. What DOE programs are available to help individuals deal with rising 

prices? What programs are available to promote energy efficiency? 

Answer 3. The Department of Energy operates a comprehensive outreach program 

that includes both a hotline and website that provides energy saving tips for consumers. The DOE’s EnergySavers.gov website provides the public with tips for reducing energy consumption for all consumers from residential and vehicle owners 

to fleet and industry managers. 

ENERGY STAR, a program operated jointly by both EPA and DOE, offers consumers another way to save money and energy. The ENERGY STAR label identifies 

energy efficient products in over 50 categories: including compact fluorescent bulbs, 

clothes washers and dishwashers, windows, and many consumer electronics, such as 

televisions and computers. ENERGY STAR products are available through all major 

retailers. 

Another program that can help individuals deal with rising prices is the Home 

Performance with ENERGY STAR program (www.energystar.gov/homeperformance), 

which is also jointly administered by DOE and EPA. Consumers can find contractors 

participating in locally-sponsored programs in 23 states who use whole-house diagnostic equipment to assess their home’s energy performance. The contractors provide a list of recommended improvements that will save money on their utility bills, 

as well as improve the comfort and indoor air quality of their home. The contractors 

can also install the selected improvements or work with other qualified home improvement contractors. Typical improvements include air sealing and adding insulation; upgrading the heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems as well as 

water heater replacement; and high performance windows, lighting, and other appliVerDate Nov 24 2008 02:00 Apr 10, 2009 Jkt 045010 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\A010.XXX A010

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
85 

ances. Overall savings are typically 20 to 30 percent of the homeowners’ energy 

bills, varying by climate and size of investment. DOE plans to expand the program 

into areas not currently served by local sponsors to increase the services available 

to consumers. 

DOE also administers the Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP). WAP provides technical assistance and grants to State and local weatherization agencies 

throughout the United States. The program reduces energy costs for low-income 

households by increasing the energy efficiency of their homes while promoting their 

health and safety. The program prioritizes services to the elderly, people with disabilities, and families with children. These low-income households are often on fixed 

incomes or rely on income assistance programs and are most vulnerable to volatile 

changes in energy markets. High energy users or households with a high energy 

burden may also receive priority. Households interested in participating in the program can check with their telephone directory, utility company, or public assistance 

office, for the contact information of their State or local weatherization agency to 

see if they qualify. 

In addition, the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) administered by the Department of Health and Human Services is available to assist income eligible clients with payment of their fuel bills. Potential clients may contact 

their State LIHEAP offices for additional information. 

QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR SNOWE

Question 1. Do you believe that the triggering mechanism of release from the 

Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve should be altered? Why or why not? If so, 

what trigger do you believe should be provided to the Administration? 

Answer 1. The current market dislocation indicator specified in the Energy Policy 

and Conservation Act has been monitored by the Department as an alert to further 

investigate possible supply interruptions. Since the Reserve was established in 2000, 

this calculation has only reached the defined values three times, all of which were 

in circumstances that were not characterized by a severe energy supply interruption. In December 2000, the disparity was caused by a significant decrease in crude 

oil prices due to increased OPEC production. In March 2003, the high heating oil 

prices were at the end of the season. In October 2005, the high heating oil prices 

resulted from Katrina refinery outages. None of these situations were appropriate 

for a heating oil stock release. 

Question 2. What exact circumstances, in your opinion, would qualify as a ‘‘triggering event’’ for the Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve Fund under existing 

law? How much more do families and business have to spend this winter in home 

heating oil before a ‘‘triggering event’’ occurs? 

Answer 2. The Energy Policy and Conservation Act (P.L. 94–163) authorizes use 

of the Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve (NEHHOR) if the President finds that 

a dislocation in the heating oil market has resulted from a severe energy supply 

interruption or that a circumstance exists that constitutes a regional supply shortage of significant scope and duration and use of the NEHHOR would assist directly 

and significantly in reducing the adverse impact of the shortage. 

The NEHHOR is to help industry compensate for unexpected supply emergencies. 

It was not created to influence the market price of heating oil. It is sized to create 

a buffer for commercial companies but not so large as to dissuade suppliers from 

responding to increasing prices as a sign that more supply is needed. However, the 

Heating Oil Reserve is ready to be drawn down within days in the case of an actual 

or imminent supply interruption. 

Question 3. In Maine, home heating oil prices have jumped $1.89, or 70 percent, 

since the start of the 2007–2008 heating season. We’re in a crisis already here and 

we’re in the middle of summer, when demand for heating oil is negligible. What is 

the Administration specifically doing to ease this crisis and prepare people for the 

winter months ahead? 

Answer 3. The Administration is working to increase the supply of oil to address 

the energy market fundamentals that have driven oil prices. Significant change in 

the energy price environment will require persistent attention to development of alternative fuels, improved energy efficiency, and expansion of domestic drilling access. 

One tool to address heating oil affordability in the short term is the Low Income 

Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) administered by the Department of 

Health and Human Services. LIHEAP assists low income households in meeting 

their immediate home energy needs. For FY 2008, Congress appropriated $1.98 billion in regular block grant funds and $590 million in emergency contingency funds, 

which the President may release to assist with the home energy needs arising from 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
86 

an emergency situation. In addition to the HHS LIHEAP program, the Department 

of Energy works to help improve public awareness and promote information sharing. 

The DOE Energy Information Agency typically provides winter price and supply 

forecasts. The Department of Energy also participates in weekly conference calls 

with other Federal and State energy officials, the New England Governors Council 

and industry associations to monitor State energy issues and fuel concerns so that 

appropriate actions can be taken if warranted. 

Question 4. Is the Department of Energy already working with the Small Business 

Administration and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and, the 

rest of the federal government, to develop a rapid response plan if these prices do 

not decline? What preemptive Administrative actions are already under way to implement a response plan? 

Answer 4. The Administration does not anticipate any precipitate or pre-emptive 

actions to address heating costs. The LIHEAP and private assistance programs are 

in place from prior years. The Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve is available at 

2 million barrels, as a buffer inventory to supply heating oil in the event normal 

deliveries are interrupted, but is not intended to influence market prices. 

In past years some dealers have offered their customers season-long contracts at 

fixed prices, but we have not seen widespread offers of such contracts this year. Reluctance to offer the fixed contracts for this season may reflect industry expectations 

that heating oil prices may moderate later in the summer with stock build, and that 

commitments made at today’s prices would be rued at a later date. 

Question 5. According to data posted at the DOE’s Energy Information Administration’s website, we are now confronting historic lows as it relates to our nation’s 

heating oil supplies with a drop from 86 million barrels in June of 1993 to 25 million barrels in June of this year. How do you explain this decrease in the supply 

of home heating oil? Is this cause for alarm? Why or why not? 

Answer 5. High-sulfur distillate fuel (containing 500 parts per million (ppm) or 

more of sulfur) is typically referred to as heating oil because home heating has historically constituted the largest single use of this product. However, until recently, 

high-sulfur distillate fuel has been used for more than just heating. Some of the 

other uses included non-road diesel, locomotive, and marine use. 

High-sulfur distillate fuel inventories have been decreasing since the 1990s as demand for highway diesel has been switched to lower sulfur distillate fuel by increasingly stringent environmental regulations. As of June 2007, in accordance with rules 

from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) stemming from the Clean Air Act 

Amendments of 1990, fuel suppliers are no longer distributing distillate fuel containing more than 500 ppm of sulfur for non-road diesel, locomotive, and marine 

use. These sectors constituted more than half of the overall demand for high-sulfur 

distillate fuel, and are now being served by low-sulfur distillate fuel containing less 

than 500 ppm of sulfur. 

The significant reduction in demand for high-sulfur distillate fuel due to this rulemaking also resulted in a reduction in inventory needs. While demand for high-sulfur fuel was reduced by at least 50 percent, weekly high-sulfur inventories during 

January through May 2008 averaged about one-third lower than high-sulfur inventories over the same period in 2007, prior to when the regulation took effect. 

As a result of this category switching, analysts have found that comparing current 

high-sulfur distillate fuel inventories to historical data is misleading at present. It 

will take several years to create a baseline for the smaller high-sulfur market. At 

present, those seeking an undistorted view should focus on total distillate inventories when analyzing heating oil or diesel fuel. Since low sulfur and ultra-low sulfur distillate fuel can be used in the heating oil market, total distillate inventory 

has merit as a measure of available distillate for heating oil use. 

U.S. total distillate inventories are currently in the middle of the 5-year average 

range for this time of year, which implies stock levels should be sufficient to meet 

distillate demand levels this winter under normal weather conditions. Total distillate inventories on the East Coast, where most of the Nation’s residential heating 

oil is used, are at the low end of the typical range for this time of year, but high 

inventories on the Gulf Coast, which is one of the major supply regions for the East 

Coast, indicate supplies are available. 

Question 6. Does the Department of Energy believe oil is currently priced according to market principles, or is there something to the view that speculators have 

helped engineer price increases? 

Answer 6. We believe that the price of oil is determined primarily by the fundamentals of supply and demand. Supply has remained relatively constant while 

world demand has risen. We have recently witnessed record prices for crude oil, gasoline, and other energy products however, this problem was not created overnight. 

Over the past three years global oil supplies have remained relatively flat, at apVerDate Nov 24 2008 02:00 Apr 10, 2009 Jkt 045010 PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\A010.XXX A010

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
87 

proximately 85 million barrels per day. Demand, on the other hand, has increased 

at the rate of almost 2% per year—primarily from growing economies in Asia. This 

imbalance in supply versus demand is the significant factor that has resulted in 

high prices. 

SENATOR KERRY’S AND SENATOR SNOWE’S QUESTIONS FOR PENQUIS

QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR KERRY

(1) What steps can homeowners take on their own to increase the energy efficiency of their homes for the coming winter, and how much can someone expect to 

save this winter from basic efficiency improvements? 

Answer: It may be helpful to think of this challenge in two ways: energy efficiency 

and energy conservation. 

Energy efficiency focuses on maximizing the economic benefits of wise energy use. 

This could include, for example, replacing an inefficient refrigerator, or improving 

the efficiency of a furnace through a tune up or a replacement. With this approach, 

however, there is typically an upfront investment and then a return over time in 

terms of annual fuel or electricity savings. The return to the homeowner for such 

improvements depends upon their current situation and the activity they undertake. 

Space heating accounts for 58% of home energy consumption, water heating 19%, 

refrigerator 12%, and appliances and lights 11%. Perhaps the single biggest thing 

homeowners can do is make sure their attic is air sealed and well insulated. This 

keeps heat from escaping out the top of the house as it rises. Replacing and tuning 

heating systems, repair or replacing high energy using equipment, and adopting energy efficient practices are also good ways to save. It is estimated by John Kriger 

that the typical residential building uses 11⁄2 to 2 times as much energy as necessary to achieve comfort and convenience. 

Energy conservation focuses more upon reducing our energy use, and asking consumers to change their behavior. Take shorter showers, turn the heat to 68 degrees, 

set temperature back at night, was a full load of laundry and dishes at one time, 

etc. 

The biggest savings from weatherization generally come from the buildings with 

the highest energy use. Based on this, we might assume that wealthier homeowners 

with larger houses might experience the greatest savings and the quickest paybacks 

from their energy investments. This is a significant portion of the population because it is these higher energy-using households that have historically not felt the 

pricing pressure to make improvements, nor have they been supported through government programs such as LIHEAP. According to nationwide studies by the Department of Energy’s Weatherization Assistance Program, total energy savings per 

household range from 10 to 30%. Based on the above logic, larger more energy intensive households might be expected to save an even higher percentage of their energy consumption. 

Finally, experience shows that the simple things (i.e., weather stripping windows 

and doors, tightening doors, putting locks on sashes, tuning up the furnace) should 

be encouraged and that this will initiate savings. The larger savings are more likely 

to occur through a payback that may take 1 to 10 years or more. Of course, homeowners should focus their investments in energy savings where the paybacks are 

quickest. 

(2) How has the Good Neighbor/Keep ME Warm Fund been affected by rising oil 

prices? Has it reduced the program’s effectiveness? Can this program serve as a 

model to other States where citizens can step in and help others in their community? 

Answer: We are just beginning this year’s heating season with record high oil 

prices. With more people worried about how to handle the cost of heating their own 

home, we estimate that donations to support the Good Neighbor/Keep ME Warm 

Fund will be less than we have seen in previous years. Businesses that have typically been supporters of the funds are also struggling with a slow economy and we 

will most likely see a decrease in support from them. Obviously, the program is less 

effective with the high cost of oil and the decrease in donations. It costs more to 

provide a family with 100 gallons of oil and we have less dollars to support the purchase. Penquis has been administering the Good Neighbor Fund and Keep ME 

Warm Fund for more than 5 years. We have great experience in providing support 

to certain populations (i.e., over income families, laid off workers) that works. We 

believe that this is an excellent model to provide assistance and could be a model 

program for other communities/states. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
88 

QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR SNOWE

(1) As you know, I have introduced legislation, co-sponsored by Senators Dodd, 

Kerry, and Lieberman that would mandate that heating oil from the Northeast 

Home Heating Oil Reserve should be released if home heating oil tops $4 per gallon 

this winter. First, do you agree the release of this reserve during a time of such 

unconscionable prices could benefit Mainers who are at a breaking point? Please explain. The Reserve currently stands at just under 2 million barrels, which is roughly 

the demand for New England oil for ten days in the heart of winter. Do you think 

the amount of oil held in Reserve should be increased? If so, to what amount? 

Answer: This question is beyond the scope of my expertise. However, I would say 

that we feel that many Mainers, particularly the low income and working poor, are 

facing desperate critical times and that there is not one solution that will fix the 

issue of maintaining a safe, warm winter for our entire population. Releasing the 

reserve and/or increasing the reserve should be one of many things done to ensure 

the safety of our citizens. 

(2) What percentage of homes in your region could receive additional weatherization or improved efficiency in their homes? Do you believe that there should be an 

increase in weatherization assistance? How could loan programs be improved in 

order to expand the number of families who take advantage of existing programs 

in the State of Maine? 

Answer: It is estimated that roughly 28% of owner occupied homes in our region 

need are poorly insulated, many more could use upgrades in order to be more energy efficient. Weatherization should be made available to at the minimum all those 

receiving LiHEAP. However, many home owners are just above the threshold to 

qualify for LiHEAP and the weatherization and cannot afford both the high cost of 

fuel this winter and a small loan payment for energy efficiency improvements, even 

with a great payback. Loan programs need to be creative in their requirements for 

terms of repayment. For instance, loan payments are made only 6 months out of 

the year (April to October). These terms are similar to many loans made to seasonal 

businesses. 

(3) What specific steps could we in Congress take to assist consumers who do not 

currently qualify for LiHEAP programs. 

Answer: First and foremost, the eligibility for LiHEAP needs to be expanded and 

put on a sliding scale so that more people can benefit from the program. While providing tax incentives to those that are doing energy efficient improvements is crucial, there is a portion of citizens that can neither qualify for assistance nor afford 

to do any energy improvements. Those are the citizens we worry about most. Encouraging basic energy conservation methods such as taking shorter showers, turning the heat to 68 degrees, setting the temperature back at night, and simple things 

such as weather stripping windows and doors, tightening doors, putting locks on 

sashes, tuning up the furnace) should be encouraged and will initiate savings. Ensuring that loan programs are available and work for low to moderate income citizens that have very little resources to pay would be beneficial as well. 

SENATOR KERRY’S QUESTIONS FOR MICHAEL FERRANTE, PRESIDENT, MASSACHUSETTS

OILHEAT COUNCIL, FROM THE U.S. SENATE COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS AND

ENTREPRENEURSHIP HEARING, ‘‘EXAMINING SOLUTIONS TO COPE WITH THE RISE IN

HOME HEATING OIL PRICES,’’ JUNE 25, 2008 

LOWER SULFUR DIESEL

In your written testimony, you warn against moving too quickly to transition diesel fuel to low- and ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel and heating oil because it has put 

a strain on availability and fuel prices. As you note, it’s important to balance the 

environmental benefit with small business concerns. 

• What steps can be taken to make sure small distributors are ready for this 

transition? 

• What can we do to help ease them through this important transition? 

BIOFUEL MANDATE

As you note in your testimony, proposed legislation in Massachusetts would increase the required amount of biofuel in heating oil to 5 percent by 2013. Are small 

distributors prepared for this change if it becomes law? 

• Do Massachusetts distributors already use a percentage of biofuel in their heating oil? 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
89 

• How do you think this mandate will affect the industry? Does it have the potential to spur local innovation and put Massachusetts at the forefront of the biofuels 

industry? 

THE SMALL BUSINESS ENERGY EMERGENCY RELIEF ACT

I have introduced legislation that would provide low interest loans to small businesses to help them stay afloat through this challenging time. Since 2001, in three 

different Congresses, this legislation has passed our Committee three times, it has 

passed the full Senate three times, and it has enjoyed broad, bi-partisan support, 

with as many as 34 cosponsors at one time. 

• Given the tight credit markets and the extremely high energy prices, is there 

still a need for this type of legislation. Can you think of instances where a low interest loan, capped at 4 percent with a possible term of 30-years, would help an otherwise viable small business survive the energy price crisis? 

CONVERTING TO NATURAL GAS

You testified that many consumers are converting to other forms of heating fuel 

in the face of aggressive marketing from power companies. 

• What are the claims that these companies are making and are they valid? 

• What is the cost and benefit for an individual to switch to another fuel source? 

SMALL BUSINESS DESIGNATION

The Small Business Administration is considering changing the threshold for a 

heating oil distributor to be considered a small business from the $11.5 million in 

gross receipts as it is currently defined. I know the rising price of heating oil has 

caused many businesses to lose their status as a small business while they are delivering even less oil than before. 

• What are the implications of this change in definition and will a new definition 

benefit small businesses? 

MASSACHUSETTS OIL HEAT COUNCIL, 

Wellesley Hills, MA, July 22, 2008. 

Senator JOHN KERRY, Chairman, 

Senator OLYMPIA SNOW, Ranking Member, 

U.S. Senate, 

Committee on Small Business & Entrepreneurship, 

Washington, DC. 

DEAR SENATOR KERRY AND SENATOR SNOWE: Thank you for the opportunity to 

testify before the Committee on Small Business & Entrepreneurship on June 25, 

2008. It was truly an honor to participate in the proceedings and offer our insight 

into ‘‘Examining Solutions to Cope with the Rise in Home Heating Oil Prices.’’ 

Per your request, here are our responses to your follow up questions. 

RESPONSES TO SENATOR KERRY FROM MICHAEL FERRANTE

(1) LOW SULFUR DIESEL

The Oilheat industry clearly sees the value in moving its customers to home heating oil with lower sulfur content, most likely in the 500 parts per million (ppm) 

range for sulfur. The fuel is cleaner-burning and based on research done by our association, the 500 ppm fuel mixes extremely well with soy-based biofuel up to 20% 

thus offering increased environmental benefits and less equipment maintenance. 

Whether the entire heating oil industry nationwide can make a smooth and timely 

transition to this fuel as a total replacement for higher sulfur content heating oil 

is still open for debate. Why? During extremely cold weather, the wholesaler suppliers of heating oil in the northeast and Canada rely on importing higher sulfur 

heating oil supplies from a number of countries including Russia. And many refineries around the globe have yet to install the necessary equipment to produce lower 

sulfur heating oil. Over the next 3–4 years more low sulfur will be produced worldwide and this will help ensure a steady supply during all weather and market conditions. The industry believes that small distributors will simply embrace the lower 

sulfur fuel when they see that their local wholesale suppliers are offering steady 

supply at market-driven prices. 

However, since there is clearly a need for additional storage tanks for home heating fuels across the country—even at the retail delivery level the Committee can 

continue to support and push for Small Business Administration (SBA) financial assistance for facility improvements and storage tank expansion, and do whatever posVerDate Nov 24 2008 02:00 Apr 10, 2009 Jkt 045010 PO 00000 Frm 00093 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\A010.XXX A010

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
90 

sible to lessen the cost of compliance with federal rules such as the Spill Prevention 

Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) plan requirements. 

(2) BIOFUEL MANDATE

Our association has given its full support to the biofuel mandate legislation and 

we have worked closely with Governor Patrick’s Advanced Biofuels Task Force to 

ascertain all of the potential roadblocks to implementation of a mandate for home 

heating oil. The retail industry is very resilient and adaptable to change, and our 

Board of Directors believes that since biofuels are truly vital for reducing emissions 

and reducing our dependency on fossil fuels, fuel oil retailers of all sizes will embrace the fuel. They keys to success are distribution improvements at the wholesale 

heating oil distributor level, and the building of new biofuel manufacturing facilities 

in Massachusetts and the nation in order to provide adequate supply. Currently, 

there are at least 20 retail heating oil companies in Massachusetts offering biofuel 

blends of 2, 5 and 10%. They all report great success and customer acceptance of 

the new fuel. A biofuel mandate in Massachusetts will certainly spark local innovation and biofuel manufacturing plant construction, and put Massachusetts in the 

forefront for biofuels for home heating and transportation. 

(3) THE SMALL BUSINESS ENERGY EMERGENCY RELIEF ACT

First, it is important to note that our association met recently with local officials 

from the Small Business Administration (SBA). Following the briefing on the valuable programs offered currently by the SBA, our association is undertaking a direct 

mail and electronic mail outreach to about 800 retail heating oil dealers statewide 

to make sure they are aware of the financing opportunities available with SBA’s 

help. 

With respect to Senate Bill 163, MOC and the New England Fuel Institute have 

reviewed the language and once again, any vehicle that will help our industry manage the challenging business climate is most welcome. It appears the bill does not 

explicitly provide loan guarantees ($1.5 million) for heating fuel dealers but does 

provide them for any small business experiencing hardship as a result of heating 

fuel price increases. This may need to be clarified.The bill also allows small businesses to use the loan guarantees to convert heating systems to renewable and alternative fuels, and our hope would be that heating fuel dealers would not be competing for the same loans as a small businesses looking upgrade a heating system. 

(4) CONVERTING TO NATURAL GAS

The most aggressive oil-to-gas heat marketing campaign comes from National 

Grid, a British-based firm that recently purchased KeySpan Energy in Boston, Lowell, Cape Cod and Essex. Copies of some of their recent marketing materials along 

with our complaints to Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley are attached to this document. 

Up until the winter of 2006–2007, Oilheat maintained an often times significant 

price advantage over natural gas. During the winter of 2007–2008, natural gas 

prices were significantly lower than heating oil on a gallon-to-gallon comparison 

basis because of the price of natural gas on world markets. Converting to natural 

gas is not inexpensive even with a free or subsidized heating system from the gas 

utilities. First, these free or subsidized systems are not high-performance, high efficiency units. Installation costs for an oil-to-gas heat system can run between $7500 

and $10,000 and there is no guarantee that natural gas prices will remain stable 

thus allowing the conversion customers a reasonable pay back period. Natural gas 

prices have risen significantly over the past several weeks and gas utilities in New 

England are already warning of higher winter gas heating rates. 

(5) SMALL BUSINESS DESIGNATION

The industry welcomes the threshold change for retailers to be considered small 

business under SBA rules and MOC along with the New England Fuel Institute has 

lobbied for the change. This will certainly aid some companies in their quest for financing, but since we do not represent many of very small retailers; it is difficult 

for me to assess the total impact of this rule change at this time. 

SENATOR OLYMPIA J. SNOWE FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD DIRECTED TO

SANDRA FARRELL, NORTHBORO OIL CO., ‘‘EXAMINING SOLUTIONS TO COPE WITH

THE RISE IN HOME HEATING OIL PRICES.’’ JUNE 25, 2008 

(a) Oil distributors are dependent on the price of diesel fuel directly, for the diesel 

fuel trucks that make heating oil deliveries and also indirectly, because the trucks 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
91 

that supply your tanks run on diesel. How have higher diesel prices impacted your 

bottom line? Are you making any changes to routes and fueling schedules to maximize fuel utility? If diesel costs keep rising and the economic climate continues to 

deteriorate, will start to look at reducing employees in order to reduce costs? 

(2) Senator Kerry and I have introduced legislation to give businesses hurt by 

high heating oil costs access to credit through Small Business Administration disaster loan programs. Should this initiative pass through Congress, would small 

businesses, such as yours, utilize and benefit from these loans to ease the burden 

of cash flow caused by the energy crisis we are currently facing? Why or why not? 

(3) What additional steps could we in Congress take to help small business oil and 

gas distributors remain viable and competitive during this crisis? 

RESPONSES TO SENATOR SNOWE FROM SANDRA FARRELL

(1) Certainly the rising cost of diesel fuel must be passed on to customers. As you 

may know, like heating oil, diesel fuel is a distillate fuel, and the price for both fuels 

has risen in tandem. If prices for diesel fuel continue to rise, we will have to pass 

along those additional costs. At our company, we always examine the most efficient 

routing for customer deliveries in order to maximize our fuel use. At this point, we 

have no intention of reducing employees to cut costs, but given the financial challenges within the industry at this time, I expect that dealers will lay off employees, 

or sadly, go out of business completely. 

(2) First, as Michael has reported, it is important to note that our association met 

recently with local officials from the Small Business Administration (SBA). Following the briefing on the valuable programs offered currently by the SBA, our association is undertaking a direct mail and electronic mail outreach to about 800 retail 

heating oil dealers statewide to make sure they are aware of the financing opportunities available with SBA’s help. My concern about emergency loans is the speed 

at which they can be secured. My company can deliver as much as 40,000 of heating 

oil per day. My suppliers require payment for that fuel within a 10 day period. With 

customer payments stretched out to 30, 60 and 90 days, it is clear that immediate 

cash flow to pay suppliers is a key factor. If I were in need of an emergency loan, 

I would need the funds as quickly as possible. 

(3) Congress needs to continue to examine ways to reduce the impact of speculation in the commodities market on the overall cost of crude oil and hence refined 

products such as heating oil, diesel fuel and gasoline. Congress recently acted to 

close the Enron loophole through the passage of the Farm Bill and lawmakers 

should work to provide the Commodities Futures and Trading Commission with 

more resources to provide more transparency to the energy markets and the trading 

by companies that never take physical delivery of products such as heating oil, but 

seek only to make a profit on the ‘‘paper’’ transaction. 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide the Committee with further information. 

Please let us know if we can be of further assistance. 

MICHAEL FERRANTE, 

President, Massachusetts Oilheat 

Council. 

SANDRA FARRELL, 

Northboro Oil Company. 

SENATOR OLYMPIA J. SNOWE—FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD DIRECTED TO

MICHAEL FERRANTE, MASSACHUSETTS OILHEAT COUNCIL, ‘‘EXAMINING SOLUTIONS

TO COPE WITH THE RISE IN HOME HEATING OIL PRICES,’’ JUNE 25, 2008 

(1) What are the impacts of this ‘‘all time high’’ for customer receivables on small 

business dealers if consumers cannot afford to pay? Will this further drive prices 

up? Why or why not? 

(2) At what average price point does it become economically inefficient, or unprofitable, for small business distributors to offer the ‘‘pre-pay’’ option for consumers to 

lock-in prices for an entire heating season? 

(3) With the Federal Reserve lowering interest rates, in theory, it should be 

cheaper for businesses to borrow money, but as oil prices are skyrocketing, banks 

have tightened their credit risk criteria many small businesses are forced to pay 

higher interest rates on their loans and lines of credit. Compared to last year, at 

this time, is your membership paying higher or lower interest rates for credit? 

Please describe. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
92 

RESPONSES TO SENATOR SNOWE FROM MICHAEL FERRANTE

(1) As mentioned in my testimony on June 25, 2008, I polled our Board of Directors—about 35 retail heating oil dealers of all sizes across the state. They reported 

a 30–50% rise in customer receivables from the 2006–2007 heating season to the 

2007–2008 heating season. Although I do not have data at this time, it is certainly 

possible that this factor could drive retail heating oil prices higher in the future because dealers will be managing their capital and expenses differently since payments from customers are slower, and because they may have to manage more bad 

debt. Those losses must be absorbed or balanced in order to remain viable. 

(2) There really is no average price point in this regard. However, the costs associated with crafting a proper pre-buy or lock-in program are forcing dealers to withhold these types of programs. Why? The cost of the hedge insurance per gallon. As 

Sandra Farrell testified, two years ago the cost of hedging insurance was about 18 

cents per gallon. This year the cost of hedging is at least 40 cents per gallon. As 

Sandra said, ‘‘Needless to say, I cannot afford to do this program this year, and it 

is my customers who will suffer.’’ 

(3) Given a survey I conducted of our Board of Directors, it appears at this time, 

that our leading members who currently have solid relationships with their banks 

have secured and are securing additional financing for their operations. I have no 

data on this time on the interest rates for these lines of credit but will conduct a 

more thorough assessment if the Committee needs the information. 

To: Jed Nosal, Assistant Attorney General, Chief, Energy & Telecommunications Division; Chris Barry-Smith, Assistant Attorney General, Division Chief, Consumer Protection; Diane Lawton, Assistant Attorney General, Consumer Protection & Antitrust Division. 

From: Michael Ferrante, President, Massachusetts Oilheat Council. 

Date: May 13, 2008. 

Subject: National Grid Advertising. 

I am writing once again on behalf of the Massachusetts Oilheat Council, Inc. 

(MOC or Council), the trade association representing the heating oil industry 

throughout the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Established in 1955, the Council 

has over 300 members, including retail and wholesale companies as well as the 

leading manufacturers of oil heat boilers, furnaces, burners, water heaters and storage tanks. 

The MOC is once again respectfully requesting that your office take immediate 

and decisive action on a marketing campaign recently commenced by National Grid 

(formerly KeySpan) that is utilizing false and misleading statements to entice oil 

heat consumers within National Grid’s service territories to convert to natural gas. 

The MOC strongly believes that consumers will incur significant capital costs and 

make energy choices based on the inaccurate and deceptive representations of the 

promotional campaign. 

For the record, MOC has asked for your assistance on similar matters in letters 

dated June 7, 2007, and June 15, 2006. I’ve enclosed copies of both of those letters. 

National Grid’s current campaign includes television, print and outdoor advertising. A print advertisement in this week’s Boston Globe (copy enclosed) states that 

‘‘If one person converts from oil to natural gas, it takes 3,300 pounds of carbon out 

of the air.’’ 

The advertisement also states that if consumers convert an ‘‘old oil heating system to clean natural gas’’ the conversion will ‘‘lower carbon emissions by up to 40%.’’ 

A similar theme is carried in their television advertisements. These statements 

must be scrutinized by your office. 

National Grid has also placed advertisements in Fenway Park claiming that converting one furnace from home heating oil to natural gas is equivalent to taking six 

cars off the road, with respect to reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. 

Once again, the state’s largest gas utility is being allowed to make statements 

that simply aren’t true. For example, data available from the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (USEPA) is in stark contrast to the claims made by National Grid 

in the Fenway Park advertising. According to information readily obtained from the 

USEPA website: 

• The amount of CO2 equivalent GHG emissions emitted annually from the 

average passenger vehicle: 5.5 metric tons 

• The amount of CO2 equivalent GHG emissions National Grid claims would 

be reduced in its Fenway Park advertising: 33 metric tons (6x5.5) 

• The amount of CO2 equivalent GHG emitted annually from the average 

house heated by natural gas: 5 metric tons 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
93 

• The amount of CO2 equivalent GHG emitted annually from the average 

house heated by home heating oil: 6.57 metric tons 

• The actual difference: 1.57 metric tons—a number nowhere near the 33 

metric tons National Grid claims in its Fenway Park advertising. 

Additionally, when improved oil heat equipment efficiencies and environmentally 

friendly home heating choices like bioheat and low-sulfur fuel are factored into the 

calculation, the difference in GHG emissions becomes so small as to be statistically 

irrelevant. 

Clearly, National Grid is following in the footsteps of KeySpan and has once again 

dramatically overstated the environmental benefits of switching to natural gas. But 

for the unwitting consumer, these claims can be highly effective for the utility in 

their efforts to grow market share by converting oil heated homes to gas heat. 

We ask you once again to take action against this utility and halt this advertising 

campaign, and insist that the company provide the data to back up any and all 

claims when comparing natural gas to heating oil. It is simply unfair that National 

Grid is allowed to operate unchecked when it comes to its marketing practices. 

I eagerly await a response from your office. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
94 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARINGInsert offset folio 168 here 45010A.071
95 

MASSACHUSETTS OILHEAT COUNCIL, 

Wellesley, MA, June 7, 2007. 

Re: KeySpan Energy Delivery ‘‘Be Green, Win Green’’ Promotional Program 

Hon. MARTHA COAKLEY, 

Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts; 

Office of the Attorney General; 

One Ashburton Place, 20th Floor, 

Boston, Massachusetts. 

DEAR ATTORNEY GENERAL COAKLEY: I am writing on behalf of the Massachusetts 

Oilheat Council, Inc. (MOC or Council), the trade association representing the heating oil industry throughout the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Established in 

1955, the Council has over 300 members including retail and wholesale companies 

as well as the leading manufacturers of oil heat boilers, furnaces, burners, water 

heaters and storage tanks. 

The MOC is respectfully requesting that your office take immediate and decisive 

action on a marketing campaign recently commenced by KeySpan Energy Delivery 

that is utilizing false and misleading statements to entice oil heat consumers within 

the KeySpan service territories to convert to natural gas. The MOC strongly believes that consumers will incur significant capital costs and make energy choices 

based on the inaccurate and deceptive representations of the promotional campaign. 

The KeySpan ‘‘Be Green Win Green’’ promotion is designed to convince residential 

oil heat customers to convert from oil to natural gas for a number of environmental 

reasons. (Attached as Exhibits A through D are copies of the promotional materials—web, mailer, press release, and radio transcripts respectively.) The promotional materials encourage potential customers to ‘‘Be Green’’ for three ‘‘Big Reasons’’ which include (1) improving the residential home, (2) helping the community, 

and (3) saving the planet. Associated with these exaggerated claims is a sweepstakes that offers the grand prize winner $25,000 worth of energy efficiency products from the company. (A copy of the rules, terms and conditions of the sweepstakes is attached as Exhibit E.) 

As part of its ‘‘Be Green, Win Green’’ promotion KeySpan asserts a number of 

claims concerning the use of oil heat and oil heat equipment that are either blatantly false or unsubstantiated. The patently false misrepresentations contained in 

the ads are: 

(1) ‘‘The first place your oil furnace or boiler and tank pollutes is your very own 

home.’’ 

(2) ‘‘You won’t smell that heavy petroleum or deal with the soot that is a natural 

byproduct of oil.’’ 

(3) ‘‘By using natural gas, you’ll never run out on a cold winter day or have to 

deal with frozen fuel lines.’’ 

(4) ‘‘An oil tank is like having a 275-gallon toxic waste dump in your cellar.’’ 

(5) ‘‘. . . when you switch, you’ll get rid of the 275 gallons of toxic waste buried 

in your yard, or in your basement.’’ 

Not one of these five disparaging and slanderous statements has any basis in fact. 

They are merely the monopoly utility’s illegal attempt to portray the oil distribution 

system as unreliable and every residential oil heat system as a source of pollution 

and toxic waste that is harming the consumer and the environment. 

With regard to the first and second statements, properly operating oil furnaces, 

boilers, burners and storage tanks are environmentally sound. There is no basis for 

the utility to assert that every heating and storage system is polluting the home. 

It is also untrue that the use of heating oil results in the smell of ‘‘heavy petroleum’’ 

or soot. Heavy petroleum refers either to crude oil or No. 6 oil, not refined No. 2 

heating oil, and therefore cannot be used in a residential heating system. Additionally, the only time that soot-type material might be generated from an oil heat system is when the system is badly in need of service and may be in a state of incomplete combustion. 

The third statement misleads the consumer into believing that residential consumers routinely experience frozen fuel lines and lack of heating oil on winter days. 

This is false. 

Despite the coldest of winters and strains on the transportation infrastructure, 

residential oil heat customers are consistently and faithfully served without any curtailment in supplies or deliveries. Fuel lines rarely, if ever, freeze. In addition, full 

service fuel oil dealers who operate emergency services during a 24-hour seven-day 

period immediately remedy any ‘‘no heat’’ calls during frigid periods. It is irresponsible for KeySpan to represent that oil heat customers are experiencing a lack of 

supply and delivery of product. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
96 

The final two statements are the most egregious and offensive. In describing a 

heating oil tank as a ‘‘275 gallon toxic waste dump in your cellar’’ or the ‘‘275 gallons of toxic waste buried in your yard, or your basement,’’ KeySpan has gone to 

new depths. Such a characterization creates in the mind of the public a false and 

alarming impression that no heating oil storage tank is safe, that the tanks contain 

substances other than heating oil, and that each home heating oil tank is discharging harmful, deadly, and noxious chemical compounds and waste products into 

the home and the environment. Based on these misrepresentations alone, the promotion should be ended. 

With regard to these five statements, further inquiry and research into their veracity is unnecessary. These representations are on their face false and deceptive. 

They are designed to do nothing more than frighten residential oil heat consumers 

into believing their health, safety and welfare, as well as the local and global environment, are at serious risk. 

The KeySpan promotion makes further statements that require an investigation 

into their validity: 

(1) ‘‘Natural gas adds value to your home.’’ 

(2) [Natural gas] . . . ‘‘is the preferred heating choice among homeowners across 

the (U.S.). In fact, 92% of homes in the U.S. are using something other than oil to 

heat their homes.’’ 

(3) ‘‘Switching to natural gas heating for your home is the equivalent of planting 

100 trees every year for the life of your equipment.’’ 

With regard to each of these statements, a consumer would have to do a great 

amount of research to discover whether each of these statements is either accurate 

or misleading. KeySpan should be required to substantiate these statements, especially since they will influence consumer decisions. For example, statement #1 contends that natural gas adds value to your home, but there is no indication that a 

home heated with a modem oil heat system is any less valuable than those heated 

with natural gas. 

In statement #2, the utility claims that 92% of U.S. homes are using something 

other than oil to heat their homes. 

Even assuming that the percentage is accurate, it would take a well informed consumer to discern that the most likely reason for this statistic is that the heating 

oil market has always been strongest in the northeast and mid-Atlantic regions, and 

that other parts of the country may rely on products other than natural gas and 

oil for space heating and hot water such as electricity and propane. 

The statement that switching to natural gas is the equivalent of planting 100 

trees per year for the life of the equipment is unsubstantiated and nothing more 

than an attempt by Keyspan to wrap itself around an environmental benefit 

through a vague reference. 

With respect to the emission statistics liberally quoted in the promotional materials, no explanation is provided for the few authorities referenced. The MOC is 

presently reviewing the alleged statistics and percentages used by KeySpan, but it 

should be the utility’s responsibility to provide proof for the validity of its representations. In the MOC’s opinion, since the utility was deceptive in its representation 

of even the most basic of facts (i.e. that heating oil tanks do not contain toxic waste, 

that heating oil systems do not burn heavy oil, etc.), we are not confident that its 

representations concerning emissions are accurate. 

This is especially so since there is at least one scientific study that compared the 

global warming effects of natural gas and heating oil side-by-side and found heating 

oil to be more favorable to the environment when all of natural gas’s production, 

transportation and use are taken into account. 

The oil heat industry has adopted a reasoned and careful approach to addressing 

the environmental concerns of emissions and global warming. The industry is steadily working towards the introduction and use of low sulfur heating oil and the use 

of biofuel blends in the near future that will dramatically reduce heating system 

emissions into the environment. The oil heat industry also continues to aggressively 

pursue research and development for higher efficiency equipment. The broad array 

of oil heat equipment currently available is highly efficient and clean burning. Consumption of oil heat has dropped over the years because of increased efficiencies and 

because our industry emphasizes conservation with its customers. Our industry is 

not satisfied that it has achieved its ultimate goal and therefore continues to advocate for more research and development. 

In conclusion, KeySpan’s ‘‘Be Green, Win Green’’ promotional program contains 

numerous false, misleading and deceptive representations that will undoubtedly 

frighten consumers to believe that residential oil heat is unsafe and that a conversion from oil heat to natural gas is essential. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
97 

We therefore seek your assistance as the primary protector of the consumer in the 

Commonwealth to direct KeySpan to immediately cease and desist this promotional 

program, to provide evidence of its representations contained in the promotion, and 

to issue statements of correction so that the consuming public can make their energy choices based on fact and not misrepresentations. Finally, we also suggest that 

the utilization of ratepayer funds to finance such false and misleading programs 

should be raised before the Department of Telecommunications and Energy through 

either a separate proceeding or in the next KeySpan gas rate case. 

We thank you for your assistance and eagerly await your response. 

Respectfully submitted, 

MICHAEL FERRANTE, 

President. 

MASSACHUSETTS OILHEAT COUNCIL, 

Wellesley, MA, June 15, 2006. 

JOSEPH ROGERS, 

Division Chief, Utilities, 

Office of the Attorney General, Public Protection Bureau, 

100 Cambridge Street, 11th Floor, 

Boston, MA. 

DEAR MR. ROGERS, On behalf of the membership of the Massachusetts Oilheat 

Council (MOC), the state trade association representing retail and wholesale heating oil companies, as well as manufacturers of Oilheat equipment, I am writing 

today to lodge a complaint with your office regarding the latest direct mail marketing piece from KeySpan Energy Delivery. 

For the record, the MOC was established in 1955, and we currently represent over 

350 companies as well as nearly 8000 state licensed oil burner technicians who install and maintain home heating systems across the state. 

Specifically, the MOC believes that KeySpan should not be allowed to market its 

products based on misleading representations to the public. Furthermore, the MOC 

does not believe it is appropriate that the Department of Telecommunications & Energy (DTE) allows KeySpan to utilize rate payer funds to produce and distribute 

marketing materials that contain false or questionable statements about Oilheating, 

and for that matter natural gas. 

I urge you to examine the enclosed marketing mailer that is shaped like a baseball and touts KeySpan’s relationship with the Boston Red Sox. How is it that the 

state’s largest gas utility is allowed to make the following claims? 

• ‘‘Because you don’t pay for natural gas in advance (like with oil), it allows you 

to free up capital. You pay only for what you use, after you use it.’’ 

• ‘‘With natural gas equipment, there are fewer moving parts, so it requires less 

maintenance and provides more reliability.’’ 

• ‘‘Natural gas heat also provides soot-free operation and eliminates the hassles 

of environmental liabilities and costs associated with oil tanks.’’ 

These statements can only be described as either absurd or false. But for the unwitting consumer, they can be highly effective for KeySpan in growing market share 

by converting Oilheated homes to gas heat. 

In summary, the MOC believes that action must be taken against KeySpan with 

regard to claims made in this brochure. At the very least, they should be held responsible for providing solid data to back up any and all claims when comparing 

natural gas to heating oil. 

In addition, the MOC respectfully requests that your office express these concerns 

to regulators at the DTE. It is simply unfair that KeySpan is allowed to operate 

almost unchecked when it comes to its marketing practices. 

Respectfully yours, 

MICHAEL FERRANTE, 

President. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
98 

ENVIRONMENT NORTHEAST, 

Portland, ME, July 31, 2008. 

MEMORANDUM

To: Senator John Kerry and Senator Olympia Snowe. 

From: Michael D. Stoddard, Deputy Director; Derek K. Murrow, Director of Policy 

Analysis. 

Re: Response to Questions Related to Oil Energy Efficiency. 

Thank you for your continued interest in energy efficiency opportunities for users 

of petroleum-based fuels. The following are ENE’s (Environment Northeast) responses to the questions you posed to ENE by letter of July 10, 2008 after our testimony of June 25, 2008. Please let us know if you have further questions or if we 

can be of assistance in ongoing discussions on this critically important topic. 

QUESTIONS FROM SEN. KERRY

(1) What type of energy efficiency investments do you recommend to people to increase 

efficiency, and what programs exist to assist people with heating oil improvements today? 

ENE: Good energy efficiency programs employ a suite of financial incentives, including for example assessment and design help, rebates, direct incentives to retailers, and in some cases low-interest loans, so that the programs have the flexibility 

to entice a wide variety of consumers to install/incorporate energy efficiency measures. The specific measures (types of efficiency projects or investments) that should 

be recommended will vary by state and by the situation of each individual building 

or industry. 

As a general principle, ENE recommends that the decision about types of energy 

efficiency investments to be supported by public funds be determined by cost-effectiveness (or the benefit-to-cost ratio) and by the priorities of the state, as determined 

by stakeholder advisory boards and technical consultants. We recommend that the 

efficiency programs be run at the state level and that special attention be paid to 

ensuring the oil heat programs are coordinated and integrated with efficiency programs funded by electric and natural gas ratepayers (or by the proceeds from CO2

cap and trade allowances). Ideally, a significant portion of efficiency programs 

should be available for ‘‘fuel-blind’’ programs so that customers have access to efficiency incentives based on the cost-effectiveness of the opportunities in their homes 

(or businesses), rather than on the type of energy they use. There are many successful programs currently providing financial assistance for natural gas energy efficiency measures, and ENE recommends that oil efficiency programs be modeled on 

these gas programs. 

As to specific individual measures, cold weather states that use oil for heating 

homes and small businesses will find universally that building envelope measures 

(e.g., air sealing and insulation) deliver very high benefit to cost ratios, as do upgrades and replacements for heating systems (e.g., furnaces, boilers, water heaters, 

heat pumps). For smaller retrofit projects (e.g., less than a few thousand dollars), 

rebates or ‘‘buy downs’’ have been shown to be the preferred type of financial incentive because of the absence of paperwork and ongoing obligations. For larger 

projects (e.g., gut rehab) and for incentives in new construction, low- or no-interest 

loans may be helpful as supplements to rebates and buy downs. 

Existing programs to assist people with heating oil improvements are extremely 

limited, under funded, and essentially are available only to low income consumers. 

The federal Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP) was recently funded at $205 

million for one year, about enough to service 80,000 low income units across the 

U.S. For context, consider that there are 5.8 million income eligible homes in the 

country (according to LIHEAP reports). A recent study in Vermont concluded that 

the WAP provided enough funding to reach 3% of eligible homes each year in that 

state. LIHEAP can supplement this amount since it allows use of up to 15% of each 

state’s allocation for weatherization for low income homes. Many states do not exercise this option, but even those that do find the amounts woefully inadequate. In 

Maine, for example, about $6 million of LIHEAP funds was available for weatherization in 2007. Yet there were roughly 50,000 eligible LIHEAP customers in Maine. 

The average cost of weatherizing low income homes in Maine is about $5,000 (nearly double the national average given the WAP funding cap and the greater need to 

insulate against the cold and the older age of homes), which means that only 1,200 

homes (about 2.4% of eligible homes) could be reached. Even if the national average 

cost for such weatherization were assumed (i.e., $2,500/unit), still only 5% of homes 

would have been reached. We are aware that NORA and state oil dealer associaVerDate Nov 24 2008 02:00 Apr 10, 2009 Jkt 045010 PO 00000 Frm 00102 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\A010.XXX A010

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
99 

1 Ecotope, Inc., Natural Gas Efficiency and Conservation Measure Resource Assessment, for the 

Energy Trust of Oregon, August, 2003. 

tions sometimes make education and training programs available, but the only financial incentives referenced on their website are federal tax breaks that expired 

last year. 

At the state level, Alaska has recently established a strong but already oversubscribed statewide program to assist heating oil customers in capturing energy efficiency opportunities through rebates and loans, while Connecticut, Massachusetts 

and Vermont have small statewide programs for this purpose. Starting in 2008, 

Connecticut provides several million dollars per year garnered from bonds, to be administered by a stakeholder driven council, for oil efficiency programs that have not 

yet been designed. In addition, the state Office of Policy and Management is overseeing a heating system replacement program that will offer up to $500 rebates to 

those installing the most efficient oil and gas systems. Massachusetts has a ‘‘Fuel 

Blind’’ rule governing its efficiency programs that apply to low income customers 

(only), funded by electric and natural gas ratepayers, which enables investments in 

weatherization for low-income homes using oil heat. Vermont assesses a 0.5% gross 

receipts tax on energy that helps to fund weatherization for oil heat customers. ENE 

is also aware of ad hoc community-based initiatives, typically funded by charitable 

donations that make small amounts of money available for weatherization. These 

are the only existing assistance programs to provide energy efficiency to oil heat 

customers that ENE is aware of—much more must be done. 

(2) How much do energy efficiency investments cost, and how long will it take people 

to recoup this money through energy savings? Would providing low interest loans 

be enough in some cases to incentivize people to invest in energy efficiency? 

ENE: Energy efficiency investments may cost anywhere from a few hundred dollars to tens of thousands of dollars per home and depend on the age, style and upkeep of the building. By way of illustration, a preliminary home energy audit to 

identify specific improvements needed in a home may cost $200–300; insulation of 

the attic and basement could cost $1,000–4,000; a replacement of an old heating system with a new high-efficiency system may cost several thousand dollars. 

Consider, for example, the following results of a study performed for the Oregon 

Energy Trust., indicating the top ten most cost-effective natural gas efficiency measures for single family households (hhld).1

Measure Sector Incentive Cost ($/Hhld) 

Measure Savings 

(gal/hhld/yr) 

Measure CSE ($/gal) Measure Life (yrs) Payback (:1) 

$4.00/gal 

Weatherization: Walls ..... Retrofit 984 250 0.17 45 24 

Weatherization: Floors .... Retrofit 1400 126 0.46 45 9 

Weatherization: Attics ..... Retrofit 786 293 0.11 45 36 

HVAC: Duct Seal Only ..... Retrofit 500 122 0.28 20 14 

HVAC: Furnace Retrofit ... Retrofit 900 79 0.65 25 6 

Windows: to Class 34 .... New 215 22 0.49 30 8 

HVAC: Duct Insulation .... Retrofit 200 25 0.53 20 8 

DHW: Eff Water Heater ... Retrofit 60 14 0.42 12 10 

DHW: Combo Boiler (air) New 1200 149 0.54 20 7 

DHW: Combo Boiler (H20) New 700 149 0.32 20 13 

Recent experience and studies suggest that efficiency investments for oil heat 

have an average benefit to cost ratio of about $2.7 saved for every $1 spent (by the 

consumer and efficiency program, combined). This figure is based on a fuel oil cost 

of $1.50 per gallon. At $4.00 per gallon, the benefit would be about $7 for every dollar invested. Given consumers’ high level of motivation to participate in these programs, public dollars are very well leveraged. A recent Vermont study estimated 

that the benefit to cost ratio of just the public dollars spent on oil heat efficiency 

programs would be $4.8 saved over the full life of the measure for every $1 of public 

funds invested. The best programs maximize the consumer contribution to each 

project, based on their ability and willingness to pay, which means the payback to 

individual consumers will differ depending on the level of their own contribution. 

To reiterate a fundamental lesson of more than three decades of energy efficiency 

programs administered by the states and utilities (for electricity and natural gas), 

the key element in successful efficiency incentives is helping customers get over the 

‘‘first cost’’ of efficiency measures. The use of rebates and buy downs, scaled (using 

market research) to meet customers’ ability and willingness to pay, has been the 

most successful financial tool and has delivered both economic and environmental 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
100 

benefits very cost-effectively (far less costly than buying additional supplies of new 

energy). 

By contrast, loan programs have been a major disappointment due to lack of consumer interest. Loans have a place in the menu of measures, but cannot be relied 

upon for high participation rates or for speedy results. The experience of energy efficiency programs with low interest loans has been particularly challenging in the 

residential sector. For decades, efficiency home mortgages have been available to 

give consumers an interest rate break for efficiency upgrades. Almost nobody uses 

them. In 2006, when home heating oil prices had already begun to climb, Massachusetts offered low interest loans for efficiency upgrades, and less than 300 customers 

took advantage of the program. This is simply too low a penetration rate to get the 

job done. 

To be sure, such loans are not appropriate for low income consumers. However, 

they are appropriate for middle and high income consumers and small businesses, 

and may become more popular given the unprecedented rise in oil prices. ENE believes that loans, while not successful in the past, should be considered among the 

suite of tools available in this new era of high oil prices. 

(3) What is the best way to reach out to homeowners to best educate them on the cost 

of savings of energy efficiency programs? 

ENE: As noted above, ENE recommends that comprehensive, fuel blind energy efficiency initiatives be established in each state. All such programs typically have 

marketing and education budgets, as well as training budgets for vendors and service providers. Such statewide programs may choose to target high energy users if 

they have access to data showing where to find such users, or may pursue ‘‘direct 

install’’ programs where vendors go door to door in targeted communities (or targeted consumer segments) and describe the list of measures and incentives they 

have available. 

Other possible methods for reaching out to consumers include use of bill inserts, 

and informative disclosures that could be required at the time of sale of real estate 

or in mortgage/financing documents. Contractors who do new construction or major 

renovations can also be a good source of information, as are vendors at hardware 

and appliance stores. The bottom line is that education and marketing should be 

a part of the state’s comprehensive efficiency program plan. 

(4) Have you worked with NORA about developing more efficient technologies? What 

do you see NORA’s role (sic) in helping deal with the rising prices of home heating oil? 

ENE: ENE has not worked directly with NORA in the development of energy efficient technologies. We have however worked with the oil distributor trade associations in several New England states (Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine and Rhode 

Island), collaborated on discussions about establishing new efficiency programs for 

oil heat customers, and worked in a limited way with some of the industry and 

NORA consultants. Historically, these associations have opposed establishing efficiency funds for oil heat consumers, but in recent years there has been a higher 

level of support from the Independent Connecticut Petroleum Association and the 

Massachusetts Oil Heat Council. We understand that NORA has performed research and generated literature that promotes energy efficiency, primarily related 

to heating equipment. 

That said, ENE has a general concern that any organization funded and controlled by the oil industry will have an inherent conflict of interest in promoting aggressive energy efficiency programs that, if successful, will result in lower revenue 

for oil dealers. The literature provided by NORA is almost exclusively about the opportunities connected with heating system upgrades and significantly fails to (a) 

offer any financial incentives or (b) note the opportunities for improving the building 

envelope. 

ENE’s view is that oil dealers and their trade associations should have a voice 

in the development and deployment of publicly funded efficiency programs, and 

should also be eligible to bid on competitive solicitations to deliver efficiency measures to consumers, but should not have a controlling or managing/administrative 

oversight role. 

(5) In his written testimony, Michael Ferrante spoke of the System Betterment Charge 

used by regulated utilities. NORA serves a similar function, but do you think 

this type of program should be expanded to better fund energy efficiency programs? 

ENE: To be clear, NORA does not serve a similar function to what energy efficiency advocates mean when they talk about System Benefit Charges (SBCs) that 

have been so successfully run by regulated utilities. NORA is in the business of ofVerDate Nov 24 2008 02:00 Apr 10, 2009 Jkt 045010 PO 00000 Frm 00104 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\A010.XXX A010

jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
101 

fering tips, information, and training and generally promoting the use of oil as a 

heating fuel. ENE is not aware of any financial incentives offered by any NORA program nor any planning, administration, implementation or oversight of any SBC 

funded energy efficiency programs. More information will be helpful to consumers, 

but it is not what they need most. They need financial assistance to overcome first 

cost barriers to energy efficiency. 

We understand that NORA’s funding stream (pursuant to Public Law 106–469) 

is under consideration for reauthorization. The current fee that funds NORA is 

$.002 per gallon assessed on all dyed #2 distillate and all #1 distillate. 

ENE recommends that an additional assessment or charge be added to the NORA 

charge, but kept separate, and that the proceeds be directed to a trust to be used 

for state-based efficiency programs or the federal Weatherization Assistance Program (see further details on funding levels in our response to Sen. Snowe’s Question 

#3, below). These funds should not be administered by oil dealer associations, given 

their inherent conflict of interest, but such dealers and associations should be eligible to bid on competitive solicitations administered by statewide, state-based programs that use stakeholder advisory boards, expert consultants, and some form of 

state agency oversight. Just as electric and natural gas utilities are typically included in the stakeholder advisory boards on an ex officio (non-voting) status, so too 

should oil dealer associations be included as ex officio voices for oil efficiency programs. 

SEN. SNOWE

(1) Most provisions encouraging energy efficiency within homes and commercial 

buildings expire at the end of the year. Can you describe how the nearing expiration may have a chilling effect on the effectiveness of the incentives to spur greater energy efficiency? Does it make sense to offer a longer term extension of these 

provisions such as the 5-year extension for the deduction for energy efficient commercial buildings that was recently passed in the House but so far has stalled 

in the Senate? Why or why not? 

ENE: As noted in our written testimony, ENE supports extending tax incentives 

for energy efficient buildings and heating systems. These incentives effectively use 

the marketplace and leverage private funds to deploy more efficient products and 

practices. 

Nonetheless, these tax incentives do not supplant the urgent need for comprehensive statewide efficiency investments, especially for low income and working poor 

consumers, and we think the two types of tools should be used in concert. 

Many consumers are considering upgrading their old heating systems. As with 

most energy efficiency improvements, the high first cost of purchasing more efficient 

equipment presents a barrier. Especially when consumers are feeling that money is 

tight, as in these tough economic times, they are less likely to spend money up front 

to save money later. They need to save money now. The result is that they will either not do the replacement now, or they will do it now but stop short of purchasing 

the higher efficiency systems. In this situation, federal tax incentives can complement the incentives of an SBCtype efficiency program, and the SBC incentive 

levels can be set with the tax program in mind. 

We note also that the $500 lifetime cap for certain measures is quite low and encourage expanding the size of the cap. 

(2) In your testimony, you estimate a state and federal funding level of approx $300 

million for market-based efficiency programs for heating oil consumers in New 

England that would be sufficient to capture all cost effective energy efficiency resources. Can you list the benefits New Englanders would see should this funding 

for market-based efficiency programs be allocated? 

ENE: First, we wish to clarify that ENE recommends investing in efficiency measures for oil heat customers in New England at a rate of approximate $300 million 

each year, for an extended period of time, at least 10 years in duration. Our estimate of the lifetime energy savings from this level of investment is roughly five 

times (i.e., saving $1.5 billion for every year of investment). 

Benefits for individual customers will vary depending on the type and extent of 

weatherization and efficiency upgrades suitable for their specific building. A recent 

study in Vermont projected that an aggressive efficiency campaign for residential oil 

heat customers could reduce annual fuel consumption by an average of 25% for each 

building served, which at today’s prices and average consumption rates translates 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
102 

2 Regulatory Assistance Project, Affordable Heat: A Whole-Buildings Efficiency Service for 

Vermont Families and Businesses, January, 2008. 

into an annual savings of more than $800 per household.2 The spending rate recommended by the study for this small state was $200 million per year in public 

funds, leveraging another $200 million in private (or customer) funds, with the exception that low income homes would be expected to receive full subsidization. 

A 25% reduction in energy consumed will translate to the same rate of reduced 

CO2 emissions and acid rain-causing sulfur dioxide emissions for every home that 

is treated. These reductions are critical in the long term if the Northeast is to play 

its part in achieving greenhouse gas reduction targets. To illustrate the point, consider that fully one-quarter of current greenhouse gas emissions in Maine come from 

the combustion of heating oil. 

Other benefits of a market-based efficiency program include reduced vulnerability 

to price spikes for state and municipal governments, homeowners, and small businesses, and retention of energy dollars in the local economy. Numerous studies show 

that energy efficiency programs generate good new jobs in the local economy while 

diminishing the amount of money that is shipped overseas for imported oil. Similar 

levels of electric efficiency investment at the state level have led to thousands of 

new energy service jobs in states like Massachusetts and Connecticut. Efficiency 

programs for oil customers will also help electric utilities and their ratepayers who 

are experiencing record levels of unpaid bills even as these struggling oil heat customers turn on electric space heaters and ovens to stay warm in the winter. 

Finally, by dramatically reducing our buildings’ needs for heating and cooling, we 

can begin to transition to higher levels of reliance on alternative energy supplies 

such as solar thermal and sustainable biomass. 

(3) Do you believe that energy efficiency programs are more effectively run on the 

State level or the federal level? How much federal funding should be dedicated 

for implementing energy efficiency programs? How can the federal government 

work to ensure that federal resources are being effectively utilized for energy efficiency programs? 

ENE: ENE recommends that efficiency programs be administered at the state 

level because that is where stakeholders, government officials and local vendors 

have the best sense of the opportunities and resources for deploying energy efficiency equipment and services. Stakeholders and officials at the state level are in 

the best position to design programs that will fit the unique attributes of the market, vendors, community groups, and state agencies. The existing infrastructure for 

delivering energy efficiency programs is all found at the state level, both in the form 

of utility and State or third-party run programs (for electric and natural gas customers) and the implementation of the federal WAP programs. It makes sense to 

piggyback on this infrastructure. 

In the context of market-based efficiency programs, ENE’s position is that federal 

funds should be used to leverage not only private (consumer) contributions, but also 

State funding. One scenario that ENE has modeled is the establishment of efficiency 

programs funded in a 2 for 1 match ($2 in federal contribution for every $1 from 

State sources). Under this scenario, the federal government would contribute $200 

million if the New England states committed $100 million. ENE assumes that the 

states’ most probable means for generating these funds is through a gross receipts 

tax or a system benefit charge (SBC). This level of funding could also be ramped 

up over a 2–3 year period. 

A different way to view the appropriate level of federal funding would be to assume that the federal government takes the primary responsibility for addressing 

the weatherization needs of low income consumers. The magnitude of the problem 

is so large and serious that the federal government must help. Because of the federal government’s ongoing and rising commitment to address the needs of LIHEAP 

customers, ENE recommends that it establish a program to provide full weatherization and heating system upgrades to all LIHEAP homes in the country. Investing 

funds in weatherizing these homes now will reduce the government’s burden of 

heating oil assistance in the future. 

There are approximately 350,000 LIHEAP households in the New England. Assuming the average cost for these homes is $5,000, the cost to serve all of them 

would total $1.75 billion. In our written testimony, ENE suggested that a target be 

set to service every LIHEAP household within five years, but we are mindful that 

there is a real limit to how fast these programs can be ramped up given the nascent 

status of the weatherization service sector. It may be more reasonable to assume 

that the target for treating all low income homes should be 10 years or possibly 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING
103 

even longer. Some WAP program administrators have indicated that they could increase programs at a rate of 50% per year. 

To ensure that federal resources are effectively utilized, three important features 

should be required. First, before being approved for implementation, all programs 

using federal funds should be required to demonstrate how they will be ‘‘cost effective,’’ i.e., they will save more money than they cost, using a predetermined test (as 

is done in electric and natural gas efficiency programs). Second, all programs should 

be evaluated on a regular schedule, using independent, professional evaluators, and 

the actual benefit-to-cost ratio reported so that programs can be compared with each 

other and with performance in other states, and lessons learned. The federal government may wish to reward states in subsequent budget allocations for exceeding objective performance standards. Third, program planning, design and oversight 

should incorporate regular involvement from committed independent stakeholders, 

staffed by consultants expert in energy efficiency who are paid for out of the program funds. 

Æ 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with HEARING